Regular readers know I take great pains to write informed and informative articles and essays, the latter as well researched as I have time to spare or can read my foxed notes of yesteryear. Empirical evidence is the best way to show one-and-one making two, which is to say, my ‘opinion’ is rarely baseless. I do my best to warn, and illustrate by example, the law of the perpetual colonial that demands we subordinate ourselves to the violence and deceit of the “principal architects” of Union policy and the doctrinal manipulation of the servants of their power.
As a creative writer of books, magazines, articles and so on, and fiction for plays and film based on fact, I am obliged to know and understand what motivates people. Knowing what comes next means observing human nature, assessing behaviour exhibited yesterday will surely manifest itself in a similar way tomorrow. This brings me to this week’s subject.
A jury for Salmond
Alex Salmond is a totemic figure in Scotland’s politics. He brought the nation to the brink of regaining liberty. He is due back in Edinburgh’s High Court soon for stage two of his case, his Hearing. If the case goes forward it will begin in earnest early next year.
The first question to ponder is where in Scotland will Salmond get a fair trial? One would have to be a hermit living off seaweed in a beached boat off Barra not to have heard of or read about Salmond’s ambitions for restoring Scotland’s nationhood. Every juror chosen will have an opinion on that score.
A jury is picked from an invited group of local citizens, names placed in a goldfish bowl so we can see how they are lifted out, and those named assume jury duty without cavil. Likely, prosecution council will want to know who has been, or is, a member of the SNP. Call it modern day McCarthyism.
A jury is expected to set aside all loyalties and prejudices to weigh the evidence for, against, or not proven. Judged by a group of your citizens, your peers, is a good system.
How can we be sure there is a balance of opinion on the panel?
What if a majority dislike Salmon and the thought of independence? How can we be sure a jury member is not a shill, or for that matter, one appear as a witness for the prosecution a paid agent of the British state? Salmond will need an Atticus Finch to defend him, and even Finch lost against bigotry. On the positive side, one or a few jurors will be admirers of Salmond. Hard not to think, as in Tommy Sheridan’s first case, individual jurists might be tempted not to let the rotten unionist press hang their hero.
Someone attending the case should keep a journal of events, it is history in the making.
The struggle for human rights is divisive
Nobody likes to give up their privileges or perks. Middle class Edinburgh voted No to liberty. Liberty is the freedom to choose. Edinburgh, home of our Parliament, and dozens of fat lawyers, voted against Scotland expressing free will by a majority expressing free will that violated human rights. We live with the dire consequences in an uneasy peace.
Salmond represented greater rights for Scotland. The press keep telling us he is a divisive politician, a Marmite man. Is it divisive for Scotland to keep what it earns, so that by due process, the elected administration can decide how it spends our taxes?
For the slow of learning, a sum could be set aside, used to help regions of England under flood water. Just a thought. That sort of sharing is called free will, voluntary, made with true representation, rather than Westminster’s version that steals chunks of Scotland’s taxes to spend on anything it likes such as wars. That is divisive.
The world is a pretty unfair place, littered with examples of acquisition by force. Salmond asked that we make a new accord with our acquisitive neighbour, an honest, fair and noble one, and that we do it by the ballot box.
Some argue the people are the movement not the SNP, which is true, but that is to miss the obvious – the doubters, the Jeremiahs and Jonas will have their prejudices reinforced by smear and association, convinced the people’s champion is a scumbag, therefore, the desired ideal is tarnished. The British state is counting on half of Scotland remaining union adherents believing whatever is placed before them.
We are faced by an intolerant, regressive, mercenary, one-sided union that sees England lose its senses and swing to the fascist far-right, its corrupt institutions and tax laws intact, its power elite toasting each other at how easy it was to deflect the electorate from institutional high crimes and misdemeanours.
The Tory party is not the only adversary Scotland faces. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn joins the queue of colonials patronising Scotland with promises of broadband wealth, you can’t spend it on infrastructure, hospitals or education systems. Besides a smug smile, he was wearing a misguided gift from the child-youth charity ‘WhoCareScotland, the tartan scarf a modern weave entitled ‘Declaration Tartan‘, reminding us not him, of the Declaration of Arbroath. Irony is wasted on English colonials.
And what happens when Captain Corbyn in his train back to London passes across the Scottish border to England? Does he take off his tartan scarf and put on a pair of Morris dancing clogs?
The British state, MI5, GCHQ, the 77th Brigade – the latter recently ensconced in, and when discovered decamped from, an abandoned Fife factory, Fife, for god’s sake! – they know how to hold onto information until released for the greatest effect.
Whether you think the charges made against Salmond are right or concocted, they arrive timed to undermine the mass movement for self-governance, now consistently polling well over 50% of voters. Trashing hope must be brought to bear in profound ways.
Two woman made accusations of sexual crimes against Salmond, both encouraged to do so by two civil servants, one woman against her better judgement. And some others state being ‘touched up’. Supporters of a free Scotland should be prepared for anything before Salmond enters the High Court. Keep in mind, Salmond isn’t a Tory politician who uses taxpayer expenses to pay for a personal duck sanctuary, or keeps offshore accounts to hide his money from the taxman.
There are so many imaginative things the creeps of colonialism can conjure up without a Harry Potter wand, or a bung from JK Rowling. The death of a child in a Scottish hospital is worth a ton of black propaganda to the opponents of Scotland’s progress, the one washed up on a Turkish beach is ignored. The harrowing image of that drowned child has not stopped British immigration repatriating women and children. Hypocrisy is the virtue of our times. How about a close pal of Salmond accepting a bag of money from Russians, or accepting a peerage despite knowing the SNP does not do that on principle?
You couldn’t make it up? I just did. It is that easy to destroy a man’s reputation. The reasoning here will surprise no one who has the slightest familiarity with history, or elementary understanding of the structure of British power.
It is not really Salmond’s image that is being destroyed, it is Scotland’s self-image.
I agree with that
I have only three words to say in relation to this matter;
“FUCK THE BRITISH!”
who decided the time-ing of Mr Salmonds case. Had no election been declared would his case be held back until an opportune moment to put the boot into Scotland arrived.
A depressing truth .
I think I am developing a version of Tourettes , I spend a deal of timer swearing at unionist /media pronouncements and their very faces induce apoplexy and a string of invective – stomach ulcer inducing!
Well said. The use of allegations of sexual misconduct has long been used deliberately to destroy a mans reputation and in this case to harm Scotland too.
The ongoing case of Julian Assange comes to mind where this type of allegation has been used to facilitate Assange’s extradition to USA where he faces possible death penalty. All because he is a journalist who believes people should know the Truth about war crimes. I hope Salmond’s jury will not be influenced by propaganda and the deep state. I wish him the best. Some powerful people want to subjugate the will of Scotland and are doing their best to accomplish that.They must not succeed.
I agree with your view of things, Shona. A guilty outcome will demoralise lots of SNP supporters but I hope not deter them from achieving real self-governance. I verdict of innocent will reinforce the general feeling the entire matter was a trap to defame.
The likelihood of Alex Salmond receiving a fair trial is very slim. He may have the best legal team he can afford, but all that is for naught if the jury consists of some of the characters who inhabit the cesspit of British nationalism in Edinburgh. I can imagine a jury who, through the Edinburgh Evening News letters page have been subject to a daily diet of Batshit Jill Stephenson, Martin Redfearn and Scott Arthur, who will do their damnedest to ensure that Mr Salmond is found guilty regardless of the evidence.
On the face of it, the charges seem composed to ensure at least one will stick, but I notice his QC has submitted a defence of Section 275 plus Special Defence, that is, Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ss274 – you can’t ask a complainer about past conduct unless the court permits this. Obviously, his defence council has a plan. And as I’ve mentioned elsewhere and on tweets, the dates of the incidents are flaky.