To think that the Alex Salmond evidence story deserves to be given more importance by the U.K. news channels.

[Tamingofthehamster]

For a story all about corruption and overreaching power, which could potentially bring down the Scottish First Minister, why is it only ranking 20th in Sky News?

@Happinessisawarmcervix

He didn't deny that the things happened, it was the consent, or lack thereof, that he denied.

Don’t want to derail further but he did deny several of the allegations, including the attempted rape of Ms H. His defence was that it did not happen, she was not there on the date she claimed and witnesses backed him up.

I'll correct that then. On most of the counts he doesn't deny the incidents happened. He has questions to answer about his conduct in regard to his position.

He's a creepy man who is in a raging huff that Nicola Sturgeon didn't back him after he'd backed her taking over from him is my take on it.

It's a travesty the internal enquiry was so botched.

However, in regard to handing the report to the police Peter Murrell was damned either way. I can only imagine the fallout if it was found later that there was an enquiry, the SNP decided there was nothing to be found and didn't hand it to the police...

I also think the underlying current of "it was a bad idea to have the SNP chairperson and First Minister be married to each other" is very dangerous road to go down. If there becomes a train of thought, or unofficial policy, that no couple can hold high offices then we all know that it's far more likely that the woman's career will be fucked more often than the mans.

When you delve into it a bit more it becomes much, much more shocking and murky. The current legal situation has not been driven by Alex Salmond AT ALL, he is merely giving evidence at an inquiry into the mishandling of the SGs clear vendetta against him. To be clear, the government were trying to put a man in jail for fabricated crimes. The group of women accusers were coordinated in their complaints and the laws were changed to protect their anonymity. The women making the complaints are likely to be powerful women who work closely with Nicola sturgeon, going by the various reports by the bbc and others into the allegations. The women have been proven in court to have been either lying or that there’s no credible evidence against AS. The meetings that NS is trying to expunge from history are ones where she is proven to be lying about her involvement and what has been put on the record. Instead of offering her resignation she is covering it all up, refusing to comply, kicking the can up the road to avoid scrutiny. She is essentially filibustering until the committee is dissolved in March.The whole thing absolutely stinks. There are a great many other corruption issues going on not least the takeover of the NEC, the disappearance of significant ringfenced funds, the complete disconnect between members of the SNP and the leadership, the smearing and sacking of perceived threats...*

All of this, and an undermining of women's rights too through the SNP's GRA and Hate Crimes bills.

I am an SNP member and activist. I am so concerned about what is happening in our party just now. There needs to be a big clear-out and the Murrells should be the first to be shown the door.

It baffles me when people express concern about undermining of women’s rights - absolutely a concern and a big one atm - but then refer to a woman by her husband’s name when she doesn’t use it.

I really don’t get that at all.

The danger of unicameral systems is that they can be dominated by a powerful individual/s and can be very unaccountable unless a lot of checks and balances are in place (remember Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell too). Scotland has a "ministerial code" but if the mechanism that enforces it becomes corrupted or the enforcement mechanism is weak and unclear then the dangers are obvious.

So devolution created a government with an array of law-making powers but lost most of the checks and balances in the British Constitution.

These are other countries which have a unicameral legislature. Apart from the Scandinavian countries, they're not exactly shining beacons of accountable democracy at work. Its also interesting that Switzerland, an even smaller country than Scotland, has a highly accountable bicameral system.

Albania, Andorra, Azerbijan, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Estonia, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Krygystan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Malawi, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, North Macedonia, Norway, Palestine, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Quatar, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Surinam, Sweden, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Araba Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia.

@roundturnandtwohalfhitches

I have spent days trying to work out whats going on with this Salmond thing. I'm not a member of any political party so I don't have any skin in the game. As far as I can work out, Salmond is a man seeking revenge. He got accused of the harrassment stuff, thought he could rely on NS et al to support him. They did the only thing they could politically by stepping away from it. Possibly because they knew he was what my mother would call 'handsy'. On a personal level he felt betrayed by his friends and political colleagues and has tried to find some sort of massive conspiracy behind it. He's now hell bent on getting his revenge and bringing NS etc down with him. I don't think it helps that he has people inside the party cheering him on. As for NS all I can see is that she is accused of speaking to him earlier than she said she did by a few days and judging by the texts published yesterday, I think she was trying to get out of speaking to him at all.

This

@Pinkfreesias

I keep seeing posts on MN, from people in England, about how great Sturgeon is and how she should be PM. Clearly, many people don't really look closely at what is happening here in divided Scotland. It's a travesty that the shambles which is Holyrood seems to go unreported by the UK media and unnoticed by the rest of the UK public. Its far more than just the Salmond issue.

Thing is, I think many people just read it as Scotland now equals SNP. It has been a very effective message. SNP say Westminster (ie UK) needs to get out. They consistently win elections on their independence policy.

People in Scotland must know in electing the SNP that interaction with the UK Government is well, not that friendly as an actual thing, not just a slogan and that the UK media don't get receptive treatment either - the Spectator and Andrew Neill are busy not caring about that.

With many Scots being anti Union that we build links with each other in the UK. The public message is, Scotland is separate.

To those of you wondering why the "forgotten" dates matter. It's this. Imagine your sister told you she heard your former boss, mentor and one time friend of many years had been accused of sexual misconduct. It would be a total bombshell, leaving you shocked to the core if you had no idea of any such allegations ever before (NS claims she had never ever heard anything about Alex Salmond's alleged conduct before this whole thing by the way - so wouldn't forget this shocking moment of revelation. Like when you heard about Diana or 9/11) . A few days later, your neighbour tells you the same story. When you are asked later when you first heard these allegations, you say when your neighbour told you. It's not the dates that matter so much but when she knew, how she knew and what action NS took after knowing. By claiming she heard later than she did, NS can wriggle out of being aware of the relevance of other decisions she took which were connected to the case. That's why it absolutely stinks.

For example...www.heraldscotland.com/news/18858466.alex-salmond-inquiry-nicola-sturgeon-ordered-misconduct-policy-48-hours-accuser-disclosure-aide/

And this one www.spectator.co.uk/article/now-the-trial-of-nicola-sturgeon-begins explains again why those dates matter.

A good article from Andrew Neil - yes it's the Daily Mail but he is a serious journalist www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9297015/ANDREW-NEIL-Nicola-Sturgeons-storm-troops-turned-Scotland-banana-republic.html

Andrew Neil is brilliant. He likes facts and talking about them. Scotland needs more like him.

Andrew Neil also favours a banana as his favourite snack...

Thanks for posting that Andrew Neil article. I just wish everyone would read it.

I think (as shown on this thread) that because people find Salmond as creepy and slimy anyway, they don’t care about the story, without finding out why absolutely we should care, whatever your view of Salmond.

The ranking is due to people’s choice to read it or not. I can’t say it is something I have been following, because I simply do not understand the issue. I know there is something about a statement having a section redacted, but when I look at it uncensored it stated that NS knew about something on the 29 March not 2 April. Big deal? Nope I just don’t get it and a not going to waste any more energy trying to make sense when it is reported so unclearly.

YOu might not get it but if it's found NS lied to gov she must step down - surely that's a pretty big event.

I think people have formed opinions of Salmond over the years and there is precious little sympathy for him.

So NS and hubby gets to run the despotic set up ad infinitum.
Personally give me AS over NS any time.

The Andrew Neil article has helped a lot. I understand the issue much better now.

So, basically, this isn’t about the trial at all. That’s a completely different issue. It’s purely about whether NS lied to or try to deceive the parliamentary inquiry. If she did, she must resign. She says there is no evidence against her. Others would say that it’s because she has abused her power to hide all the evidence against her and this is a pattern of bullying, lying, manipulative behavior from the SNP.

Either she is found not to have lied, which is worrying because it seems many people think she did and has used to power to cover it up and she can stay on.

She is found to have lied and resigns, which is worrying because it seems the rot goes further than NS into the top ranks of the SNP.

Or the top echelons of the SNP are held to account. In which case, where does that leave Scotland?

All of this makes me really sad. I dont like her politics but I want to support women in power and women brave enough to guve evidence in court in sexual assault etc cases.

I read the Andrew Neil article. Some points that stand out:

There have been legal threats made by government institutions in Scotland to prevent newspapers publishing certain paragraphs about the parliamentary enquiry.

At least one 8f these was challenged successfully by the English based Spectator magazine in court.

Scottish based newspapers such as The Scotsnan only sell around 10,000 copies per day now and lack the resources to challenge such legal threads.

A retired Glasgow University law professor has been published in the Scotsnan stating that the Crown Office in Scotland is not indendent from government.

The Scottish government has and continues to provide heavily redacted infornation to the two parliamentary enquiries into the handling by the Scottish Parliament if the case and the current enquiry. For example, when asked for diary entries for the first minister on certain relevant dates, blank sheets of paper were handed over to the enquiry.

I keep seeing bits of news about this, and keep meaning to look into the full story, I am interested in what is happening but it will be weekend before I get chance to catch up. You are not wrong about it barely being in the news though (England).

It's being covered on R4 Today show right now. 7.45am.

@Tamingofthehamster

I think (as shown on this thread) that because people find Salmond as creepy and slimy anyway, they don’t care about the story, without finding out why absolutely we should care, whatever your view of Salmond.

I think you're right. I joined the thread not knowing much and have learned a lot from the links. It's hard to know what to think about it all; if there was a conspiracy as described then that's one of the worst instances of corruption I've heard of and I don't think the SNP could nor should survive it. If it's just Salmond's revenge then it's awful for the women who had the case thrown out and unfair for Sturgeon to take a hit over a meeting date. Either way, the First Minister should be able to provide a calendar in all events; redacting the names and using a description for security services (if needed) should be sufficient. It doesn't seem appropriate to be beyond any scrutiny like this and the judiciary links look concerning.

I hope the SNP will survive without that shower of corrupt creeps at the helm. There are many talented individuals in the SNP who have been deliberately sidelined by the FM, Joanna Cherry being the most obvious. If they get removed and the FM survives (surely not at this stage) then a new party will need to form. They need credible opposition anyway! If it was from another pro-Indy party holding them to account then that would be perfect in my book

The danger of unicameral systems is that they can be dominated by a powerful individual/s and can be very unaccountable unless a lot of checks and balances are in place (remember Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell too). Scotland has a "ministerial code" but if the mechanism that enforces it becomes corrupted or the enforcement mechanism is weak and unclear then the dangers are obvious
So devolution created a government with an array of law-making powers but lost most of the checks and balances in the British Constitution

An excellent summary of the position - but they wanted it, they got it and now they're paying the price of what it can create

Politics is rarely "clean", but with two individuals like this it was always going to be worse, and so it's proved
I was a bit surprised someone said there might be worries about ending up with a leader even more intense about independence though ... is there any such person?

@GreenlandTheMovie

The danger of unicameral systems is that they can be dominated by a powerful individual/s and can be very unaccountable unless a lot of checks and balances are in place (remember Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell too). Scotland has a "ministerial code" but if the mechanism that enforces it becomes corrupted or the enforcement mechanism is weak and unclear then the dangers are obvious.

So devolution created a government with an array of law-making powers but lost most of the checks and balances in the British Constitution.

These are other countries which have a unicameral legislature. Apart from the Scandinavian countries, they're not exactly shining beacons of accountable democracy at work. Its also interesting that Switzerland, an even smaller country than Scotland, has a highly accountable bicameral system.

Albania, Andorra, Azerbijan, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Estonia, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Krygystan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Malawi, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, North Macedonia, Norway, Palestine, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Quatar, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Surinam, Sweden, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Araba Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia.

New Zealand isn't an example of shining democracy at work?

Speaking as someone who lives there, the real issue is that countries with smaller populations can become a bit one-dimensional in their political discourse, and minority groups can get squashed, entirely democratically. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's happening in Scotland.

@Radio4Rocks

I think people have formed opinions of Salmond over the years and there is precious little sympathy for him.

There's a pandemic on, he needs to cool his jets for a while.

Quite right too. He is the Scottish Nigel Farage. Unfortunately, unlike Farage, he got elected to government.

Quick with a quip, happy to stretch a point, a demagogue, just the same as Farage.