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?

The equalities minister not quite sure of the equalities act ?

Jeez

It’s all most unedifying

Unedifying just describes this whole thing doesn't it. Nobody looks good really

Apparently Gavin Williamson is appointing a free speech champion for universities (in England I presume).

It made me think of the hate crime debate up her in Scotland and particularly within the SNP.

The contrast is interesting.

It is - whereas you've got Kirsty Blackman trying to get all snp list candidates to sign a pledge to support GRA reform and I believe there was a highlands list hustings last night where questions on it were removed.

Whether the SNP like it or not people have concerns. They don't want to represent people, they want to mould them in to compliance.

@StatisticallyChallenged

Thick, corrupt, dirty as hell

this blog is interesting

That blog mentions Barbara Allison, Director of communications. I know her quite well from times gone past. The idea that she is involved in this nonsense is shocking.

@derxa I don't think she necessarily is involved in a negative sense - at least that wasn't my reading of it.

I almost wish I'd never started reading about this, it's just so bloody murky. I also struggle with the fact I'm bloody staunchly feminist and so normally very firmly in the "yeah, right, 10 women all lied, my arse they did" camp yet with this I'm increasingly unsure of that.

My view is that it’s more that the SNP leadership used a situation that was known to them as a tool to get rid of Salmond, rather than that the whole thing is made up, as such. I think the women are just pawns in this vile game.

I got a flyer from our snp candidate today. I’m preparing an email. They need to know how women feel.

for reasons I can't disclose, I cannot make my views public or email anyone or sign any campaigns.

I can however, use my vote and I will never, ever, vote SNP.

[quote StatisticallyChallenged]@derxa I don't think she necessarily is involved in a negative sense - at least that wasn't my reading of it.

I almost wish I'd never started reading about this, it's just so bloody murky. I also struggle with the fact I'm bloody staunchly feminist and so normally very firmly in the "yeah, right, 10 women all lied, my arse they did" camp yet with this I'm increasingly unsure of that.[/quote]
I'm relieved about that.

@WouldBeGood

My view is that it’s more that the SNP leadership used a situation that was known to them as a tool to get rid of Salmond, rather than that the whole thing is made up, as such. I think the women are just pawns in this vile game.

I wish I was so sure but from everything I've read I'm just not.

The dreadful treatment of JC may be more closely linked than is immediately obvious too - possibly this is as much to do with the future of the SNP as the present?

@StatisticallyChallenged there is no doubt in my mind that the SNP leadership is behind the JC thing.

I also think they’ve acted despicably in the other matter, and Murrell has pretty much accepted he lied

[quote WouldBeGood]@StatisticallyChallenged there is no doubt in my mind that the SNP leadership is behind the JC thing.

I also think they’ve acted despicably in the other matter, and Murrell has pretty much accepted he lied[/quote]
Oh they absolutely are - there just seems to be a link between these two apparently separate sets of weird behavior

ok. just catching up and have read this Gordon Dangerfied blog. first thing jumping out at me is he makes a mistake early on - then keeps repeating it - that the first complaint was in November 2017. The first complaint wasn't in November 2017. The first complaint was in 2018. Apparently though, there was a media enquiry in November 2017 from sky news. So i'm guessing that's what he is talking about. The 'story' was apparently about a sexual assault allegation against Salmond. Sturgeon spoke to Salmond at the time about it and he denied it. They never ran the story in the end. Sturgeon didn't carry anything forward/take any action on it because it was not known who made the complaint or the details. There was nothing she could take action on. I just read about this in her inquiry evidence the other day (which anyone can read on the scottish government website by the way). She's not hidden any of this or pretended she didn't know about - she also did a sky interview a few months ago where she explains it. A media enquiry though is not a complaint. The first complaint came in 2018. So Dangerfield's whole argument seems to be based on a false premise.

It's not a mistake afaik - everything I have read suggests the allegations against Salmond from two women were known about in November. They may not have been logged as complaints under the newly rewritten complaints policy until later but they existed

www.thenational.scot/news/18826256.sturgeon-aide-held-secret-meetings-salmond-complainer-november-2017/

As well as the above...

At least one of the complainants was consulted on the wording of the policy which was supposedly finalised in December 2017

It's also in the Guardian from the judicial review (quoting Salmond's brief but seems to tie in "Mackinnon and three other civil servants, including Evans, had become aware of the allegations from Miss A and Miss B in November 2017, two months before their formal complaints were lodged....Mackinnon had met the two women at the same time as she had been copied in (to drafts of the complaints procedure) in nov 2017

So if you want to split hairs the formal complaints under the newly written policy weren't lodged until 2018, but given they had got to the permanent secretary and the soon to be investigating officer, as well as Sturgeon's man, by November 2017 I think it's fair to say they were complaining by then. It's more like they held off on formalising them until the complaints policy had been rewritten to cover it. With their input...

Are they just delaying matters until Purdah?

That says everything we need to know if they try that stunt.

can't get into that the national story Statistically

2018 seems to be the widely reported date for the complaints. I'd have thought the media would be all over it if it was actually November 2017. Maybe there will be more about that as the review progresses then. Will keep my eyes open. If true it makes it even stranger the fuss over the discrepancy of a few days for the date she met Salmond. Why would she not just give the right date - it would still leave her well in the clear (if she really had known since 2017)? Another thing bugging me about this accusation of her lying about the date - why lie about something to which there were witnesses and could so easily be refuted (and was)? That's one reason I think she's telling the truth about being mistaken originally with the date.
Aside from that I do also think Dangerfield makes a lot of wild leaps in that piece. I don't buy this that the new policy was shaped solely to get Salmond. Around that exact time women of all parties were coming forward saying they had been sexually assaulted and that when they reported it nothing was done and they were told to shut up about it. Teresa May wrote to John Bercow in response, to try and get a cross-house procedure in place. It was clear organisations and parties were going to have to get something drawn up sharp. There were a lot of historical allegations coming up too, in all areas of life, so it was obvious that needed to be taken into account as well.
Dangerfield also seems to want to 'have his cake and eat it' in terms of what he's accusing Sturgeon of. First, being in on the conspiracy, then letting what he is calling a 'coup' happen. The argument for each seems to strike out the argument for the other, if you see what I mean? Also don't get where he's coming from in suggesting that if Sturgeon wasn't concocting this new policy with them they must have been doing it 'behind her back.' if my boss assigns me a project and let's me get on with, when I do so I'm not doing it 'behind her back' am I?
I don't know, there's maybe something in his piece, but there's a bit too much of the 'I think it's inconceivable' etc in there without strong evidence of why.

I think Dangerfield's point is it's either one or the other:

• either they were working under Sturgeon's instructions or
• the civil service went totally bloody rogue and she didn't notice

It basically has to be one or the other. Either ain't great

The National story was basically saying that Nicola Sturgeon's principal private secretary met the women in November 2017 to discuss their complaints.

They submitted the formal complaints in 2018, yes. After waiting for the procedure to be rewritten to cover former ministers. Not saying that was their doing, but it's hardly beyond the realms to think a convo along the lines of "our current policy doesn't really cover this but we're writing one just now so hang fire" went on, is it?

They spoke to Somers (see national report)
They spoke to Barbara Allison on the 8th and 22nd November, respectively]]
And here in the evidence to the committee it shows that Ms A had discussed her complaint in November and December.

• either they were working under Sturgeon's instructions or

• the civil service went totally bloody rogue and she didn't notice

It basically has to be one or the other.* Exactly - so which is it? an iron cast case for one would eliminate the case for the other would it not? In other words, if you were fully convinced of one you couldn't contemplate the other. He's hedging his bets. Are we back to the old 'yipee the snp are going down - she's either set up Salmond or she covered up for him - one of the two, we don't really mind which.' argument?

I think his point of view is pretty clear to be honest.

He thinks Sturgeon is lying. He says this explicitly. But if he's wrong, then instead it means that the civil service went totally and utterly rogue.

Nobody can know for absolutely certainty which it is based on the evidence which is publically available because we're not psychic.

I'm not sure what the problem is with "hedging his bets" in this context though, frankly. He's picking apart the available evidence and showing the possible conclusions it leads to (in his opinion). It seems totally reasonable to me for there to be more than one conclusion. At this stage and based on the ridiculously redacted evidence you can't iron clad say it's option A or option B, but you can say it's one of them.

Not sure where "covering up for salmond" comes in as I don't think he mentioned that or even suggested it.

Not sure where "covering up for salmond" comes in as I don't think he mentioned that or even suggested it.
I wasn't referring to the article there - I'm going back to when things were brewing and there was a general atmosphere of 'goodie, either conspiracy or cover-up - we'll get Sturgeon on one of them'. Basically her opponents didn't care which, whereas, logically, it couldn't be both

To be fair I don't think either I or the Dangerfield blog are saying that.

Right now it's more like: Your (adult) child has been caught racing around town in your car, uninsured, they've caused massive damage/hit someone. Either a) you gave them your keys and you therefore allowed an uninsured driver to drive your car illegally, or they stole the keys (and therefore the car) from you. It has to be one or the other.

Except add in a legal responsibility to keep an eye on your car keys!

Then we get this. Yousaf can’t say if there are 2 sexes

Wonder how he can be so stupid or just too afraid

Either way as this is man who is paid to represent everyone in Scotland yet doesn’t know there are 2 sexes