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?

@Aprilx

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're confusing the 'most read' lists and the actual listing of news items. The latter is an editorial decision by the BBC.

ToadInTheHole yes, obviously I should have made my post ultra long and written a commentary on every single unicameral country.

OK, let's say that the list of countries which are unicameral and don't have a single document modern written Constitution to protect its peoole from corruption is a list which includes Scotland and most of those other countries except New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries.

Loads of coverage on radio 4 this morning including a lovely interview with a bloke explaining that although he didnt condone Alec Salmond being a creepy sex pest he wasn't convicted of anything criminal so it didnt matter.

SNP say Westminster (ie UK) needs to get out. They consistently win elections on their independence policy.

They win elections because since the POll Tax the Cons have been hated by many and because there is no Labour opposition - Labour was the dominant party in Scotland for yonks.
Kier Starmer doesn't seem to be relevant in Scotland at all. Unfortunately.

I know that I and many more articulate posters keep going on about how important this is even though it seems very confusing.

If we take it as the most basic level and NS muddled up a couple of dates and then the type of meeting they were held under, this hardly seems like the crime of the century.

But, here is the issue, by doing so, if true,NS has broken the ministerial code which seems that ministers must resign if guilty.

Then turn to the events of this week and the crown office intervention.

AS apparently has evidence to prove that NS lied about dates/type of meeting to parliament, ie the sackable offence. He was taking this evidence which has already been published by the Spectator who in turn obtained permission from the High Court of Scotland to do so. This document was also available on the Scottish Parliament website.

Then the day before AS was to appear to the committee with this evidence, the Crown Office redacted large sections in order to protect the anonymity of the women involved, the same document that 3 judges had already said was fine to publish.

The worst part is that if you take a look at the original version and compare against the redacted version there is great swathes of information redacted that has nothing to do with the women and everything to do with NS.

This is pretty damming, why would the Crown Office redact elements of a document that have absolutely nothing to do with the women involved? In doing so meant that AS was not able to use crucial parts to defend himself.

This is no longer about the women complainants and what increasingly appears to be corruption at the core of our political system.

If none of this concerns you, especially the Crown Office intervention then Scotland will truly become a tin pot dictatorship.

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

This is the narrative unionists in Scotland are wheeling out now when they make claims about Scotland being a 'single party state', 'dictatorship' etc etc, because the democratic will of the Scots people sees the SNP returned as overwhelmingly the largest party.

The irony of the fact that for decades Scotland has been 'dictated' to from Westminster by governments that are elected entirely on the whims of English voters seems utterly lost on them.

There's nothing wrong with the electoral system in Scotland. The pro-union parties just can't resolve their unelectability issues and unionists are throwing tantrums as a result.

The one that amuses me most is the accusation that Scotland is a 'single party state', when the governing, and single largest party in parliament doesn't even have an outright majority. Odd that there are no such protestations about a Westminster parliament where the governing party does have thumping majority off the back of about 34% of the vote.

If we take it as the most basic level and NS muddled up a couple of dates and then the type of meeting they were held under, this hardly seems like the crime of the century.
The bit that wasn't clear to me and The Herald's article above explained, is that in between those dates, from just Thursday to Monday, NS pushed through paperwork to apply standards to former ministers, I.e. deliberately targeting him for something she knew had occurred. I don't fully understand what was pushed through, but I do see now why the dates matter.

The worst part is that if you take a look at the original version and compare against the redacted version there is great swathes of information redacted that has nothing to do with the women and everything to do with NS

Are you aware if the identities of the complainers?

Nope but these poor women have long been forgotten in this shitstorm.

Please do read both versions for yourself and question how some of the newly redacted elements protect anonymity. Also question why 3 judges at the High Court said it was ok to publish and now suddenly the Crown Office day no. This is not a good sign.

This is the thing @MRex, most people think it’s just a wee thing about forgetting a couple of dates but when you start to read into this, you realise the implications of it all and my post was a very brief summary to hopefully get people to look into this as it’s such a big deal.

A page of AS's original testimony and the redacted version are published in the Andrew Neil article linked to above.It's pretty damning evidence.

Nope but these poor women have long been forgotten in this shitstorm

Indeed, which is why I'm astounded at certain aspects of the committee's behaviour. They know damn well who the complainers are, they know damn well why the government has been redacting papers left and right, they know damn well why Salmond wants to make his case but is concerned about being prosecuted, yet still they are carrying on with this nonsense.

Please do read both versions for yourself and question how some of the newly redacted elements protect anonymity. Also question why 3 judges at the High Court said it was ok to publish and now suddenly the Crown Office day no. This is not a good sign.

I can absolutely see why the redacted versions protect anonymity, but I suspect that's because I possess some small knowledge that is not yet commonly held by the wider public. And since Wolffe has been instrumental from the start in this in deciding what he believed it was appropriate for the SG to submit in terms of redactions, I think it's entirely understandable why his opinion on this might not have changed, despite the likes of the Spectator crowing as if they've somehow done everyone a service by hugely increasing the risk that a Court Order is broken and complainers identities exposed to a greater degree than they already have been.

The problem is, perception in the public is that Alex Salmond is gunning for Nicola Sturgeon, believes Nicola Sturgeon orchestrated the alleged 'conspiracy', and therefore, it's Nicola Sturgeon who is pulling out all the stops to frustrate the committee. He's never once said anything of the sort, merely referred to people 'at the highest level'. If more people were fully aware of the identities of the individuals involved at all points in this farce, then maybe they'd also understand a bit more about why there's an apparent veil of secrecy and reluctance to comply, but in order to do that, it would involve identifying complainers. The Spectator ruling does nothing to prevent that, regardless of what's is being claimed, and hence why COPFS are ignoring it.

It's difficult to be in that circular situation; if we knew who the women were then we'd understand why information is hidden... It relies a lot upon taking the government at face value. Can the all party committee not be trusted to take all the information and hold things private that should be held private?

Nor does it explain why 3 High Court judges permitted the spectator to publish this information. They didn’t have any concerns surrounding anonymity.

The one that amuses me most is the accusation that Scotland is a 'single party state', when the governing, and single largest party in parliament doesn't even have an outright majority. Odd that there are no such protestations about a Westminster parliament where the governing party does have thumping majority off the back of about 34% of the vote.

I see quite a lot of complaining about the consequence of FPTP, and the need for electoral reform. Perhaps it's not word on the street but it's a very live issue in political circles. The AV referendum fell flat on its face because it wasn't what was needed, nor was it supported by the government, but it's now used as an excuse for a lack of public appetite for change. It's enormously frustrating, but the wider public knowledge of voting systems is not great enough to be sparking widespread demands for a new approach, and of course FPTP has delivered a government with a large majority and zero incentive to make change.

Weirdly I've seen loads about it. And of course it's very important. But those journalists who are exposing it are ignoring the corruption in Westminster. The right wing MSM has a lot to answer for.

I was actually just coming on to say that it's depressing the amount of whataboutery on Twitter. You have no right to complain about Westminster if you do not hold holyrood to account.

It's difficult to be in that circular situation; if we knew who the women were then we'd understand why information is hidden... It relies a lot upon taking the government at face value. Can the all party committee not be trusted to take all the information and hold things private that should be held private?

You'd think, but then, there are a few other things in play that I don't believe have been adequately clarified. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Committee has no real powers, it's not above the law itself, so I would have thought that it follows that any submission that goes any way to identifying the complainers to the committee members, not the actual wider public, is in itself a breach of the court order. It's doubly daft considering that Holyrood is so insular they will know who they are in any case, but there you go.

What seems to be missing, including in the minds of those who came to the decision in the Spectator case, is that in order to identify people, you do not have to even use their names. Simply describing dates, actions, procedures, meetings, is sometimes enough to disclose who was participating, and thus, reveal their identities by providing the crucial information that permits a logical leap to be made.

None of the complainers were at the meeting which has been subsequently redacted. Neither the Spectator or Tge Daily Mail have been charged with contempt of court either.

Lady Dorrian who ruled in The spectator case no doubt has all of the information which we don’t as has ruled accordingly. Has she got it wrong?

Well evidently COPFS and the Lord Advocate for Scotland believe she has, yes.

I don't think who as not been charged with contempt should really be used as a marker either, since neither of the people who identified one of the complainers to me have ever been threatened with contempt, despite the articles that gave away the identity being published in national newspapers. Seems to be that if Lady Dorrian takes exception to you for some arbitrary reason, you get prosecuted, yet other people are free to do much the same thing with total impunity.

I see some idiot from Rosyth has landed himself a 6 month sentence.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-56170459

The SNP's whole raison d'etre is not wanting Scotland to be part of a United Kingdom so it's a bit rich to expect the rest of the UK to be interested in the inner machinations of the SNP.

@PinkyParrot

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.

Me too... big Alex every time 🌺

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

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

This is the narrative unionists in Scotland are wheeling out now when they make claims about Scotland being a 'single party state', 'dictatorship' etc etc, because the democratic will of the Scots people sees the SNP returned as overwhelmingly the largest party.

The irony of the fact that for decades Scotland has been 'dictated' to from Westminster by governments that are elected entirely on the whims of English voters seems utterly lost on them.

There's nothing wrong with the electoral system in Scotland. The pro-union parties just can't resolve their unelectability issues and unionists are throwing tantrums as a result.

The one that amuses me most is the accusation that Scotland is a 'single party state', when the governing, and single largest party in parliament doesn't even have an outright majority. Odd that there are no such protestations about a Westminster parliament where the governing party does have thumping majority off the back of about 34% of the vote.

I see.

There is plenty wrong with the electoral system in Scotland, but don't you mean the system of government if you're commenting on my post?

Don't you think it would be better if it had a proper modern Constitution laying down what happens in these situations, and was bicameral? The current parliamentary enquiry into the SNP handling of the SNP Alex Salmond case is being led by an SNP MSP!

Thats actually ridiculous.

I said nothing about Scotland being a single party state at all. Neither did I mention unionists or separatists. I do think that the Scottish Government system has outgrown its original limited legislative powers and needs to be reformed so that there is proper transparency, accountability and a safeguarded division of powers. You cannot have Government ministers influencing decisions to prosecute individuals in a civilised country.

[quote XDownwiththissortofthingX]Well evidently COPFS and the Lord Advocate for Scotland believe she has, yes.

I don't think who as not been charged with contempt should really be used as a marker either, since neither of the people who identified one of the complainers to me have ever been threatened with contempt, despite the articles that gave away the identity being published in national newspapers. Seems to be that if Lady Dorrian takes exception to you for some arbitrary reason, you get prosecuted, yet other people are free to do much the same thing with total impunity.

I see some idiot from Rosyth has landed himself a 6 month sentence.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-56170459[/quote]
Thats all really shocking.

6 months is a huge sentence, although not for contempt of court or for contempt of a court order. Lying in court, and in evidence, is taken really seriously.

It does seem to raise the question of whether justice in Scotland is now meted out less favourably towards non-SNP (Sturgeon) supporters.

Although obviously you can't have the situation where people are afraid to report crimes and go to criminal courts to give evidence simply because an Accused is found not guilty.

6 months for twice deliberately publicly naming the names of women involved is not a huge sentence imo.