Notes From the Northern Colony

alexsalmondconspiracy

by Greum Maol Stevenson

As discussed here previously, Scottish mainstream media made no mention of Craig Murray's being removed by police from the High Court in Edinburgh during Alex Salmond's trial. Since then, Murray has published a J'accuse that, in forensic detail, makes a compelling case that there is a conspiracy against Alex Salmond.

And apparently not just Mr Salmond.

Paul Hutcheon, political editor at the Daily Record, has investigated Mr Murray's home and his personal finances and published a misleading article, without addressing any of his concerns. The paper also published a photo of Mr Murray's home.

In his article in response, Mr Murray writes:

The key point is not one mainstream media journalist has even attempted to refute the facts of my article J’accuse. It is packed with facts. Might not the political editor of the Daily Record better spend his time researching the conspiracy against Alex Salmond, rather than threatening an independent journalist for the crime of doing journalism? ...What I am now waiting for is all these people to step in and condemn the publishing of my home and the subsequent risk to the security of my wife and family, with as much vigour as they today defended the privacy of the Edinburgh third house of the Head of MI6.

Also published on The Harbourmaster's Loug

#craigmurray #alexsalmond #paulhutcheon #dailyrecord #scotland #alexsalmondtrial #alexsalmondconspiracy #snp #mediaharassment #bullying #scottishpolitics #scottishblogs #greummaolstevenson

RSS

by Greum Maol Stevenson

It did not take the jury long to decide whether Alex Salmond was guilty of rape, attempted rape, and the other sex crimes he was on trial for at Edinburgh High Court. Deliberations began last Friday, and on Monday Mr Salmond was acquitted of all 13 charges.

Since then, there has been talk of a conspiracy against Mr Salmond. But, in all the news reports and opinion pieces, one thing has been glaringly absent: any mention of Craig Murray, and his being removed from the courtroom the day before the trial ended.

Mr Murray is a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, turned whistleblower and columnist. He is also a friend of Alex Salmond’s. While Mr Murray is a fine journalist, he tends to embarrass himself when writing in defence of his friends. He covered Julian Assange’s recent extradition hearing, and his portrait of Mr Assange was such cringe-inducing hagiography that anyone who had read Andrew O'Hagan's reporting on Mr Assange’s incompetence, grandiosity and dishonesty would be inclined to question anything else Mr Murray wrote.

It got worse when Mr Murray wrote about Salmond’s trial. In his fervour to praise Mr Salmond’s record as First Minister, and trash Nicola Sturgeon’s, he praised Huawei, and, without offering evidence, cast doubt on Russia’s poisoning a former spy and his daughter in the UK.

But he wrote respectfully about the judge, Lady Dorrian, and had to admit his friend was getting a fair trial.

And then, the day before the trial ended, police removed Mr Murray from the courtroom and told him he was banned for the duration of the trial. The prosecution had asked the judge to remove him because of a “possible contempt of court.” No further explanation was given.

Mr Murray wrote:

To be excluded from a public trial on the basis of something I have “possibly” done, when nobody will even specify what it is I have “possibly” done, seems to me a very strange proceeding. I can only assume that it is something I have written on this blog as there has been no incident or disturbance of any kind inside the courtroom. But if the judge is genuinely concerned that something I have written is so wrong as to necessitate my exclusion, you would expect there would be a real desire for the court to ask me to amend or remove that wrong thing. But as nobody will even tell me what that wrong thing might “possibly” be, it seems only reasonable to conclude that they are not genuinely concerned, in a legal sense, about something I have written.

It was clear from the start that someone wanted to keep Mr Murray out of the courtroom. First, it was announced that only “accredited media” (i.e. corporate and state media) would be allowed in — no independent or “citizen” journalists. Even though Mr Murray’s blog has a bigger readership than some newspapers, and he has been praised by such journalists as John Pilger and Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, this criteria excluded him. When the prosecution had finished making its case and it was time for the defence to begin, the public gallery was opened, and Mr Murray sat there.

Until the police came for him.

Sources say Mr Murray was so depressed by his banning — and the threat of a charge of contempt of court, which can get you two years in prison — that, during the weekend Mr Salmond spent waiting to find out his fate, he was so worried about Mr Murray that he called him to see if he was all right.

When the verdicts came in, Mr Murray was so happy he got too drunk to write about it in any depth. So… not an impartial reporter, and not pretending to be. But, whether you think he is a truth-teller, a friend blinded by loyalty, or a conspiracy theorist, why has there been nothing about his banning in any mainstream media? Both The Herald and The National have given copious space to theories that there was an SNP conspiracy against Alex Salmond, but Craig Murray’s existence has not been acknowledged.

It is enough to make you wonder if there is a conspiracy.

Also published on The Harbourmaster's Loug

#alexsalmond #craigmurray #snp #nicolasturgeon #alexsalmondconspiracy #scottishpolitics #alexsalmondtrial #scotland #scottishblogs #greummaolstevenson

RSS