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?

I initially thought "aye, bollocks " but the extent of the evasive behaviour is very odd. Totally out of proportion if it was just an error of dates.

It seems that at minimum there is some undue influence, pressurising of the police/crown, and a lot of pressure on supposed witnesses. Why - who knows. But I don't think I believe there's nothing dodgy at all, I'm just not sure where it lies on ths conspiracy-cockup-coverup spectrum.

happy I can't believe you are finding it so hard to understand that if Alex Salmond, as he and others claim was set up - the reason for this would be so that Nicola Sturgeon could take over the leadership of the SNP and you don't think it is serious?
Additionally she has lied to try and cover her involvement.

I could rattle a list of the reasons why this should never ever have happened. Give the lack of scrutiny, and with the SNP currently investigating themselves. I would expect to see this in the Scottish parliament before too long.

It is an exceptionally grave allegation that will take Nicola Sturgeon down, the party with her I should think.

It is an exceptionally grave allegation that will take Nicola Sturgeon down, the party with her I should think.

I'm not sure. There are a lot of "indy first" folk who openly say they don't care

It was interesting to hear the questions and answers in FMQs yesterday about this, when RD and JB laid out the timelines of the events. It seems that there is evidence that the meetings were prearranged, and it is implausible that anyone could have considered them to be anything other than government business - in which case proper records should have been kept. NS didn't attempt to answer the questions beyond 'I don't consider that I broke the ministerial code' which I found to be an interesting choice of words in itself. Why weren't there any records kept, especially if, as NS asserted, her only priority was to ensure the allegations were thoroughly investigated? Surely you'd be extra careful to make sure everything was absolutely by the book in that case?

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories and originally passed it off as a diary error, but there is too much that doesn't add up. The lack of records about what was surely a huge issue (former first minister accused of sexual assault), coupled with the unprecedented level of obstruction into the investigation (often by the members themselves) makes me wonder what they are hiding.

the reason for this would be so that Nicola Sturgeon could take over the leadership of the SNP
She was already leader though wasn't she? And a very popular, well-liked one. Would Salmond have been her biggest threat? he'd already come back as leader once - unusual in itself, but a second time? Her position seemed solid - with broader appeal to the general public than Salmond - so surely the snp would have wanted to keep her in position so they got in again? Even if it was down to leadership, framing someone for rape seems an extreme tactic. And risky. It's also a move that's brought disgrace and scandal to the party - don't know why she would purposely put the party through that.
and you don't think it is serious?
Of course I would think it was extremely serious - if i could find any real base in it. Apart from a question mark over the date a meeting took place no-one seems to be able to come up with a concrete piece of evidence. And even if she did know four days before she initially said she did I'm not clear a) that it was deliberate b) how it proves anything either way. I think that's what most other people are seeing, hence the lack of interest the OP is asking about.

Also, can you imagine If NIcola Sturgeon had done what Alex Salmond wanted and ensured that the allegations were not followed up? That would be coming out now and people would, understandably, be saying: "It is an exceptionally grave allegation that will take Nicola Sturgeon down, the party with her I should think.'
or do you not think allegations of sexual abuse in the workplace or in a political party should be investigated?

Why do you think Alex Salmond resigned from the SNP in the first place?

Just for fun?
Why?

Because of the allegations of sexual misconduct no less. And who took over from Alex Salmond? None other than Nicola Sturgeon. Alex Salmond having spent many years trying to clear his name, and being dragged through the courts - was in fact found NOT guilty on ALL counts.

Do you really need to be told why it would be in Nicola's interest to set him up? Do you really need to question the advantages to her and her husband? Now she has been the leader for so many years, she had hoped this would all go away, it hasn't and it won't.

So now you see why it is so important, and why her lies and that of her husband are so vital.

It will sink her for sure, if they can prove it.

Sturgeon had already taken over before he resigned from the party. Years before. However the party has a messy loyalty split which continues to cause issues

Did AS not resign in 2014 after indyref 1??

Resigned as FM day after indyref, didn't leave SNP until allegations took root

just came on to say what others have said. Salmond resigned in 2014 after indy ref. so Sturgeon had been leading for four years by the time the allegations were made in 2018. So she didn't have to fabricate a rape case in order to become leader!

sorry that should have read he resigned as leader in 2014.

That is categorically untrue, the first allegation was indeed 2014, the same year that Sturgeon was conveniently appointed as leader and Salmond also conveniently resigned. The investigation took years, and then then legal action took another few years, and takes us to the moment he walked free.

'The charges are set out in an indictment which includes the specific details of the allegations against the 64-year-old former SNP leader.

The attempted rape is said to have happened in June 2014 at the first minister's official Bute House residence in Edinburgh'

Sturgeon was officially sworn-in as First Minister on 20 November 2014.

Link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50486713

I simply don't believe in coincidences of this magnitude.
It absolutely stinks in fact.

Sorry I'm not in Scotland so don't know all the details so can someone tell me if the women who have made the allegations been questioned? I know he was found not guilty so is it suggested that he "got away with it" or did the women lie? Or is that irrelevant to the "conspiracy" anyway?

snowydaysandholidays It is not 'categorically untrue'. the incidents were alleged to have happened between 2008 and 2014. But the complaint was made in 2018

No, that is not correct happy the incident took place in June of 2014. The other incidents happen way before that. The legal action started in 2018 after a protracted internal investigation.

The real question we all want to know is did Sturgeon know about this before she claimed to have found out, question one. And question two was Salmond forced out because of them?
Was it a witch hunt to get him out?

He has since been cleared of all charges. Every single one.

The alleged and now dismissed allegation were from 2008 - 2014.

Nicola became leader at the end of 2014.

Also of note, Alex Salmond claimed the inquiry was misleading, saying he had been treated unfairly.

The government later conceded its procedures had been flawed and paid out more than £500,000 in Mr Salmond's legal expenses.

Anyone paying attention to this can clearly see there are some serious discrepancies and lies, not to mention the fact Salmond's political career and life has now been ruined by this.

That should read allegations with an s. Bloody phone.

Snowy, Salmond admitted to some pretty dodgy behaviour given he is a married man. Behaviour that left him open to these claims, so don't go feeling too sorry for him!

Remember also that although he was cleared it doesn't mean the women lied. They just couldn't reach the burden of proof to convict him in court.

Personally I believe them. They were very brave to come forward and the reaction of the committee to their whatsapp messages and their subsequent statement is heartbreaking.

That it appears Sturgeon may have used them for political gain is abhorrent. I really hope it isn't true.

The Spectator have won their court case to publish salmond's evidence so what the truth is may well become clearer soon.

I think that some of the allegations were pretty much disproven rather than just insufficient evidence IYSWIM. Not saying all women lying btw - but it seems some may have been.

He's clearly a sleazy cheating ass, it's not clear however that he is anything more than that. The jury heard more than we currently know

Just reading Craig Murray's latest blog post - not finished but he notes something I'd said upthread about the challenges that seem to be arising in trying to tell "the story" (truth debatable etc etc etc)

He says this
"The Fabiani Inquiry has all but collapsed as it has refused to publish or consider evidence from Geoff Aberdein and Alex Salmond. These are the most important pieces of evidence in the entire inquiry. The Committee has refused to accept them because the evidence names a person who made accusations against Alex Salmond, on which he was found not guilty.

Here is the important point. The evidence of Salmond and Aberdein being refused by the Committee has no relation at all to the accusations that person made against Alex Salmond. She is mentioned in a different role. As I have repeatedly tried to explain, the accusers come from a very small coterie close to Nicola Sturgeon. Those closest to Sturgeon were at the heart of the orchestration of the plot. The Committee which has been pretending to investigate, has been doing so on the basis that the protection of identities of complainers precludes it from hearing any evidence that refers to these people – even if it refers to other actions not connected to the accusation they made in court."

I'm kind of ignoring the comments about plot and orchestration - but the element about not hearing evidence relating to the accusers does seem to reflect what we are seeing happening, I think.

I find it strange that a woman sacked by Salmond is leading the inquiry. Surely that doesn’t make any sense?!

It doesn't make sense that someone Salmond sacked is leading it, no. Talk about bad incentives.

Remember also that although he was cleared it doesn't mean the women lied. They just couldn't reach the burden of proof to convict him in court.

I'd have expected "not proven", rather than "not guilty" on at least some of the things in that case.

(I don't know either way — both are awful scenarios that never should have happened.)

There was definitely a not proven verdict.

I think it was the "sleepy cuddles" which went not proven wasn't it? Hard to keep track but I think it's that one

there wasn't an internal investigation prior to the formal complaints made in 2018. there wasn't the means for staff to take complaints forward - that was the whole point of this review in 2017 on the proper processes for addressing inappropriate conduct, in the wake of me too etc.
It was only after then that two female staff members made formal complaints to the Scottish government about Alex Salmond's conduct, dating back to when he was first minister. That's when an internal inquiry was established and an investigating officer appointed.

Salmond admitted to some pretty dodgy behaviour

This is what i keep coming back to in my mind too graffiti.
His stance from the start seems to have been 'but i didn't do anything criminal'. He doesn't deny some of the sleazy stuff, just that he doesn't regard it as crossing the line into criminality. And he keeps saying that what allegedly happened was 'exaggerated' He seems to have that old attitude that 'it's all just a bit of fun' etc. Dodgy comments and 'handsiness' etc can maybe seem 'funny' to men but less so to women in the position, especially when it's a boss/someone with a lot of power over you. And i think people reading about it don't really get it as it seems quite trivial. But it's not for the person standing there with it happening to them feeling shocked, humiliated and powerless.
I actually held Alex Salmond in high regard in some ways and i didn't really want it to be true when i first heard about the allegations. But when i heard more detail, especially the scale of it, i found it hard to believe so many women would lie I'm afraid.