The Curious Case of Craig Murray


Craig Murray – in good company with Tariq Ali

Why me?

The dilemma Craig John Murray found himself in is not an issue I planned to write about – his failure to pass an SNP vetting committee to reach a selection list for election to parliamentary office – and in fact I will steer clear of it mainly because he is a man quite able to defend himself.

I’m troubled by the way his reputation is traduced by a few on social websites devoted to Scottish political topics. I must begin making clear I do not know the man, have never met him, and so do not feel qualified to judge whether he’d make a good or bad parliamentarian for the SNP at Holyrood or Westminster. All I can say is, he has the right to try and to fail without condemnation from the screeching Greek chorus.

Anybody who wants to make their own assessment should read his blog, and the assorted comments appended to it. But I know slander when I see and hear it. And scurrilous accusation to plain libel there is on the Wings site. The vituperation is, however, balanced by a number of supportive comments of his political abilities and experience.

Who is Craig Murray?

For those unfamiliar with his accomplishments – which includes myself, it’s only right to offer readers a little of his curriculum vitae. A former Foreign and Commonwealth Office official, Murray was ambassador for Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, later Rector of Dundee University, 2008 to 2010. His book, ‘Murder in Samarkand,’ was adapted into a radio play by David Hare. A film version appears to be shelved. The job of writing the screenplay  was first offered to my late friend, the novelist and ardent nationalist, Frederic Lindsay.

Lately Murray was invited to stand as a parliamentarian by some admiring voters. Knowing the SNP is a broad church made up of former Tories, communists, and socialists, voters clearly held nothing against his past life as an independent candidate who stood against Labour’s Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in the UK General Election of 2005.

Here is the curious thing – Murray did not get past the SNP’s vetting stage.

Too honest to be a British ambassador

He styles himself ‘author, broadcaster, and human rights activist.’ The latter description holds water because he lost his job as ambassador when his protest of torture on his watch became public.  Wikipedia states it thus: ‘While at the embassy in Tashkent he accused the Karimov administration of human rights abuses….. Murray complained to his [senior colleagues] …. that evidence linking the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan to al-Qaeda was unreliable, immoral and illegal, and….. was obtained through torture.’

Murray went on say, “There is no point in having cocktail-party relationships with a fascist regime.” He was also bold enough to write to President George W. Bush to complain. Murray rightly condemned  torture and rape in his jurisdiction, officially considered acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of establishing a democracy. His silence was preferred. In time he suffered a pulmonary embolism and was flown back to London. Charges against him were all dropped but he was reprimanded for speaking out.

Murray has a conscience and he acted on it, a remarkable thing for an Englishman working in the Foreign Office. As a whistleblower he paid the ultimate penalty, banishment to the circumlocutory labyrinths of internet Chinese whispers. One would suppose his insider knowledge a great asset to any political party intent on securing power.

Condemned by cliché

Once you get by the off-hand, mawkish remarks – ‘He applied for a job and didn’t get it. Welcome to reality.’; the clichés, ‘Why throw your toys out the pram?’; and the indignant, ‘Does the SNP want only obedient Yes men?’ – you come upon remarks of quite repulsive ferocity. Here are a few selected with my analysis attached:

  1. He is not a team player. By what yardstick can a man be judged not a team player when it comes to torture and rape? The term is standard right-wing procedure to eliminate a man’s opportunities of enhancement by claiming he is incapable of loyalty.
  2. He assumed vetting was a mere formality. This puts thoughts into a man’s head. In effect, it creates a falsehood. How does the critic know what the individual was thinking at that time, or at any time? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Murray thought the vetting process anything but a close inspection of his political record, his attitude to key SNP policy, and his allegiance to the cause of self-governance.
  3. He has the gift of the gab. This is  double-edged – it means either the speaker has enough erudition to talk on most subjects, he or she is well read, or alternatively is pathetically shallow. He waffles.
  4. He’s got a big mouth, self-opinionated, a sulker. [sic] Meaning, he has empirical evidence for his views, is prepared to voice protest, and shows annoyance if rebuffed. The accusation is one usually made by somebody opinionated.
  5. He didn’t make the grade. An attempt to demean. Here, the antagonist is admitting he doesn’t know the criteria for selection – it could be the ability to down five pints at one sitting,but by heck, he’s happy to parade ignorance of it.
  6. Discipline is important in any party. Said comrade Stalin. And as it turned out, Stalin had a particularly extreme form of discipline in mind. The unthinking reader is expected to assimilate what that empty slogan means, precisely.  To the obvious: Murray’s self-appointed jury show no discipline at all.
  7. He handed a bucketful of ammunition to our opponents. Unlike the reckless firebrands who run amock composing accusation and false witness, and afterwards express triumphant glee at another’s misfortune.
  8. He has contempt for the party and will surely resign. This issues from experienced hangmen. Expressing bewilderment over a vetting procedure is not contempt.
  9. I have a concern about people here as a student who then live abroad. As close to a racist statement as one can get without crossing the line, but certainly insulting to the many non-Scots in the SNP, or who are supporters of independence.
  10. His career was undistinguished. Erm, decidedly not. International attention for Uzbekistan’s record of torture, a committed campaigner for human rights, and a biographical book on the events made into a radio play by a distinguished playwright raise his achievements above the faceless bureaucrats with whom he mixed. It most certainly places his SNP persecutors in a reprehensible light.
  11. His intent was to use the SNP to get into parliament. Plain unadulterated slander.
  12. I think him a fool- oh look, he can’t take criticism. A variation on the cliché  ‘touching a nerve’ whereby insulting a victim publicly causes him to say things he’d rather not have said, and so his antagonist can claim condemnation is fully justified. Had the individual taken it on the chin he would, of course, be accused of hiding something, or of running away.
  13. And one for the road …
  14. He would have been a disaster; I think the selection committee may have realised that from the get-go. Integrity of the vetting committee maligned; the insinuation the committee members had made up their minds before the candidate sat down for interview, thus rendering the process of vetting a mockery, the candidate hoodwinked into a kangaroo court to be humiliated and sent home.

By those examples alone Murray was defamed before he entered the interview room and afterwards. Incidentally, the examples I give are all used by internet trolls.

Sex Rears Its Ugly Head

The worst of the defamation slides repulsively onto Murray’s sex life. By his own admission, he patronised pole-dancing clubs in Uzbekistan; the stuff of every spy novel. Is there a lonely, disillusioned government official who has not found himself in such a place, drink in one hand, and goodness knows what in the other? Indeed, Murray, discovering passion late in life, divorced his British wife to marry an Uzbek citizen bringing her back to Britain to live, not bad for a man that’s ‘nae oil paintin’.

This knowledge is grasped with glee by the prurient to show their disgust for all the awful things they enjoy guessing he might have got up to in his private life and bedroom.


Murray and his wife in happier times

Loose Cannons – And other Naval Sayings

There is plenty of comment alluding to Murray’s alleged disposition as a ‘maverick,’ less complimentary described as a loose cannon. The most successful ‘loose cannon’ in the SNP is Alex Salmond, a man of high achievement suspended for his membership of the 79 Group, a socialist-orientated inner cabal disliked by the SNP party, but who was reinstated a month later, and became Vice-Convener for Publicity, surely a hefty dose of irony for someone once regarded as uncontrollable.

For being a ‘loose cannon,’ and having keel-hauled him, Murray’s most persistent antagonists think he should walk the plank, that is, resign from the party. This is akin to full-blown censorship.

Of his failure to pass the first hurdle Murray is accused of naivety for writing of his profound disappointment in his blog, as if somehow, Scotland’s dragon of opposition is waiting for one pro-independence supporter, one man to break ranks so it can pounce on the unwary and demolish an entire party of government.

Still, who puts their failures in their curriculum vitae?

One of the wisest comments on Wings puts the case for discretion and good sense succinctly: the ‘reasons for a person being refused a place on a selection list for election should not be the subject of idle speculation.’

The moral of the case

My moral is simple: never put anything in writing about an individual that you would not say to their face. It isn’t what one writes in a reference about a candidate that matters, it’s what you leave out that speaks volumes.

Murray has been accused of being a political opportunist – it’s a strange kind of opportunism that gets a man sacked for speaking out against injustice, and dismissed again for speaking honestly.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to The Curious Case of Craig Murray

  1. ebreah says:

    Rightly or wrongly, Craig Murray has not passed the vetting reason. He still has the choice to stand as an independent. I like to put a caveat though; if he was dismissed as alleged (plus the leaked information to the press) that was uncalled for. I personally think he is much suited for Holyrood.

  2. Justin Fayre says:

    Hi GB

    Yet again an excellent piece (or as Jimmy Two Crates might say, an eggselent piece) Like you I felt a great deal of sympathy and indeed empathy with Craig as like him I have often seen myself as ‘crying in the wilderness’. I then read this piece:- and things suddenly didn’t seem so ‘black and white’.
    As a constituent in the Falkirk catchment area, I am directly involved and I now feel as if it’s a case of heads you lose, tails you also lose for the SNP hierarchy. It deeply saddens me that I have lost a potentially able candidate. I hope and trust that missym is correct in her summation and that it is not a case of clearing the decks to make way for the preffered Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh but I suppose we’ll never know. Like you though I am disgusted by the comments banded about. The last thing I did before closing my facebook account down was to accuse them of behaving like Better Together by the use of smear and innuendo. Keep up the good work please.

  3. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Anent the screening failure of Craig Murray by the SNP.

    I am not going to concentrate of the nuancing of the analysis of the questioning and how that was interpreted in general or application.

    My discomfort is that it appears is that the result and that question appeared to have been leaked to a member of the Press and logically only to smear Craig Murray.

    I broke a habit of a lifetime and joined the SNP, although I live abroad and cannot vote in Scotland, as the only simple public statement I could make after pochled Referendum result.

    I joined the SNP thinking they were different, not spin led or smear ready.

    If this is the case and the leak happened, more than likely from somebody higher up the SNP foodchain, they should be sought out, sacked and that result leaked.

    My cloak of membership of the SNP rests on a shooglie nail.

  4. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Oh, and a Guid New Year to yin and aw.

  5. Derick fae Yell says:

    Sorry, I completely disagree with pretty much every point in this article.

    Like Mr Murray I went through the vetting process, and like him I also failed it. As it happens I was not approved due to one point which I disagree with, and on one point where sadly I think the panel was correct to fail me (alas!). Over the years hundreds of people have had the same experience, including some current elected SNP politicians who failed vetting first time round. To my recollection only one has had a public strop about it. It hurts, but the mature reaction is to learn from one’s mistakes and either seek to improve at a future occasion, or contribute in other ways. Not for riches or for glory….

    If Craig is reading this then I think the personal and public attack on members of the appeals panel was particularly ill advised. Nobody, however high profile, is bigger than the movement and the overall prize – that being a fair, equal, democratic Scotland, extracted from the current near colonial situation where our resources are being stolen while we have no significant influence on where that money ends up.

    Before this nonsense I was a supporter, and I still think that Craig has a lot to offer the cause, if he would just take a step back, reflect on recent events and consider how he might best contribute

    Craig’s behaviour since not being approved pretty much confirms that the vetting panel, and then the appeals panel, were correct not to approve him. Morag, God love her (and like Mr M) has a somewhat abrasive style. Nevertheless she called this one correctly.

    • Bugger (the Panda) says:

      Morag, God love her (and like Mr M) has a somewhat abrasive style. Nevertheless she called this one correctly.

      She did not because some smartarse up the chain smeared him to the Scotsman.

      That is not my want.

      Who would it have been and why?
      Let me think?

    • Grouse Beater says:

      Yes, there’s a school of action that says don’t rock the boat while we are trying to regain Scotland’s liberty and rights, (I see the sense in it) and there’s a school of philosophy that says, internal processes, change, ought be ongoing and discussed openly.

      But that is not what I wrote about.

      I concentrate on the disgraceful, outrageous tone some chose in order to malign a man to such an extent his chances of approval are greatly reduced if not eliminated.

      Left alone, character unmolested, and then fail the assessment within a confidential environment, a man’s dignity remains intact. He is given an honorable exit.

      We all agree the SNP needs intellectually vigorous and dynamic personalities, which begs the question, who is to say an assessment committee is stocked with wise and thoughtful people?

      Often as not, it has its share of deadheads.

  6. I respect Craig Murray, whose blog I regularly read, for his courageous whistle-blowing and for his spirited campaigning for independence. However, the SNP is not short of potential candidates, and I believe that he would not have been a suitable candidate for two reasons.

    Firstly, any SNP candidate, especially a relatively high profile one, will be scrutinised very carefully by the unionist parties and the MSM, and anything in their past which can be used against them will be used unscrupulously to discredit both the candidate and the SNP. Craig’s personal life should not be relevant; unfortunately, in the real and dirty world of politics, it is. Also, some of what he has written in his blog has been somewhat intemperate, and while this was not very important as long as he was simply a supporter of independence, it would have provided the unionists with a way of attacking the SNP had he been selected as a candidate.

    The second reason is that he does not come across as a ‘team player’. Other parties can afford the luxury of having one or two mavericks within their ranks, but the SNP, as a party which can never aspire to winning more than a few percent of the seats at Westminster, cannot. It is right and proper that there should be a lively debate within the party as to what its policies and strategies should be, but once these have been decided it is essential that all its MPs should support them if the SNP is to have any chance of forcing Westminster to make any concessions on the question of Scottish autonomy. Craig’s answer to the hypothetical question he was asked about the bedroom tax shows that he might well put his personal views above any consensus within the party.

    Regardless of how Craig’s rejection initially became public, his subsequent reaction has simply fuelled the controversy. If he was really prepared to put the interests of the SNP, and the cause of Scottish independence, above his own feelings, he should have maintained a dignified silence on the matter. Instead, he has demonstrated all too clearly why he would not have been suitable as a candidate.

    • Bugger (the Panda) says:

      If he was really prepared to put the interests of the SNP, and the cause of Scottish independence, above his own feelings, he should have maintained a dignified silence on the matter.”

      He couldn’t and shouldn’t, and I would have done the same.

      He was spun and smeared.

      I do NOT like that.

      Boots and suits belong in Westminster.

      end of!

    • Derick fae Yell says:

      Les – exactly as your last paragraph. All the proceeding brouhaha is basically irrelevant. Craig and Morag can get a room for all I care. That’s history (and I agree with GB that some of that discussion has been tedious in the extreme)

      I can see that there is arguement for having an completely open selection process whereby any person could put themselves forward to constituency members. However, I do think that having an agreed, democratically overseen, professional pre-vetting system does make it easier for members when we come to decide who to vote for. Any organisation as large as the SNP is has to do that by a systematic approach, otherwise there would be chaos. The vetting panel is overseen by the democratic structures of the party, which is as it should be. If you don’t like it: join and work to change it.

      My constituency now has nine hopefuls to choose from at the SNP candidate selection stage. Some of them are very good so it’s a difficult choice. The fact that they have been vetted before this state means that we, as ordinary members, don’t have to spend days researching each one online to check if they have called No voters ‘thick’ or ‘evil’ or are a general liability for some other reason. All things being equal I would prefer a candidate who has some connection to the constituency, rather than attempting to parachute in. The idea that there are party ‘favourites’ is mince. The SNP is full of difficult, awkward, questioning citizens who wouldn’t put up with any attempt to that for a nanosecond! One member, one vote.

  7. bjsalba says:

    While I think that Craig is a pretty decent individual with strong principles, but I never did think he was MP material for the SNP group in Westminster. I think his principles are, in a way, too strong. Compromise is unfortunately the reality is that our MPs will have to deal with in order to accomplish anything. Other people might call it negotiation for consensus.

  8. etominusipi says:

    outstanding piece of analysis.
    the kind of robust, unsentimental, well-informed journalism we need more of and shall have to be seeing more of, unless the whole country is headed irrevocably down the pan. even i can see the crypto-sybaritic, overtly truthphobic Crusaders of the Failed McParadigm out in force on this, flying around the blogosphere like witches’ broomsticks o b Halloween. let them announce from the rooftops their threadbare democratic-centralism and their shameless and ultimately self-defeating moral relativism. we are in for an interesting couple of decades

    • Bugger (the Panda) says:


      • Bugger (the Panda) says:

        Come to think of it, after I re-read your post I now realise the error of my ways.

        You have all the right words a few good phrases.

        They just seem not to be in logical, orderly and meaningful sentences.

        Good night.

    • Grouse Beater says:

      …the kind of robust journalism we …

      Thank you, Etominusipi, and welcome. I regard those that malign to censor as moral imperialists, scarifying Scotland of anybody they think won’t accept conventional wisdom.

    • Grouse Beater says:

      My answer should be tagged onto the first poster, Panda, but got shunted out of place. 🙂

  9. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    I have lost my mathematical hypothesis.

    I am gutted.

  10. And the grouse to the ghillie.

    All to surreal for me and I need to conserve that for Hogmanay.


  11. doesn't ring true says:

    Can’t put my finger on it, but, there is something about WOS site that doesn’t ring true….

    • Grouse Beater says:

      The founder makes plain he is not a member of the SNP and has never voted for them. His interest is wholly in seeing Scotland achieve the self-governance it has been denied. I’m unsure if that’s what you’re hinting at, but one way of checking integrity is to meet the owner, or at least, engage with that person to chat about policy and objectives, making an informed judgement on the information you receive.

      • not right with it all says:

        Why does the owner of WOS allow the site to be used for “character assassination”, it goes far beyond free speech. Something not right with it all.

    • Grouse Beater says:

      Fair point. I suspect he’d categorise it as ‘light moderation,’ but in this instance it’s disquieting. And it has distressed contributers. I wondered if there was a connection between the chief antagonist and the site owner, one that allowed greater leeway than normal to be outspoken. They’ve met. On the web there’s a photograph of them together during his visit to the campaign, but that suggests nothing more than it was an area disseminating his Wee Blue Book. Personally, I’ve always found him to be rigorously careful of legality.

  12. Jomry says:

    Excellent balanced analysis. The issue has raised important concerns about the nature of representation and candidate selection procedures- the competing priorities of party managers and constituency members – and with 25000 established long term members and 75000 new ones – there are bound to be tensions. Indeed, debate is not only healthy – it is essential.

    You are quite right to state that views on reasons for non selection of candidates should not be the subject of idle speculation. And repetitive, sustained and long term vilification and denigration of the kind we have seen on blogs from certain posters, whatever thir personal agenda, is unedifying and counter productive. I rejoice in their absence this evening.

    • Grouse Beater says:

      I’m pleased we are in agreement about discretion and confidentiality. Change is a-coming to the way the SNP handles its normal business.

      The trouble, it seems to me, and it’s big trouble, lies in the proactive emergence of an alternative ‘SNP Vetting Committee,’ led by a self-appointed chairperson, who feels chosen by a higher authority to tell the world ‘what they must know’ about Mr Murray. Quite frankly, the crapology cannot be distinguished from the character assassination thrown at key figures during the Referendum.

      • Derick fae Yell says:

        Change is coming: undoubtedly. 70,000 new members can only have a huge effect, although that will take time. As a long-standing member I am sadly aware that more than a few branches have needed a good kick up the backside for a while. But I think that the party’s structures, and selection procedures, have actually worked reasonably well. Some reservations about the number of councillors who have come through as candidates, and some reservations about how people were placed on the Holyrood list – but all things that can be worked on via the democratic structures.

        Thanks for the clarification on the moderation issue btw. Think it’s due to using a different computer maybe.

      • Grouse Beater says:

        You’re welcome. Here’s to a better year in 2015, and that’s asking a lot!

  13. Barontorc says:

    Yes, Grousebeater. Spot-on over this issue and another huge event – ‘move-on’ being the watch-word.

    • Grouse Beater says:

      The real debate avoided by the loudest and least wise voices is, what should be the criteria for candidate selection that avoids the old, the tired, and the conventional, and welcomes the new, the fresh, and the radical?

  14. Do you have a contact e-mail address for the blog?

    • Grouse Beater says:

      Which blog, Panda? This one?

    • Grouse Beater says:

      Good question – I don’t think it has, mainly because I never conceived of it as having more than an on-Blog exchange of ideas and information.

      Recently a reader asked me for a j-peg of the 1705 book I have and I got that scanned and sent by a colleague … hmmm … I will think upon it, sir!

      My problem is, my immediate family have high public profiles in the arts and education, three known and respected internationally. (My grandfather was a pioneer, he in classical music.) My associates include novelists, writers, many top painters and architects, and a few ‘suits’ that govern the arts in the UK. (When disagreeing with them I do it to their face.) I use a pseudonym because they suggested it to protect their right not to be tarred with my opinion, or if I cause public controversy, they will not be dragged into it. Before she became famous with a vast fan base my wife in her youth was a grouse beater in the hills of Perth when she lived in Crieff. I thought it the perfect moniker.

      By the way, did I read you live in France?

      • There should be an administrative e-mail address associated with the blog. It should be anodyne and not identifiably referenced to you personally.
        I have no desire to know who you are, although you have given out enough info on WoS to make somebody with determination dig you out
        I just want to discus with you an out there theory about who tipped off the Scotsman?

        Yes, I do live in SW France, Gascony,

    • Grouse Beater says:

      Okay, good advice. I’ll get onto it once I reach the other side of New Year. Been looking at small, modest houses in the south of France, two rooms, shower, and a garage or small barn for storage.

      • SW France aka Gacony. Not many “English exiles” here and those who are, are not part of a Ghetto. They talk and mix with French although I have met the cliquey ones who want to vet you before they will let you into their little, often racist, group. If you can get a neutral contact e-mail address from WordPress I can advise and point you in the way of a an estate agent or two and web sites to give you an idea of the market. Prices are lowish here and the market is dead. Good time to buy.

      • Grouse Beater says:

        Not to stray too far from the topic – my wife says there are areas away from industrial zones, and close enough to motor over the Pyrenees to Spain in a day. Will make sure you and I connect early in the year… many thanks!

      • I live there. The least industrialised and least polluted area of France, home of baguettes and berets, foie gras and the French Paradox, 3 hours from Spain Atlantic and 5 hours from Barcelona on the Med side. I had a pint with Ken Clark this Summer and Nigel Lawson has a place 20 mins away. La France predue

      • Grouse Beater says:


  15. Barontorc says:

    As we close 2014 and put a lid on the disappointment we all feel – let’s look forward and find the guts to take on the UK establishment that stole our referendum.

    I want to see the forensic analysis of mis-treatment, lying and distortion by anyone who would seek to carve us up again and hoping the new media opening up to us will do this without fear nor favour.

    For starters, I want to see the Scottish Government decriminalise with-holding of the BBC licence tax.

    It’s high time indeed that anti-Scot rhetoric was classified as being racist and for our government to protect our democratic rights there can be no permitting racist propaganda.

  16. junius45 says:

    The guy has been smeared & maligned by a vicious, vindictive & self-opinionated poster on Wings. Do this selection panel read Wings? Who doesn’t. Therefore the question arises of a fair turn of the screw here.

    The matter in this controvertial case should have been referred directly to the constituency party which expressed an interest in Mr Murray in the first place and allow the paid-up membership to decide the candidate’s merits and make their choice. That would be the democratic thing to do.

    What this case has highlighted is the disgraceful uncontrolled character assasination of a prospective SNP candidate and whether this mud-slinging has affected that prospective MP’s prospects. The reason given for non-selection has been ludicrous, it is a shambles and a needless own-goal by the grey suits.

  17. Calgacus says:

    Thank you Grouse Beater for defending an honourable man. I think that harpy is too mild a word for these party harridans. I have been a member of the SNP for many years but I do not agree with the treatment meted out to Craig. I would have been proud to have him as my MP.
    Anyway, A Happy New Year to you and yours

    • Grouse Beater says:

      The stuff I’ve read is obnoxious, and there is a strong whiff of the narcissist about it. Quite shameful and shameless.

      I have no idea if Murray will come across this essay, or the good remarks by the likes of yourself, but if he does I trust it is some consolation.

      Best wishes for a prosperous new year, Calgacus.

  18. yesguy says:

    This was a cracking read and one topic i witnessed on Wings.

    I thought , ok everyone has a voice and can express they’re view , but how far does it go ?

    Craig was given a tough time by some and support by others. But you hit the the bullseye when you mentioned the abusive tones of some. GB we mere humans do this everyday , judging each other without the full facts. I have to admit i stayed quiet on the subject , although to be honest i was quite sickened. We claim to be all inclusive then throw in caveats afterwards. Shame on us.

    I wish Craig well. I doubt very much we will have heard the last of him. he supported us throughout the referendum and for that i thank him and welcome his say. This is an Englishman with more belief in Scotland than 55% of our own.

    As for the others ? Well whats been said cannot be undone.

    Thank you for the words of wisdom GB. maybe we will learn from this. Then again………?

    Happy New Year to You and your family GB. The very best of years to all your followers. 2015 will be just as hectic as 2014 and for that i am delighted. We will not lay down or return into our box. We are stronger and better prepared for the months ahead.

    Scotland is awake . lets show the rUK how much.

    All the very best folks.

    • Grouse Beater says:

      “[Murray] is an Englishman with more belief in Scotland than 55% of our own. “

      An incisive remark.

      And shaming to those who voted Yes and then defame him for sport.

      His loudest antagonist is an inveterate hypocrit – the kind who invoke the Nixon doctrine, “When I do it, it is not illegal.”

      • Who informed the Scotsman and set the running dogs loose.

      • Grouse Beater says:

        That is the twenty-four million dollar question.

        Based on what we can read the only conclusion is someone or some persons of a malicious disposition, reckless, a firebrand who feels they are accountable to nobody when it comes to voicing personal opinion. Or an SNP manager who had another candidate in mind, the latter almost unthinkable.

        Perhaps the likeliest candidates should be confronted with the question. Or the Scotsman come clean.

  19. Grouse Beater says:

    “Cui bono?” asks Panda, meaning, for what purpose?

    Somebody who prefers a different candidate?

    The problem with the mediocre is, they tend to promote others who are mediocre. Their standards are low. In fact, when not casting innuendo upon his sexual peccadilloes or drinking habits, a lot of the criticism of Murray is, quite frankly, puerile.

    Next question – why did the site owner of Wings not nip the attacks in the bud?

    • Hammer and nail?

      Remember that Stu has a light touch on moderation and thus on censorship?

      • hektorsmum says:

        I like Stu for it but there have been one or two occasions when it has got out of hand recently. The Craig Murray parts one and two were the occasions. I gave up even reading on those days as it went on and on without let or hindrance.
        Nobody should be subjected to what happened on those times.

      • I think he was then and now, is considering his next front of attack.
        He has experimented with giving the “cats” some slack. he needs a life too?
        I think that is behind your disquiet.
        I say nothin against him

  20. hektorsmum says:

    I am sorry that Craig Murray did not make it but the SNP have so many excellent people to call upon it could never be regarded as a shoo in, I will also say that can any of us say that the SNP have not been infiltrated by our enemies. I am pretty sure there are agents working against all of our interests and I know I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist but I do think so.
    I have to say that Craig, having been involved with the Establishment at it’s most entrenched should have known better than to have spilt more milk, the first thing out of me being contacted by a newspaper, and I am often rude, is put the phone down, but then I bang the door shut also. If he had held his tongue he may have even been called back again, perhaps not this time, but later.
    I do not like people who throw stones and have stayed away from this as much as possible. Craig seems to find he has enemies and I do not think it is because he is English. We have many people in the SNP who are English and they get on fine.

  21. My small contribution is, can we take ANYTHING the Scotsman implied about the source as believable and without question?
    If the bastards told me it was daylight I’d have to look out the window ffs.
    Much ado about nothing that could have been handled so much better on all fronts.
    Instead of this bitchfest of mudslinging slander-though to be fair Craig never done himself any favours either with his ill advised outpourings,it should have been more professionally presented.
    Anyways GB Happy New Year to you and yours.
    You must be doing something right now that you got trolls on your

  22. @Bugger(the Panda)

    What negatives?
    Craig and Morag?

    Surely no.

  23. bjsalba says:

    I’ll say it again. Craig is a very principled person, but he is not right for the cesspit that will be Westminster with a strong or even modest contingent of SNP MPs. I want a bunch of folk who know how to play hardball, because that is what they are going to have to do. It will not be nice. It will not be principled. It will be nasty.

    We, the electorate of Scotland (regardless of where we were born) need folks down there who have our needs in mind – FFA, devo-max for a start. That is their only focus.

  24. Pingback: Craig Murray » Blog Archive » The SNP Membership, Not the Leadership, Must Decide on the Second Referendum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s