Sturgeon v Salmond - I'm confused!

[DublinGirl83]

I'm not in Scotland, a keen follower of UK gov politics, though less knowledgable about Scottish politics. I've been trying to follow this Salmond / Sturgeon thing closely, but I'm confused about a few details. Was wondering if any Scottish politics geeks could shed any light?

1. So far as I can tell, Salmond has made a number of specific accusations which have been redacted from the documents published online. I understand these docs were published but were subsequently taken down. Is anywhere publishing these details? They must have been out there is the general domain? BBC is not and it all sounds cryptic. Does anyone on here actually know what the issues are?

1. As a result of these details being blocked from public viewing by the state, Salmond therefore felt he couldn't give evidence as he would be unable to speak his version of events. Again, does anyone actually know what these details are?

1. Why would the Scottish gov and / or Sturgeon want to see him jailed? (As is his accusation). Surely his time had passed and he wasn't a threat?

1. What is the general consensus on here about who is telling the truth? And also, do we think he was guilty of the original sexual assault charges?

Thank you if you've read this far! X

[Viviennemary]

I think Sturgeon is in it up to her neck. Not remembering important meetings. Then she did remember. I read he was returning to politics. They were afraid he might be more popular than Sturgeon so there was a concerted plan to bring these allegations. Ruth Davidson has been speaking out against the corruption.

[DublinGirl83]

Oh wow! Yes, I heard Davidson talking about it and how they're all saying it's a scourge on democracy... was just baffled given no facts.

[Elvesaremagic]

Sturgeon wanted him out of the picture as his ego and hers were a bit of a clash. She wasn’t going hell for leather for another indie ref, others in the SNP think she is dragging her heels and needs to get on with it. I am not sure she actually wanted him jailed though, just wanted to blacken his name.

I don’t think it’s as bad as he is making out but I think she’s lied and misrepresented to parliament a d if she has any decency ought to resign. She won’t.

[StatisticallyChallenged]

1. So far as I can tell, Salmond has made a number of specific accusations which have been redacted from the documents published online. I understand these docs were published but were subsequently taken down. Is anywhere publishing these details? They must have been out there is the general domain? BBC is not and it all sounds cryptic. Does anyone on here actually know what the issues are?

I have both copies and a number of places are posting them. www.craigmurray.org.uk/ has the main one (bolded paragraphs were redacted), the daily mail has content. It is everywhere.

2. As a result of these details being blocked from public viewing by the state, Salmond therefore felt he couldn't give evidence as he would be unable to speak his version of events. Again, does anyone actually know what these details are?
See above. Also try searching on twitter, or WIngs over Scotland, for the letters from Salmonds lawyers (Levy and McRae) but in essence the argument is that these paragraphs were redacted because they would be contempt of court. Most lawyers say they aren't, and they have been published in the Spectator, but if the cps are taking the view that it is then it would be risky for Salmond to testify to it. The committee also can't consider the evidence.

3. Why would the Scottish gov and / or Sturgeon want to see him jailed? (As is his accusation). Surely his time had passed and he wasn't a threat?

Many theories - nobody knows for sure

4. What is the general consensus on here about who is telling the truth? And also, do we think he was guilty of the original sexual assault charges?
I don't think there is a consensus but there's another thread in this section where it;s discussed

[StatisticallyChallenged]

When you say you don't believe in the conspiracy theories, what is it you don't believe?

I'm still unconvinced the whole thing was a set up - although at least some of the accusations seem dodgy - but at bare minimum it looks like there was a massive failure in the complaints process development and complaints handling and that they're trying very hard to cover something up, whatever it is.

[Aurea]

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcscotland

[Aurea]

Watch Ruth Davidson take down NS.

[dementedma]

I should state first that I despise Alex Salmond and I am an ardent feminist BUT...he was found innocent of all charges by a court. Therefore it must follow that at least some of the charges were false. Why then are these women not being charged with perjury or contempt of court?
Personally I wouldn’t me remotely surprised if he’s as guilty as fuck, but that’s not the point. If he was found innocent, then the charges are false. No?

[BlackForestCake]

That's a terrible idea. The law is not just for Alex Salmond. Imagine if you were sexually assaulted and the man was acquitted for reason X, Y, or Z and you were then charged with perjury?

[TokyoSushi]

It's so complicated that it's just about straight in my own head, but I'm not sure that I could explain it to anybody else!

It all looks very murky from a Sturgeon/Murrell perspective and like they were up to something, it's just the proving it what exactly they were up to that's the issue!

[Graffitiqueen]

@dementedma

I should state first that I despise Alex Salmond and I am an ardent feminist BUT...he was found innocent of all charges by a court. Therefore it must follow that at least some of the charges were false. Why then are these women not being charged with perjury or contempt of court?
Personally I wouldn’t me remotely surprised if he’s as guilty as fuck, but that’s not the point. If he was found innocent, then the charges are false. No?

No. It means that they couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

[StarryEyeSurprise]

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=443328833753752

Watch this video the Conservatives have had created. I'm teaching film literacy at the moment - notice the 'warning', 'error' and 'power' words streaming across the screen. Their strategy is very much the same as Trump's. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
Re a cover up - NS had nothing to gain from helping AS and actually the investigation is that he was treated too harshly. That being said, it was Leslie Evans who persuaded the women to go to the police ( civil servant , not appointed by the SG). AS had, of course , already left politics.
OP- I'd be interested to know if political parties create videos like this where you are.

[GirlLovesWorld]

@dementedma

I should state first that I despise Alex Salmond and I am an ardent feminist BUT...he was found innocent of all charges by a court. Therefore it must follow that at least some of the charges were false. Why then are these women not being charged with perjury or contempt of court?
Personally I wouldn’t me remotely surprised if he’s as guilty as fuck, but that’s not the point. If he was found innocent, then the charges are false. No?

Think of how low the rate of conviction for sexual assault in this country:

"(Convictions) down 17 percentage points from 73% in 2009-10 to 56% in 2018-19 (reaching its lowest rate of the last ten years)"

I don't know how you can say that because he wasn't able to be proven guilty that there were false charges? Men in this country fuck women to death with weapons and aren't convicted, FFS.

[Blurberoo]

The point is that these were malicious accusations, @GirlLovesWorld. In bringing these charges to the court the complainers themselves and the SG in pursuing this vendetta have done much harm to real victims of sexual assault.

[GirlLovesWorld]

How do we know they were malicious?

I know that AS has been saying so; so would I if I were an old perv who had been caught out though.

I haven't followed this closely so my question is genuine.

[RunnerDown]

AS was found not guilty. They couldn’t prove he was guilty in court. That’s not the same as being innocent . It doesn’t necessarily mean that all charges were false.
I listened to the hearing and it seemed that there had been previous allegations made against him which were handled informally . I find that worrying. His complaint seems to partly be about process and using new legislation to address historical complaints of sexual harassment.

Mumsnet is generally very anti SNP. Likewise I don’t trust Craig Murray and his cronies. You would be wise to seek your information from less biased sources

[GirlLovesWorld]

Well that's what I was thinking @RunnerDown

I am very familiar with the anti-SNP groupthink on this board. I'm not even necessarily pro-SNP but I've been deemed not to hate them quite enough to be in with the in-crowd I think.

🤷🏻‍♀️

[StatisticallyChallenged]

@RunnerDown

AS was found not guilty. They couldn’t prove he was guilty in court. That’s not the same as being innocent . It doesn’t necessarily mean that all charges were false.
I listened to the hearing and it seemed that there had been previous allegations made against him which were handled informally . I find that worrying. His complaint seems to partly be about process and using new legislation to address historical complaints of sexual harassment.

Mumsnet is generally very anti SNP. Likewise I don’t trust Craig Murray and his cronies. You would be wise to seek your information from less biased sources

My understanding is that there was one incidents raised informally, apology issued and the woman offered a transfer which was rejected. I think this then became one of the two internal complaints, and then became the "not proven" charge in court.

No judgement there - just outlining how they tie together

[anon444877]

It hasn't done women any favours to rush through a retrospective harassment policy, fail to convict and then use victim protection as an excuse to cover up ministerial misconduct.

I don't know what I believe about Salmond and the complainants, but I do know that all of the above, presided over by a woman perhaps with her heart in the right place has nevertheless been a worse outcome for women.

It's certainly put the lid on any further retrospective cases at the very least.

[StatisticallyChallenged]

What woman would feel confident coming forward after this omnishambles?

[WaxOnFeckOff]

This video from about 10 mins to about 16 mins explains the legal set up and how that is affected by the Advocate also being a minister in Holyrood for anyone interested in trying to understand the structure around why things have not been allowed to be published etc.

[MissBarbary]

@dementedma

I should state first that I despise Alex Salmond and I am an ardent feminist BUT...he was found innocent of all charges by a court. Therefore it must follow that at least some of the charges were false. Why then are these women not being charged with perjury or contempt of court?
Personally I wouldn’t me remotely surprised if he’s as guilty as fuck, but that’s not the point. If he was found innocent, then the charges are false. No?

He was found not guilty. The Crown didn't prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It does not follow that the allegations were false.

[UpToMyElbowsInDiapers]

With names like “Sturgeon” and “Salmond” how could anyone possibly be surprised that something fishy could be going on?

Sorry... felt it had to be said. :p