Ms Evans was the Permanent Secretary of Scotland. If I understood correctly, her remake was to work within the boundaries of the government of Scotland, ie MSPs and people working in Holyrood. It is understood that Ms Evans job boundaries, like any other civil servant’s, are constrained to government, not political parties. In other words,Continue reading "SOME KEY QUESTIONS FROM MIA"

Photo by Magda Ehlers on

Ms Evans was the Permanent Secretary of Scotland. If I understood correctly, her remake was to work within the boundaries of the government of Scotland, ie MSPs and people working in Holyrood. It is understood that Ms Evans job boundaries, like any other civil servant’s, are constrained to government, not political parties. In other words, she had no business sticking her nose in SNP matters.

She did not work at UK level either, therefore I do not see how this lady could be justified in the eyes of anyone with a brain cell having the legitimacy to send those emails, which clearly interfered in conduct matters within a political party, were regarding a person who had worked in Westminster but no longer did so, and were addressed to somebody who was working in Westminster and not in Holyrood, therefore not under the remake of Evans..

So it begs the question of exactly in what capacity Ms Evans, a Scot gov civil servant, could be legitimately harassing Ms Anne Harvie in Westminster and fishing for gossip. Shouldn’t that be the job of the police or even reporters? Are we to understand Ms Evans was so overpaid on her civil servant job and so underwhelmed and bored with the duties of her own role that she took on her own accord the job of amateur detective as well? And not a detective of Scotland’s police, mind, but of the Metropolitan police. 

No, it cannot be, because searching for intel on Mr Salmond could only become the job of the police if Mr Salmond had been reported and there is a justification to start the investigation.

So what do we have here? What we have is what looks like preliminary field research.

I don’t see how Ms Evans could be gathering this information for personal interest. If there was even the most remote possibility this could have ever been the case, then she risked being sacked on the spot because it would be abusing a UK civil service job and the position of authority that comes with it to obtain information for personal benefit. I cannot see how this could have ever been floated as respectful of the civil service code of conduct or even as lawful.

The gathering of information could not have been done on behalf of Sturgeon, or the SNP either. If that had been the case, she could not have acting on her capacity as permanent secretary, because a civil servant cannot have political involvement. Directly interacting with SNP staffers in Westminster is precisely that. She would have been taking a huge risk of being sacked for misconduct.

These two options sound therefore improbable and risky. They do not sound like the kind of adrenaline rush a mediocre civil servant with low appetite for political danger, as her degree in Music would suggest, and about to retire into the comforts of a conveniently large civil servant pension and nice contacts, would choose.

If somebody with a nice and cushy retirement on the horizon was going to take such a dangerous move, it had to be because that retirement would never be compromised by the risk of a prison sentence. In other words, it had to be guaranteed by somebody of far more relevance and status and permanence than Sturgeon or the higher echelons of the SNP. It would have to be somebody with sufficient power to suppress information from a parliamentary inquiry that could compromise her, somebody with sufficient power to eliminate compromising evidence form a court case that could incriminate her. It would have to be somebody able to make Evans an offer she could not refuse and able to protect her if things went awry. I don’t think any politician in Scotland could make that kind of offer.

From the evidence presented to the parliamentary inquiry, it seems the crown agent took the highly unusual route of exercising the COPFS position of power to direct the police from above onto Mr Salmond’s witch hunt. So, could it be that Ms Evans was doing field research on behalf of the crown agent so this could put together the case? If this was what was happening, then was she working on field research still as “permanent secretary”, allegedly above the crown agent, or was she working now as her executive assistant and under his command?

So here is my one million pounds question: was she doing the “research” on behalf of her official boss, the top UK civil servant who also controls MI5, or was she doing it on behalf of the crown, the crown agent’s boss?

The crown was represented in all this in three different forms. Firstly, by a judge cleansing evidence from the court case that would have thrown out the Moorov strategy by showing collusion between accusers. This judge gave a protective cloak of anonymity to perjurers. Secondly by the COPFS, actively suppressing information from the parliamentary inquiry and the public eye before Holyrood election, and actively threatening witnesses with prosecution if they dared to defend themselves. Thirdly by a crown agent instructing the police to investigate Mr Salmond, justifying the waste of an obscene amount of taxpayer’s money into a pathetic and politically motivated witch hunt.

Let’s imagine the scenario where Ms Evans was doing research for the crown agent. And that after the precedent set out by the crown agent, now the COPFS openly dictates what Scotland’s police investigates, rather than the other way round. Couldn’t all this be clear proof that neither the COPFS nor the UK civil service nor the police are independent entities at all and the three of them are arms of the same thing and working in collusion? So what is that “thing” they all are working for?

And if the three, allegedly independent entities are colluding, aren’t we in presence of what could be seen as a fascist state where the crown’s arms, the police and the government are operating in tandem to direct political arrests, prosecutions and sentences to ultimate destroy the reputation and finances of ideologically non-compliant individuals and putting innocent people in prison? How could such disgusting abuse of power ever be construed as lawful in the context of a parliamentary democracy in the 21st century where the monarchy only has residual powers?

How such situation can ever be construed as lawful when the same is not seen at all in England or UK level where the COPFS and government are clearly ring-fenced from each other and knowingly so? 

And if the Bill of Rights protects the speech of MPs in Westminster, how is it that our Claim of Right does not protect the speech of our own MSPs so a corrupt to the core COPFS can blatantly bully our parliamentary committees into silence and suppress evidence of great public interest?

It cannot be seen as lawful and if it is presented as lawful it can only be because the courts and judges have ceased to do their jobs and are no longer functional. They have become another colonial tool used to shut down dissent and to drain power away from the people.

I do not understand how the minute those emails to Ms Anne Harvie were presented on the screen of that court of law Ms Evans was not immediately sacked for gross misconduct and abuse of her position of power.

If it is true that the whatsapp messages from the vietnam group revealed some form of collusion from the accusers, I do not understand how the courts could have allowed the moorov strategy to continue in Mr Salmond’s case. If those whatsapp messages suggested collusion, then the criminal case was clearly a fabrication. The only way I can understand this is if the courts and judges are no longer doing their job and have become a colonial tool of restrain.

Following with the many questions, from where exactly did Ms Evans get the contact details for Ms Anne Harvie, never mind the intel that she could have some information useful for the criminal case? I might be wrong on this, but such information could only have come from the SNP itself or MI5. Did Ms Anne Harvie give anybody consent for her contact information to be disclosed to a civil servant working in the Scottish government and only within the limits of Holyrood? Because if she didn’t could such disclosure be construed as a direct breach of the Data Protection Act and Ms Harvie’s and Mr Salmond’s rights?

Apparently we have:

1. a judge representing the crown seemingly using their position of power to reject as valid evidence, emails and the whatsapp messages of the vietnam group, what very much looks like proof of collusion and political conspiracy

2. a crown agent also representing the crown seemingly taking the highly unusual route of building a criminal case first and then, a posteriori, directing the police to effect a criminal investigation, when you would expect the route would be the inverse: the police presenting the case to the COPFS. It looks like a completely upside down process: one where the police investigation appears to have been designed to justify the case, not to create the case.

3. A senior civil servant from the Scot government, allegedly an independent entity from COPFS, was seemingly gathering intel that might be have been used by the crown agent to instruct a police investigation.

4. The COPFS also representing the crown suppressing information of high public interest to protect the SGov civil servants

5. The steps required for Evans first to find out who to contact for gossip, then acquiring the contact information to do so and then acquiring the authorisation to do so (not necessarily on that order) 

All this takes one to wonder if this intervention by Evans could be interpreted as the proof of a massive collusion between the SnP executive or whoever their data controller is, the UK civil service and the crown.

Could the crown’s fingerprints be over this? In 1707 the union was instigated by the crown who also nominated the commissioners who removed, on their own accord and without the consent of parliament, the option for a federal union from the negotiating table. Are we before another highly politicised intervention of the crown overruling democracy like it did in 1707 for its own advantage and preservation?

The UK gov is the crown’s executive, isn’t it? Well, isn’t this executive precisely the one who, since 2016 has been self-awarding itself the power to deny us our referendum? Where does that executive get the power to deny that referendum from? England? a political party with 25% support in Scotland? or from the crown it represents?

Could this be the reason why they have been able to find 12 unprincipled useful idiots ready to perjure themselves, who like judas were only to keen to assist the devil on sending an innocent man to die in prison, to stop independence?

Too many questions and not enough answers


As usual we can rely on Mia to target in on some of the key questions, the ones that contrast expected practice and what really happened in the attempted fix up to convict Alex Salmond. I wonder how so many SNP members can turn a blind eye to all these anomalies? Every day the lid gets closer to being edged off the tin as more and more becomes known about how the plot was put together. We are way past pointing fingers, there are now drum rolls and spotlights falling on many of the key “background” shadowy players. It is now only a matter of time before the whole truth emerges…tick tock!

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.


The purpose of this blog is to advance Scottish Independence. That requires honesty and fair reporting of events and opinions. Some pro SNP Indy sites have difficulty with that and seek to ban any blogger who dares to criticise  the Party or its leader. As Yours for Scotland will not bend our principles and allow this attack on free speech to be successful we rely on our readership sharing and promoting our articles on a regular basis. This invalidates the attempts at censorship and ensures the truth gets out there. I thank you most sincerely for this important support.


Are available from the Home and Blog pages of this website. This ensures you are advised of every new article published on Yours for Scotland. Join the thousands already subscribed and be the first to get the news every day. You will be most welcome.


This site has never sought donations, indeed we have a £3 limit alongside a message further explaining that donations are not required. That has now changed as the costs of running this blog for 2022 have already been raised in donation, therefore  for the remainder of this year  all donations made to this site will be forwarded to Salvo to help them educate Scots on the 1689 Claim of Right. This is vital work and we must all do what we can to support it.