On Thursday (August 17th) we ‘tweeted’ a poll asking what people feel should happen to the witnesses who committed perjury in the trial of Alex Salmond.
The poll is drawing to a close now (Saturday evening) and the result is overwhelming.
Of course, these ‘polls’ are not scientific and we are not professionals in the field. We are aware that the question could be posed in a multitude of ways and the list of possible responses is much longer than the 4 options we provided.
And ‘polls’ are meant to be impartial. Professional psephologists take great care over the wording of questions because the subtleties involved in anticipating likely responses are crucially important.
But we are not impartial.
We believe that Alex Salmond was the victim of a malicious conspiracy, the aim of which was to see him criminally convicted of multiple attempted rape/sexual assault charges. The verdict of the jury and subsequent reaction of all the main parties involved has been well documented elsewhere. The poll explicitly assumes Alex Salmond’s innocence. Although we have no way of knowing who the voters are, we must also assume that most agree - we provided no choice for those who maintain that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ and we have seen no comments claiming such in the responses to the poll.
So, here it is:
Should the 'Alphabetty' perjurers be prosecuted, exonerated in exchange for full disclosure, exiled, or something else?
By the time this post is published, the poll will have closed and the final number of votes is likely to be very close to 600. That is not an insignificant total given that our X (Twitter) account is 3 months old and we have only 566 followers. It is also likely to have had 5,000 views. Again, this is not remarkable, but the thread of comments took an interesting twist last night:
The Crossgate Centre #SupportsAlexSalmond
Interesting comment from our Facebook page - though we don't know if such a private prosecution - perhaps crowdfunded - would be a possible legal route to breaching the conspiracy of silence & causing the first domino to fall in bringing the perjurers to book & those behind them.
We don’t ‘do’ Facebook, but if the response there mirrors the surge in ‘twitter’ activity relating to Iain Hughes’ suggestion then something important is unfolding via social media which the mainstream media cannot and will not address i.e. what is to be done about the perjurers?
No reasonable person could be expected to believe, or dare assert, that perjury didn’t occur. It was blatant. We are not lawyers but we cannot imagine that a clearer example exists. Again, the particulars have been explored elsewhere at great length and only the extraordinary behaviour of the presiding judge has kept those details from the wider public.
No-one with more than a passing interest in Scottish political developments over the past decade can have failed to notice, with great disquiet, a sinister melding of the organs of state, reinforced in this case by the apparent collusion of mainstream media in perpetuating a campaign of smear and innuendo against a man declared innocent by a jury.
And the most vital element of that campaign is the continued protection of the witnesses now widely referred to as ‘the alphabet women’.
We will not name names. We won’t even use the initials. But we know that everyone else knows that (most of) the names and corresponding letters were revealed years ago.
Alex Salmond confirmed today that he has written to Humza Yousaf (yet again) appealing for some common sense to prevail as the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election draws closer. If a ‘Scotland United’ candidate cannot be agreed-upon and supported by all independence-supporting parties then the likelihood is that Labour will win. We are not aware of any suggestion that Yousaf will heed the advice.
But something which all parties should be able to unite on - and we mean all parties, not just those in favour of independence - is the fundamental importance of trust in civic life. The current situation is intolerable. No political activist, be they a member of Alba, the Conservatives, SWP, the Brexit Party or whatever else, can be expected to campaign for issues they believe in when the ruling government has shown itself capable of such malicious intent and contempt for the law which it is duty-bound to uphold. Worse - no voter can be expected to participate in elections at any level when trust in the institutions responsible for ensuring free and fair ballots has been so critically damaged.
We urge readers to read the thread following our poll, and then follow the comments in response to Crossgate Centre and Iain Hughes.
Something is stirring.
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
