Clem Fandango

It doesn't seem to matter what evidence you show people. If it makes them feel unsafe about what they think they know, They'll deny it.

[Clem Fandango @ColonyScotland]

I’m sure we all remember the Alex Salmond criminal trial and its outcome: a full acquittal on every charge. I mention it for a reason. Even though Salmond was found not guilty, he was in genuine danger of being convicted regardless of the evidence he presented.

His defence was exceptionally strong — strong enough to withstand the pressure — but the wider legal environment in Scotland at the time made the risk far greater than most people realised.

For years, the Scottish Government had been pursuing policies aimed at increasing conviction rates in sexual‑offence cases. This created a climate in which the judiciary was expected to “deliver results,” and judges were under pressure to interpret the law in ways that favoured complainers. In practice, this meant that evidence from accused men was often restricted or excluded, while the Crown’s narrative was given greater freedom.

A key part of this was the way Scottish courts used sections 274 and 275. These provisions were intended to regulate sensitive evidence — but they were increasingly applied in a way that tilted the playing field, limiting what the defence could present to a jury. Even though Salmond was ultimately cleared, the structure of the system meant that things could easily have gone very differently.

The seriousness of this problem has now been confirmed at the highest level. In November 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled in Keir and Daly v HM Advocate that Scotland’s practice of excluding relevant defence evidence on common‑law “relevance” grounds breached the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court stated plainly that “no society governed in accordance with the rule of law can tolerate the conviction and punishment of the innocent.”

This ruling exposes just how far the system had drifted. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates intervened in the case to warn that the balance between protecting complainers and ensuring a fair defence had been lost — and the Supreme Court agreed.

Even though the individual appeals in Keir and Daly were dismissed, the constitutional principle is now beyond dispute: the way Scottish courts handled sexual‑offence evidence for more than a decade was unlawful and risked wrongful convictions.

That is why I hope you’ll watch the video. Our legal system is in a far worse state than many of us realised, and the implications of this ruling are only beginning to unfold.
https://t.co/yM5lNhbi6H

[Bill Cowan 🍒🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇦🇺 @BillDunblane]

If he has the means to pay back over £400,000, and it is suggested by his legal team that he has, why on earth is he getting legal aid?

[Clem Fandango @ColonyScotland]

@scotlandyes3

[Christophe Dorigné-Thomson @thomsonchris]

‘Voluntary Union’ or annexation? The main architect gave his answer. What else.

[Sara Salyers @SSalyers2]

This is a bigger deal than it might seem… 🙂 It’s very good news indeed,

[𝙾𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 @overlandertheb1]

Still available in the Inverness @waterstones!

[Paul Hutcheon @paulhutcheon]

NEW: Police Scotland says it will not reinvestigate the 600k of indyref2 donations to the SNP after a fresh complaint by Sean Clerkin.

[Paul McManus DR11UMS @Dr11Ums]

Mr McAlpine is certainly right about me - I’m not settling out of court 😉

[Clem Fandango @ColonyScotland]

@CrossgateCentre here has to be a civil action and a tasty crowdfunder....it's our only way forward

[Popular Sovereignty @Douglas_Haribo]

When Scotland is returned to its pre - 1707 status,
that is RESTORATION and not SEPARATION.

There was no legal union in 1707, so when Scotland is decolonised, that is a return to its rightful status.

That is not breaking up or tearing apart.

[Richard Medhurst @richimedhurst]

Literally half the problems on this planet can be traced back to the UK. Including the US and Israel. It's extraordinary.

[Clem Fandango @ColonyScotland]

This 👇

[Tenement Rebel Bitch 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @SatyagrahAlba]

We believed the SNP were us, that we finally had representation that would do their honest best for ordinary Scots and who better to do that than ordinary Scots? The lesson here is they became government, rich and like Labour before them, they shafted us.

[Aye News @newshacksreboot]

Says the woman who dresses like she has been covered in glue and kicked through a curtain fabric remnant factory

[Citizen Pangloss @SophiaPangloss]

@serialsockthief It's like someone got all the Scottish MPs to stand in a line-up based on how bright they are, then they just started with Kirsty and worked backwards, handed her the clipboard and got her to sign and hand it on, then Nadia followed with the lollipops...

[Benjamin Harrop @benjamin_harrop]

I also, keep seeing the informatiom which I request, labelled as the "Salmond Files", they aren't "files" about Salmond, they are "files" about an investigation into Sturgeon. Unsure how fair it is for Mr Salmond/his family for his name to be used as a label for these "files".

[Clem Fandango @ColonyScotland]

@DaveLukewarm @JNHanvey My own Bio - It doesn't seem to matter what evidence you show people. If it makes them feel unsafe about what they think they know, They'll deny it.

[Annie Glen @AnnieGlen20]

SNP? The FINANCE Committee?

[Sam Taylor @staylorish]

John Swinney loses his cool (twice) at FMQs when his personal integrity is quite legitimately questioned.

[Cathures72 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @Cathures72]

@ColonyScotland That was an interesting watch, I had no idea about this. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and they have the right to present any evidence that could show their innocence, that should be a given.

[Clem Fandango @ColonyScotland]

@Cathures72 Aye, I was gobsmacked at this. I had no knowledge of this either.

[Clem Fandango @ColonyScotland]

I’m sure we all remember the Alex Salmond criminal trial and its outcome: a full acquittal on every charge. I mention it for a reason. Even though Salmond was found not guilty, he was in genuine danger of being convicted regardless of the evidence he presented.

His defence was exceptionally strong — strong enough to withstand the pressure — but the wider legal environment in Scotland at the time made the risk far greater than most people realised.

For years, the Scottish Government had been pursuing policies aimed at increasing conviction rates in sexual‑offence cases. This created a climate in which the judiciary was expected to “deliver results,” and judges were under pressure to interpret the law in ways that favoured complainers. In practice, this meant that evidence from accused men was often restricted or excluded, while the Crown’s narrative was given greater freedom.

A key part of this was the way Scottish courts used sections 274 and 275. These provisions were intended to regulate sensitive evidence — but they were increasingly applied in a way that tilted the playing field, limiting what the defence could present to a jury. Even though Salmond was ultimately cleared, the structure of the system meant that things could easily have gone very differently.

The seriousness of this problem has now been confirmed at the highest level. In November 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled in Keir and Daly v HM Advocate that Scotland’s practice of excluding relevant defence evidence on common‑law “relevance” grounds breached the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court stated plainly that “no society governed in accordance with the rule of law can tolerate the conviction and punishment of the innocent.”

This ruling exposes just how far the system had drifted. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates intervened in the case to warn that the balance between protecting complainers and ensuring a fair defence had been lost — and the Supreme Court agreed.

Even though the individual appeals in Keir and Daly were dismissed, the constitutional principle is now beyond dispute: the way Scottish courts handled sexual‑offence evidence for more than a decade was unlawful and risked wrongful convictions.

That is why I hope you’ll watch the video. Our legal system is in a far worse state than many of us realised, and the implications of this ruling are only beginning to unfold.
https://t.co/yM5lNhbi6H