Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Scotsnet

Welcome to Scotsnet - discuss all aspects of life in Scotland, including relocating, schools and local areas.

Original poster

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

999 replies

sessell · 01/02/2021 10:18

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
WouldBeGood · 13/02/2021 12:19

Murrell has accepted that the evidence he gave on oath was “speculation”. That’s disgraceful in itself.

happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 13:11

She deserves the continued questions. If she reduced the daily briefings then there'd be less scope to ask her questions.

More foaming at the mouth unionist logic.
So, when we're facing the worst health crisis in our history, a pandemic that's taken more lives than world war II, NS should just stop informing the public of vital guidance and life-saving information so that she can avoid answering questions about when a meeting happened.
It’s that “ bought and sold for English gold “ line that gets them .
It’s become a culture built on a persecution basis.

More of the vitriol I'm talking about. We've had years and years of this - two sides who its beyond impossible to have any rational conversation with. Most people in Scotland are sick of it. hence, as i've said, why a lot of people are just switching off to this current 'conspiracy'

happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 13:23

To be fair, his lawyers have basically said "he's ready and willing to appear but he can't tell the bloody truth if you won't accept his evidence"
Point taken Statistically. It was unfair of me to say he'd dragged his feet. However, the enquiry couldn't accept the evidence as it would have been breaking a court order - that seems to have been sorted out now so hopefully he will turn up and his evidence will get a fair hearing.

WouldBeGood · 13/02/2021 13:24

My dislike of the corruption is nothing to do with being a unionist. I condemn it in all parties. It seems to be a huge feature of politics at the moment.

WouldBeGood · 13/02/2021 13:25

@happygolurkey do you care if she’s guilty or not?

MissEliza · 13/02/2021 13:29

@happygolurkey so if there were a similar scandal brewing at Westminster, you'd be satisfied if BJ avoided questions because there's a pandemic? The coronavirus crisis has still a long way to go. We can't afford to not expect our politicians to be accountable for the next couple of years

MissEliza · 13/02/2021 13:30

Vitriol is a very strong word. A touch of hyperbole going on there.

StatisticallyChallenged · 13/02/2021 13:34

@happygolurkey

To be fair, his lawyers have basically said "he's ready and willing to appear but he can't tell the bloody truth if you won't accept his evidence" Point taken Statistically. It was unfair of me to say he'd dragged his feet. However, the enquiry couldn't accept the evidence as it would have been breaking a court order - that seems to have been sorted out now so hopefully he will turn up and his evidence will get a fair hearing.
I don't think it ever was breaking the court order. My understanding is they adopted a ludicrous interpretation of the court order (and I think have refused to release the legal advice they based that interpretation on).

Almost irrespective of what actually happened between Salmond and the various accusers, the handling of the original complaint, the judicial review and the committee is a total mess which at best demonstrates incompetence at many levels.

I honestly don't know what I think about the bigger conspiracy accusations - because "why the hell would you do that " is having an argument with "then why are they behaving so ridiculously " in my brain Confused

LizzieMacQueen · 13/02/2021 13:38

@happygolurkey

You said - "So, when we're facing the worst health crisis in our history, a pandemic that's taken more lives than world war II, NS should just stop informing the public of vital guidance and life-saving information so that she can avoid answering questions about when a meeting happened."

Running through the stats, bit of chat about what might be talked about in coming days, ending with reminder of FACTS. Really, we can do without this. And if there were to be vital info and life saving info being delivered, it doesn't need to be our FM delivering that!

To be honest I'd prefer an all party Covid Cabinet in charge of all this, comms and strategy.

Selkiesarereal · 13/02/2021 13:40

This whole state of affairs just gets murkier and murkier.

Whilst I openly admit that I am not an SNP supporter, when NS first came to power, I tentatively put her into a box of politicians I admire. I thought that she posed a credible chance of obtaining independence.

Now I am utterly horrified by all of this, it absolutely stinks and it’s m equally horrified to see so many happy to ignore all of this or to not want a full and independent enquiry which would/could exonerate NS.

Coquohvan · 13/02/2021 14:16

So glad this thread has people like @StatisticallyChallenged to check what it’s false information with clear explanations.
It is totally unnecessary for FM to give us info on TV every day since March ‘20 It can be a news item segment on daily news, unless it’s time for an update on restrictions or important pandemic info. Just grandstanding and at times very PP Broadcasting.
The coming days/weeks will be very interesting - sincerely hope the truth is told no matter what colour the rosette is.

StatisticallyChallenged · 13/02/2021 14:46

Thanks @Coquohvan and @Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow. I know a lot of people probably stick me in the crazy yoon category but tbh I really don't think I am. I'm probably less pro-uk than I used to be ideologically i.e. I'm not opposed to the concept of independence. So I don't think I'm truly "unionist" in the way it's often used. I'm more of an "opposed to committing economic suicide"-ist, but I guess that doesn't trip of the tongue so well Grin

And actually, I really DON'T want the conspiracy aspect of this to be true - mostly because if it is proven to be it will hurt women for a long time to come. We're slowly creeping towards believing women being the default. There's always some fucker going "but women lie" and a crowd of feminists going "very bloody rarely, so we believe her". If it transpires that any of these allegations were made up or exaggerated for political purposes then for evermore the reply will be "what about the Alex Salmond case"

Similarly if you were a woman (or man to be fair) involved with the Scottish government who needed to make a complaint about sexual harassment/misconduct via the govt complaints process would YOU feel comfortable doing so right now? I wouldn't

happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 14:54

Really, we can do without this.
many want to hear these updates and hear what Sturgeon has to say under the scrutiny of journalists - hence the outcry when they took it off. If you don't, don't watch it. what's the problem?

titsbumfannythelot · 13/02/2021 15:01

Good to see I'm in the company of some other foaming at the mouth unionists Hmm

happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 15:07

do you care if she’s guilty or not?
Guilty of what wouldn'tit?
If you can tell me specifically what you think she is guilty of then I can answer.
if it is 'do I care whether she knew something four days before she initially said she did'? To be honest, I'm struggling to care as i don't see how it's pivotal to the Salmond case....or anything else. Right now i'd struggle to care if it was three days before either. Or five. Or a day. Or two days and three quarters. I am waiting for the enquiry though and want to hear what she says about it.

reprehensibleme · 13/02/2021 15:09

Statistically, your viewpoint chimes very much with my own, hence no to independence and remain re Brexit - I've yet to hear an economic argument for independence which does not have a cogent rebuttal and I'm not prepared to ruin the rest of my life and that of the next generation for some unknown and unproven dream.

WouldBeGood · 13/02/2021 15:11

Guilty of lying to parliament and breaching the ministerial code? @happygolurkey

happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 15:13

I don't think it ever was breaking the court order. My understanding is they adopted a ludicrous interpretation of the court order
Not sure that can be right statistically. Apparently there was a high court amendment made to the court order that they were saying prevented publication. if it was just down to interpretation would the judge have done that? wouldn't they have just said 'your interpretation is ludicrous?'

StatisticallyChallenged · 13/02/2021 15:28

The judge pretty much did say that, then agreed to amend the order for clarity. I think she said it was for the committee to decide but said that a description of the interpretation they were using was "absurd" - i wasn't listening live but have seen enough sources saying this to think it's valid.

happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 15:28

Guilty of lying to parliament and breaching the ministerial code?
obviously I would care very deeply about that if there was evidence to show it good. I simply haven't seen anything that convinces me yet. Stuff going about all seems a bit cloak and dagger to me just now. I find it hard to get excited about this apparent discrepancy of dates (especially when there's literally days in it) - it's hardly Watergate is it? My mind is definitely not closed though and I'm waiting for this enquiry to find out the truth.

WouldBeGood · 13/02/2021 15:37

No, I know it’s not proved @happygolurkey, was just wondering what you’d think. Thanks

happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 15:43

so if there were a similar scandal brewing at Westminster, you'd be satisfied if BJ avoided questions because there's a pandemic? The coronavirus crisis has still a long way to go. We can't afford to not expect our politicians to be accountable for the next couple of years

I don't have a clue what your talking about here. I didn't bring up covid - someone else did. What I said was that Sturgeon could hardly be expected to go spouting off about evidence which she's going to be questioned over at an upcoming enquiry. Most sensible people in that position would see it as more fitting that they answer the questions at the enquiry itself would they not? It was then that someone came up with the claim that it was her fault she got questioned about it because she shouldn't hold daily covid briefings!! I don't really understand the logic/relevance of that either, but, there you go...

StatisticallyChallenged · 13/02/2021 16:01

The dates issue...
I think it matters because (from memory here)

  1. Geoff Aberdein claims the earlier meeting wasn't a quick head round the door thing but was pre arranged a couple of week's earlier, being set up by an individual in Sturgeon's office with the specific subject of discussing this topic. So it wasn't a couple of days
  2. She then claims the meeting with Salmond was party business, but I think it was attended by someone who shouldn't have been there if it was party business. If it was government business then it should have records, and it doesn't
  3. She continued to lie/deny for a long time, not doing a quick mia culpa and acknowledging the error so misleading parliament
  4. There's is, I think, an impartiality issue (not with Sturgeon directly but other attendee)
  5. Why is this being lied about?
MissEliza · 13/02/2021 16:02

@happygolurkey

She deserves the continued questions. If she reduced the daily briefings then there'd be less scope to ask her questions.

More foaming at the mouth unionist logic.
So, when we're facing the worst health crisis in our history, a pandemic that's taken more lives than world war II, NS should just stop informing the public of vital guidance and life-saving information so that she can avoid answering questions about when a meeting happened.
It’s that “ bought and sold for English gold “ line that gets them .
It’s become a culture built on a persecution basis.

More of the vitriol I'm talking about. We've had years and years of this - two sides who its beyond impossible to have any rational conversation with. Most people in Scotland are sick of it. hence, as i've said, why a lot of people are just switching off to this current 'conspiracy'

These are your words, where you link the handling of the pandemic to NS answering questions about the Salmond affair. Why don't you answer my question?
happygolurkey · 13/02/2021 16:31

MissEliza
I'm a bit confused - not sure if there's some misunderstanding because some quotes from other posts I put in there haven't bolded up.
In answer to your question, not I wouldn't be happy if BJ avoided questions because there's a pandemic. Yes, I agree we should expect our politicians to be accountable for the next couple of years. I don't think Sturgeon should get off with not answering questions. Not at all. But with this enquiry coming up, I can see why she's not answering questions about that because I think it's right and proper she does so to the enquiry itself.