Does it matter if Sturgeon is guilty - do you know or care?

[sessell]

Evidence of a conspiracy to frame Alex Salmond has been building. There are compelling reports in the Times, Herald , Sky News and across the internet. But there is less reporting in Scotland and a lot of people seem to not know or care. I'm Scottish but I don't live there. I've been hooked by this as a story of power and corruption. I'm on the fence re independence, just don't know enough so don't have an axe in that debate. I've never been an SNP member. But I do care about justice and that no-one should be above the law, especially politicians when they are seeking to imprison their potential rivals.

After reading this affadavit from Craig Murray which brings it all together and is incendiary I'm pretty convinced there has been a conspiracy and that Sturgeon and her collaborators should face justice. Although the justice department (Crown office) also seem to be mired in this. Here is the affadavit www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/

I've shown this to a few people and have been shocked that a couple have said, yes it stinks but I like Sturgeon. I'd be interested in the views of Scotsnet. How much do you know about this? Do you care? Is it OK for our politicians to imprison their rivals, like Putin and co do, if you like their other objectives. Has Scotland become a corrupt nation? Is that OK?

@WaxOnFeckOff

I think it means it's ok if the government is corrupt as long as it's the one you voted for?

It seems like it. Regarding Keis Starmer, I can't believe how blatantly he lied. Labour has been a useless opposition for years.

MissEliza in Sir Keir's defence I reckon he gets caught out when he lies because he is very bad at it. The rest do it so habitually its difficult to tell the difference.

Murdo Fraser being extremely robust on twitter today.

"Giving a false statement under oath is a criminal offence under s.44(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland)Act 1995. It is clear from his evidence today that Peter Murrell is guilty of this offence."

"A complaint has already been made to the Crown Office by @jackiebmsp and the evidence today can only strengthen the case for a prosecution."

Murrell tells inquiry some of his previous evidence was “speculation”

What an absolute mess

It really is, SNP look terrible either way but I have no idea how this will resolve itself

Well, if NS was struggling with what to buy him for his birthday, perhaps a dictionary might be a good idea?

I know that politicians have to deal in predictions and optimism a lot (because, let's be honest, a party standing on "things are awful and I can't see them getting better whatever we do" isn't really going to pull in votes), but when you're under oath you really need to stick to the facts.

I just read the Scotsman's account of Murrell's evidence today. Utterly, completely unconvincing, if the Scotsman is reporting his words accurately - which I presume it is as it's all recorded.

What a bloody mess. Not good at all.

Could you imagine if it was the CEO of the tories instead?!?!

@Graffitiqueen yes, this annoys me.

Yes imagine if this was Boris and the team 😂😂😂

The lack of media coverage is staggering really. Can you imagine if Boris was implicated in a conspiracy to have Theresa May convicted for sexual assault/rape?

Is this because of the injunctions etc? Damned sure if I'd been accused of something I didn't do, I'd be giving all the evidence I could to clear my name. One party seems to be doing that and the other is blocking it, I wonder why...

DH says that apparently Murrell was being coached through his "answers". Salmond threatening to go live on tv with his side of it if they don't allow for the release of his evidence. This will probably end up being on Russian tv and then we'll all have to get it on YouTube.

I've missed why Salmond's evidence is not being published? (other than it being possibly uncomfortable reading for some).

I think that Salmond's evidence is already in the public domain as its been published in full in a couple if media outlets, which makes it even more absurd that it can't be considered by the committee. I did hear suggestion that if they allow it as evidence, it's then fair fame to ask about the meetings at Sturgeon's home, and there seem to be parties who don't want that discussed.

@anon444877

I've missed why Salmond's evidence is not being published? (other than it being possibly uncomfortable reading for some).

His lawyers sent a letter earlier basically asking what he's allowed and not allowed to say and why, asking for the committee's legal advice to be released and that they can't properly advise him based on what has been said thus far. It's on twitter

I think a big issue is saying anything which could enable identification of the accusers as they're entitled to anonymity

Alex' statement wingsoverscotland.com/you-mustnt-slip-up/

Alex's lawyers letter to the committee wingsoverscotland.com/to-the-committee/

Thanks HirplesWithHaggis - couldn't be arsed trying to find the link on my phone!

The complaints process certainly sounds somewhat flawed. My interpretation - and I may be wrong here - is that it is extremely difficult for Alex Salmond to tell his story without potentially falling foul of contempt of court. Without going back and checking I think it was Craig Murray's affidavit which said, in essence, that if the identities of the accusers were known it would be apparent something was fishy - presumably because they are a group who mostly/all know each other and again presumably Sturgeon. But if that's the case then even trying to explain what has happened may be very difficult as he can't name or in any way give away the identity of the accusers, but potentially trying to avoid mentioning them would in turn be obvious? This could especially be the case if the committee has indicated it's going to be drawing the boundaries very strictly

If - and I do utterly stress IF - this whole shennanigans is true then it's quite clever in that it's very hard to defend against or even discuss/have reported on without potentially being in legal hot water. Would make a great book plot!

I gather Alex is planning a press conference tomorrow. That should be interesting.

And we all know who lives a good book @StatisticallyChallenged!

This evening's Sue Riddick/Anne Harvey stuff is interesting. It seems to amount to
"Alex Salmond was physically aggressive to me"
"No he wasn't, I was there, I saw the supposed incident, I was questioned about it and pressurised to support this claim. It didn't happen"
"Oh no we meant a different incident"

Sue's statement also included a lot of content saying her messages with Peter Murrell were private/not relevant and the committee shouldn't be trying to look at complaints messages.

I watched a video of Murrel's questioning today. It seemed a little on the soft side. At one point there was a bit of excitement about how many magpies where in Murrel's garden. Seriously? That really hacked me off as he was starting to look rather uncomfortable when asked if there was anyone else in the room. The magpie discussion provided a distraction.

Kenny McAskill was very good on Channel 4 News tonight. Totally agree with him that if there is ever to be independence it needs to be built on solid foundations of accountable and transparent governance. Meanwhile the murkiness just keeps building. Link to the C4 report: www.channel4.com/news/salmond-refusal-to-attend-inquiry-into-handling-of-harassment-allegations-unedifying-for-scottish-parliament-says-snp-mp

An extraordinary tale and part of the issue is the SNP have been in power so long they think they are invincible. Should Scotland become independent and very much hope this never happens we wouldn’t want any party with Nationalist in its name .

Thanks for the link to KM interview. This was all completely glossed over in the BBC and STV coverage. The position on AS not being able to speak freely I was aware of but in the interests of balance I wonder if this is causing similar issues for PM and NS. Incredulous that someone would claim right to privacy having already published themselves as appears to be the case.

Frustrating to remember that KM was actually very competent when he was in the Scottish Parliament as I envisage JC would also be had the SNP not blocked her from standing in May.