Just a short one this, but it's prompted by Alba HQ's resident stripling Robert Reid having one of his periodical rants about me on Twitter last night. He obviously drops by to this blog now and again, and his rage at seeing any sort of alternative to HQ propaganda always seems to get the better of him.
However, he's more than a tad hapless in the way he lashes out. Last time around he was feigning incredulity that anyone could possibly doubt the integrity of the process that led to my expulsion from Alba given that "ordinary Alba members" had supposedly made the decision - but all I had to do was point out that only four Alba members had voted to expel me, and exactly 50% of them were either his own girlfriend or his own mum. He couldn't dispute that because he knows it's true and he knows it's in the minutes.
This time he was harrumphing about me supposedly "lying" when I criticised Alba for their irresponsible plans to split the pro-independence vote on the constituency ballot next year, abandoning the sensible list-only strategy from 2021. Reid insisted that no decision has been taken yet and that Alba members will ultimately decide. But yet again, it's his own girlfriend that's the problem for him, because Christina Hendry has already announced that she intends to be the Alba candidate in the constituency seat of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. And it has to be said she doesn't seem to be terribly interested in Alba members' thoughts on the matter - she reckons she's inheriting the candidacy from her Uncle Alex by right of "Salmond blood", to use her own bizarre Game of Thrones-style language.
When I put that point to Reid, he defensively tried to make out that what Ms Hendry had said to the press was only provisional and "pending membership approval". To put it mildly, that does not ring true, because when Alex Salmond himself first announced his plans to stand in Banffshire and Buchan Coast, there was no deference to the ultimate sovereignty of Alba members - it was just something he had decided to do and that was an end to the matter. His party, his decision, full stop.
Anyway, Reid's ongoing obsession with me has made me think back to my previous interactions with him. They're extremely limited, because his election to the NEC in autumn 2022 coincided with me being voted off the body. However, he did phone me up out of the blue once - it was a year ago, in February 2024. Apparently Alex Salmond had got extremely upset about a newspaper article written by Conor Matchett, which suggested that polling showed Salmond was less popular in Scotland than Nigel Farage. He wanted a sharp reply to be sent to Matchett, but neither he nor anyone else in HQ could actually find the relevant numbers in the data tables of the poll, so in desperation Reid turned to me. (I suspect the poor lad may have been getting the hairdryer treatment all morning.) I had to be the bearer of bad news, because the poll did basically show what Matchett had claimed it showed.
Nevertheless, Reid did his best to follow his leader's instructions, and sent an email to Matchett with a suitably indignant tone, even though the facts were stacked against him. He forwarded the email to me, and one section stands out as particularly significant -
"Firstly ALBA are at 3 per cent on the regional list polling question of the latest Redfield Wilton poll as shown below. This is the ONLY section of voting for which ALBA have been traditionally prompted by pollsters (ie shown on their list of parties on polling questions). That is understandable since previously ALBA only intended to stand on the regional list for Holyrood."
Never again let it be pretended that Alba hasn't mutated from its original billing as a responsible list-only party. OK, political parties are allowed to change, but by the same token members and supporters of a party are allowed to be upset about having been sold a false prospectus.
Another intriguing titbit is that Reid once spontaneously contacted me with a "keep up the good work" message after I wrote a blogpost urging Alba to only stand in the two seats where they had incumbent MPs at the Westminster general election. He told me that wasn't all that far away from HQ's own thinking - which surprised me, because my impression from having previously been on the NEC was that Alex Salmond wanted Alba to make a big intervention in the general election, which of course is exactly what happened in the end.
I can only speculate, but I wonder if "HQ's thinking" was code for "McEleny's thinking". If so, that might indicate there was a difference of view between McEleny and Mr Salmond on election strategy. In spite of the much-vaunted "telepathic link" between the two men, McEleny was sometimes surprisingly blunt in his criticisms of Mr Salmond. When I last saw McEleny in August (only a few weeks before he arbitrarily suspended me from the party), he very directly stated that Mr Salmond was living well beyond Alba's means in terms of the hotel, travel and food expenses he was racking up, and that someone was going to need to have a word with him. "It's fine if Alex gets a big gig like Question Time in London", but other than that, major cutbacks were going to have to be made.
That of course is one of the issues that has caused so much hurt and upset - other Alba NEC members, and indeed Alba rank-and-file members, have been working tirelessly for the party out of their own pocket, and they haven't known what to make of a select few at the top living the high life thanks to party funds which should really have been used for campaigning purposes.
McEleny also gave a possible clue in August to the leadership's plans about standing in Holyrood constituency seats next year. He talked of the possibility of standing in one constituency per electoral region, which would mean splitting the pro-indy vote in eight constituency seats across Scotland. He then caught himself and said with some alarm "I'm just speaking hypothetically here, James", which led me to think he wasn't speaking hypothetically at all - although I suspect eight constituency seats may be more of a floor than a ceiling.
* * *
Coming up in future installments of "THE ALBA FILES"...
* Straight-Talking And Totally Unfiltered: How Shannon Donoghue and Chris Cullen explained their refusal to give rank-and-file Alba members decision-making powers, or even any basic information about decisions taken at the monthly NEC meetings
* McEleny's campaign of "disciplinary" revenge after evidence of the 2023 election-rigging started to leak
* Tasmina Writes It All Down And Then Hits "Send"
...plus much, much more. Stay tuned.
His party, his decision, full stop. That's Alba.
ReplyDeleteThe only open question is "who's next?"
Alba was just a grift for Salmond and Tasmina.
ReplyDeleteTasmina’s family made money from merchandising.
And Alba financed Alex and Tas’s five star lifestyle. Hotels, meals and entertaining friends and contacts
Members should question the amount of spending on travel, hotels and meals
It is 10s of thousands of pounds
Strange that the BBC and WOS aren’t all over this, unless of course they see Alba as a useful idiot in their SNP Baaad campaign
DeleteIt is strange that no journalist has reported any of the troubles in Alba
DeleteEither Alba really do not matter or they are useful
The Salmond bullying should have been of interest as it backs up what Sturgeon said about him.
Wings knows what went on but turns a blind eye
Anon at 12.12 pm ... not contradicting you but can you prove any of that? Making assertions is one thing but providing proof is another.
DeleteI wouldn't say the media was exactly cheering Alba on when they acted like they didn't exist. It seems to me more like ignorance than complicity. The mainstream dismissed Alba as a Salmond stunt and did what little it took to forget about Alba's existence.
DeleteYou don't exactly hear detailed coverage of internal affairs in the Greens, either, let alone the SSP and the other 1%ers.
Prove what? That something isn’t happening? Is this intended as satire or what? Think before you post.
DeleteIf there's no media reports to link to, it'll have to be receipts!
DeleteJM yes look at the accounts.
Delete1%ers. Or in the case of the NSP, O.5%ers.
Delete.
Alba wis interestin tae the media for exackly as lang as Alex Salmond wis leadin it. Noo he's awa there's nae story or use tae thaim.
DeleteAh but SNP Baaad
ReplyDeleteA wise man has said:
Delete"The main contributions SNP politicians are making on independence just now is bashing activists round the head with logical fallacies. The current soundbites of choice are ‘unless we have an SNP government we can’t get independence’, and ‘how can you doubt Politician X, they have spent their whole career supporting independence’.
Well a firefighter sitting watching a building burn down can say ‘without firefighters, buildings will burn down’ or ‘leave me alone I’ve spent my whole life stopping buildings burning down’ and it’s perfectly true, but they’re still sitting on their arse watching a building burn down."
Methinks wee Robbie is being used. It's likely that others are putting him up to sending out the messages they want, but there's no way they want their name connected to them.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid he's not bright enough to see when he's being played.
He's being played with.
He is intelligent. I have met him.
Delete"Salmond blood" lmao. Imagine being like that
ReplyDeleteBlood and soil. Claymores and cosplay. Very serious way to conduct the future of a nation.
DeleteWhen did you see Chris McEleny in person ?
ReplyDeleteI last saw him in August, as clearly stated in the blogpost twice. I did not use the words "in person", because it was a Zoom call.
DeleteYou might want to brush up on your close reading skills.
Sure, but it's still fair to ask when you last met in person, right? They're distinct events. One's in the blog, so already answered. The other's a sensible, independent question.
DeleteI can't really see the relevance of your question, but if you want an answer for the sheer hell of it, I think I last saw him in person in June. It was the day of the Alba manifesto launch in Dundee, and I'm fairly sure that was in June. We didn't really exchange any words that day, he just leaned over my head and gave me a really, really odd look. Of course unbeknown to me, he was already planning action against me by then but had postponed it because of the general election.
DeleteIt was worth asking to get that story! He sounds like a rôle for a good “character actor.” Someone good at awkward looks and pregnant pauses.
DeleteHe was looking for me.
Delete@ Same Different Anonymous
DeleteWho do you think should play Chris McE in the film? I hear SpongeBob is available.
Benny Hill
DeleteWow good shout
DeleteAnd still silence from the candidates who wish to be King/Queen/ interchangeable
ReplyDeleteIf Jessica Lange the actress asked me what this was all about id say Jessica I just don't know
DeleteEven Police Scotland now want to distance themselves from the politically motivated smear campaign known as operation Branchfrom. Don’t expect apologies from the idiots and the liars on here and elsewhere who as recently as today were making false claims of fraud and embezzlement. But sadly damage has been done. Let us not forget the usual suspects on here with their WOS allies spreading disinformation. YIR2? Idiot for Scotland ? Apologise? No chance. The fake rev? Deafening silence from him. Next time they post, assume it’s lies and disinformation.
ReplyDeleteSNP have moved on in any case under Swinney.
DeleteDamage has been done.
DeleteTo Police Scotland's reputation.
DeleteIt’s naive to think SNP have not been damaged. BBC and MSM will be silent on this.
DeleteWe shall abstain from commenting on Operation Branchform.
DeleteOne minute the Police are the bad guys in your conspiracy theory next thing they are distancing themselves from their own work.
DeletePerhaps as you know everything you can tell us where the motorhome is now parked and where the missing £600k is.
Seems the polls disagree. The investigation has gone on so long now most folk I speak to -apart from hard line unionists think the authorities are less than squeaky clean over this -even when wearing gloves and having a tented village outside the Fm house. Who leaked to the news media ?
DeleteAnon at 3.53 pm. There is no missing £600,000, and the Motorhome is an asset in the accounts of the SNP. Why do you think the police have distanced themselves from this sordid smear? Why do you think there has been no prosecution. You are clearly one of the people who have been spreading lies and disinformation. No expectation that you will have the class or the grace to apologise. Toddle off back to WOS.
Delete3.59pm - so the police have been investigating nothing for years. That is what you think. Conspiracy theory top level.
DeleteWhy did the SNP buy a motorhome and park it for years at Murrells mother’s driveway then. You didn’t answer where the motor home is right now.
Care to say where you can find the police statement that they are dropping the charges against the liar Murrell.
Anon at 3.59pm says “ Why do you think there has been no prosecution.” But doesn’t say why he thinks there has been no prosecution. Please spell out your full conspiracy in detail. I’ll share mine with you. The Police have finished their work and sent a report
Deleteto the British controlled Crown Office who have been told not to prosecute anybody but just sit on it for as long a possible.
3:59, 'There is no missing £600k'!!!No, because they have spent it on themselves you clown. Motorhomes to hide in your mother's driveway don't come cheap you know.🤣🤣🤣
DeleteClown? No argument from you, just abuse. You and your mates have been exposed as gullible liars. And even when Police Scotland opt out you lot keep lying. It lets people see you for what you are. Keep it up.
DeletePeter Murrell has been charged with embezzlement => he has to go to court to plead one way or the other because embezzlement is a serious charge. But the Scottish court system is just as backlogged as the NHS.
DeleteAnd in Peter Murrell's case it is no longer a police matter.
DeleteIn the meantime, I believe he has been served a court order banning him from property transactions.
DeleteThe sad anon desperately trying to convince himself that there has been no wrongdoing is making invisible claims and cannot answer questions posed to him. Personal abuse is no substitute for debate but that clearly is all he has.
DeleteHelps to get a couple of facts straight.
DeleteMurrell has indeed been charged by Police Scotland 'in relation to embezzlement'.
HOWEVER, the final decision on whether to put him in front of a Court to answer that charge and to actually RUN the case - or NOT to run the case - is not up to the Police.
It is entirely up to The Crown Office/COPFS.
On the evidence so far in the Public Domain, there is no sign of The Crown Office/COPFS having yet made that final decision.
The Motorhome remains in Police Custody as a possible 'production' if and when there IS a Court Case, but will be released back to the Registered Keeper/Owner if there is none.
Anon at 5.12. You refer to people as clowns. You are clueless. The Crown Office have had more than enough time to begin a prosecution, but have insufficient evidence because there is none. The Police are carrying out damage limitation. You are a useful idiot for the unionists. They stand back and let you spread lies and disinformation on their behalf. You have been exposed.
DeleteDavid Frances. Don’t try to teach your granny to suck eggs. Crown Office told the police there was insufficient evidence. The police tried to expand the investigation in the hope of finding some. They couldn’t. There will be no prosecution. The useful idiots for the unionists the BBC and WOS have been exposed for the liars they are. Even now an idiot anon is trying to argue there is wrongdoing, and the police, in collusion with me it seems, are trying to hide it.
DeleteAnon at 5:36.
DeleteWind yer neck in, pal.
ALL of what I said was FACT - whether you like it, or not.
I have also stated previously, that I think it is now more likely than not, that Nicola Sturgeon will not face any charges at all (possibly the same with Colin Beattie).
BTW - my last 'Granny' popped her clogs years ago and never ate eggs!
The Scottish court backlog for serious assault, rape and murder is three years, never mind embezzlement where people are only financially hurt, so it probably takes even longer than waiting for a cataract operation.
DeleteAll comes down to what COPFS/Crown Office prioritise 'in the Publc Interest'.
DeleteThat is, of course, if a case does actually go ahead against Murrell.
It still may not.
David Francis telling somebody else to “wind yer neck in”.
DeleteYou couldnae make it up!
Necks don’t wind silly billy. You have achieved the unenviable distinction of being regarded as an idiot and an arsehole by both sides of this debate. Find a quiet dark room and have a wee lie down. There will be no prosecution. As I have stated elsewhere the Crown Office told the police there was not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. The police then broadened their investigation, still couldn’t find evidence of wrongdoing, and have now openly distanced themselves from this openly political smear campaign dressed up as an investigation. You should opt out. You do not help the Indy cause. Bye.
DeleteCan't really comment on whether an Anon has a neck, or not.
DeleteBut - Certainly does not seem to have much sitting on top of one, though.
D F at 6.00 pm. What does the CO in COPFS stand for? Silly billy?
DeleteAnon at 6:06
DeleteTell me, Dummy - WHERE is the evidence for what you 'stated elsewhere' about what COPFS told the Police etc....?
Show me that evidence, or I will just have to conclude it came from the vacant-lot between yer wee ears.
Just another Conspiracy Cretin.
There is real crazy anon posting here who is trying to punt that all possible actions are finished. It shows you how crazy this poster is when David Francis is the sensible one having to tell him the facts.
DeleteAnon at 6:10.
DeleteMost folk I know still refer to the Crown Office as just that.
I am also well aware of what the full acronym stands for.
Anon at 6:13
DeleteI reckon the other Anon you refer to might well be correct in his opinion on the Branchform conclusion, but I am too long in the tooth to pre-empt the final results.
There are still a few permutations possible.
I will simply wait and see.
Are we sure that is really the real David Francis posting at 5.15pm. It just seems so sensible, matter of fact and straight to the point. Not normally something we see from David Francis. But if it is him - more of the same please David and stop representing the SNP in a poor fashion.
DeleteDavid you claim to have had years of experience in the Justice system so I would like to ask you a question. If there is a trial then presumably we will hear the case details, get a decision and that is the end of the matter hopefully.
DeleteIf there is no trial, will COPFS be transparent about why there is no trial and make available the police findings? If they are not transparent then the debate will just continue. Can you answer that question.
Clearly you are not aware what it stands for when you referred to the Crown Office after referring to the COPFS. And no one, except you, says COPFS/Crown Office. I suspect you are a Wiki mam. It’s the wee things that catch you out. Murrayfield?
DeleteAnons in order -
Delete1. Yep, it is me.
I am not representing the SNP in a poor fashion.
I am merely stating legal facts.
2. If there is no prosecution, COPFS/Crown Office will probably just do what they normally do in other high-profile cases - issue a brief, factual statement on why they have taken the decision and consider the matter closed.
3. I worked in the Scottish Criminal Justice System for 30 years, you moron.
Grow up.
Genuine question to hopefully clarify: Is the length of time Branchform has taken unusual?
DeleteBeen some suggestion that it's deliberately been stretched out to harm the SNP as much as possible, but it has also been suggested that it's just simply the norm with financial cases of this nature?
Thanks David for reply no. 2. If the brief statement is very brief it will not close down concerns. That is some extreme anon you are arguing with.
DeleteOf course, if only Nicola had held a referendum none of this would have happened.
From memory, a case of dishonesty (alleged embezzlement) should normally be concluded with a verdict at a Sheriff Court within 18 months or so after the date of the offence, but with the Covid Backlog, probably a bit longer now.
DeleteHowever, more complex cases will inevitably take more time to get to court.
Branchform has now been running well over 3 years from inception, so is probably outside the norm, I would think.
As far as Murrell is concerned, he has the right to be tried (if the case is pursued by the prosecuting authorities) within 'a reasonable time' after being charged. As far as I know, there is no specific definition of 'a reasonable time' and it will vary case by case.
However, the prosecutor cannot delay proceedings indefinitely as that would be a direct breach of the accused's Human Rights.
So, in summary - Branchform is certainly taking a longer time than normal to conclude, but probably not by a massive margin.
Murrell was charged approx 10 months ago and is still, in my opinion, within 'a reasonable time' for prosecution at this point.
Perhaps you are Alba? Toddle off silly billy, no one is interested in you.
ReplyDeleteNote: The above is a reply to a deleted comment.
DeleteAnon at 4.12. You really this thick? The police have investigated for over three years and have been unable to produce evidence of fraud and embezzlement, but you know better? Tell all. Your bitterness and anger are palpable. You stand exposed as a unionist liar. Away back to WOS.
ReplyDeleteJust calling somebody thick is not an answer to the questions posed. You are stating the police sent a file to the COPFS with no evidence to back up a charge of embezzlement for Murrell. Really.
DeleteThe only one being exposed is you desperately trying to cover up wrongdoing.
Me and Police Scotland? Both covering up wrongdoing? Yeah that makes sense. You are exposed as a lying useful idiot of the unionists. You and your mates spread untruth and disinformation. You’ve been shown to be nothing more than nasty liars. Back to WOS for you. You’ve got lots of fellow liars and fantasists there. You will feel right at home.
DeleteI never said Police Scotland. You said it. The Police have charged Murrell with embezzlement in my universe - perhaps in your universe they have not. You can keep calling people liars etc etc but you provide no evidence to back that up plus you don’t answer a whole range of questions put to you. You are just a shouty man thinking the louder you shout makes your assertions more believable. It does not. Reminds me of David Francis.
DeleteIf you do not understand what you are actually saying in your own posts, give up. You are a unionist controlled liar. No more to be said. Go back to WOS.
DeleteAnon at 6.07. You do not seem to understand the criminal process in Scotland. Why is that? And you seem intent on keeping a smear campaign going, despite recent statements by Police Scotland. Why is that?
DeleteThe shouty man shouts some more at 6.14pm and 6.16pm. Lots of noise but no logic or evidence.
DeleteShouts? Mocks yes, shouts no. Police investigation ongoing since 2021. Millions spent. Thousands of police hours. And not a single prosecution to date, and there will be none. And Police Scotland have very publicly announced that their part in this shameful smear campaign is over. But the useful idiots, the liars, the unionist puppets still desperately want to run a smear campaign. When David Francis and the unionist liars are in agreement you know they are on the wrong side of history. In three months when there have still been no prosecutions, it might start to sink in.
DeleteHow, exactly, am I 'in agreement with the unionist liars'?
DeleteI am all ears.......
Considering where WOS is based it should confine itself to commenting on English legal matters.
ReplyDeleteThe useful idiots of WOS are out in force tonight desperately trying to keep the smear going on behalf of their unionist masters. Liars. Go back to WOS.
DeleteWhere's your Tootsie now?
DeleteIn Bath.
DeleteAnon at 4.52. He does not have to go to court. There has to date been no prosecution. Don’t comment if you do not even understand the basics, unless of course you are one of the useful idiots. And the morons making similar comments in a desperate bid to keep the smear going need to go away and educate themselves. Or preferably, just go back to your natural home, WOS. You should be embarrassed and apologetic, but you appear to be too stupid and ignorant to even manage that.
ReplyDeleteTbh both sides are as bad as each other. SNP supporters claim that it's all massive conspiracy orchestrated by the British State to harm Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP's electoral chances.
DeleteWhereas the more simple explanation is that these kind of cases take time. Financial cases where expert accountants may need to be drafted in often take years & practically every KC who's commented on the case has said the length of time this case has taken thus far hasn't been a surprise.
Practically every K C? So how many exactly? And who are they? And why did the police not find the second Campervan that was buried in the garden? The first one was in the accounts and parked in full view. Because that’s the only reason you would have to dig up a garden behind a big blue tent. Sometimes it really is a case of the obvious. Politically motivated smear campaign. There will be no prosecution. SNP Baaaad brigade and their useful idiots are really hurting. Exposed as liars and gullible fools.
DeleteAnon at 8.31. Easy question. How many K Cs? And what are their names? No? You made it up didn’t you? Expert evidence based on forensic accounting isn’t rocket science. Lack of evidence is the reason no one has been prosecuted. And if you think the police investigation wasn’t part of a politically motivated smear campaign you are part of the problem.
Delete