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?

Yes @littlbrowndog this is total madness

but in that example there is only two options. I don't accept that's true in this case. if mistakes have been made on the civil service side how can that be pinned on Sturgeon? (just because you can't prove she's guilty of the other scenario isn't good enough). She' has nothing to do with the day to day running of the civil service/complaints procedure etc. i think there's a big leap between errors (if there were) and that the civil service 'went totally and utterly rogue'.
There's nothing sinister in complainants being consulted with over grievance procedure either, as insinuated further back the thread. That happened in Westminster too when new procedure was drawn up after many women came forward with historical sexual harassment allegations. in fact mps insisted they were involved.

Errors (if there were)

A rather expensive judicial review has already found a stonking error - namely having an investigator who had previous contact with the victims. A process such as this should be unbiased.

No judgement was passed on the additional issues because the govt conceded the case on that ground.

Funny how you see "insinuations" here yet nothing wrong with the civil service behaviour. I wasn't insinuating anything. I was stating facts - that there was a consultation with at least one of the women about the process in 2017.

A rather expensive judicial review
Exactly, so these things have been thoroughly looked into and scottish government paid a high penalty - so, not covered up and hidden then.
okay, i should have said 'stated' rather than 'insinuated' - wasn't specifically aimed at you - couldn't remember who had mentioned it to be honest and couldn't find the post when i looked back (i'm talking about further back in the thread here). however, my point was that at the same time as this new policy was being drawn up, lots of similar ones were - by every other party and many organisations including westminster. With the westminster one, people who had experienced sexual harassment were included in the consultation on it - they wanted to speak to them in order to find out how it would make it easier for people to speak up about things happening to them and what support might help. That seems fair and sensible.

also, should have said, in terms of me 'not seeing anything wrong', I'm just looking at things from all angles to see if there are other possibilities before i go condemning people for framing someone for rape (especially when it's not clear what their motive would be). if there were things wrong though i certainly don't want them covered up. Of course there's a full review going on and another independent one coming up - so the claims will be exposed, if true.

I was an SNP voter, quite liked Salmond and Sturgeon. I've got issues with their hate speech bill, their record on education and their gender reform ideas so I have started to see the SNP from another side. I've read quite a bit about the Salmond Sturgeon affair and I do believe that the SNP are highly corrupt and with the present team I would not vote for them. What is also concerning in Scotland is the level of loyality to them, a lot of people are blinkered and chose to be, they point blank refuse to look at the SNP subjectively - that's dangerous. I think some folk need to dust off their history books to get an idea of where we're heading.

The judicial review didn't cover/investigate everything though - because scotgov conceded on the basis of the investigating officer part then the case ended. We don't know what else would have been found - IIRC this component wasn't even part of the initial case, it was something which came out during it. All the other stuff wasn't ruled on.

The current committee review is borderline farcical tbh, not sure some of them could find their own ass let alone the truth of this gigantic mess. It really should have been an independent judge led inquiry because regardless of what the committee finally conclude the whole process has been so poorly conducted that the smell will linger.

well if they conceded they weren't pretending to be in the right - they admitted the mistake, so again not a cover up. Saying what might have come up's just speculation.
Agree with you on the review committee - although Jackie Ballie seems to be pretty thorough, probing, and persistent. And I'm no fan of the Tories to say the least but Murdo Fraser doesn't seem like he'd suffer fools gladly. However, I don't think it should be party political at all. The independent one which is to take place later I feel will be the make or break - either way.

Agree @SidSparrow - highly corrupt and seem untouchable at the moment.

Oops just realised I meant to put 'objectively'. I knew it wasn't right but couldn't put my finger on it. Bah!

Easy done! They do seem untouchable, so many just don't care- not don't know, or have looked and decided they think nothing was wrong, but just don't give a monkeys

I see that the committee has just vited against publishing Salmond's evidence, again.

They have at least referred it to the SPCB which i think they'd previously refused to do

or have looked and decided they think nothing was wrong,

or perhaps they are waiting on someone coming up with, maybe, say a clear motive for Sturgeon framing Salmond for rape (only one put forward so far's laughable - so she could take over as leader - even though she had been leader for four years by that point and was in a rock solid position). Or why she would deliberately lie about the date of a meeting which there were witnesses to, and which could easily be disproved. A 'lie' which didn't even serve to benefit her in any way what so ever.
little minor things like that.

I have no interest in guessing at the motive of someone I don't know.

The motive is power

Like @wouldbegood says, the motive is power. This quote from the mail puts it in context:

"But when Mr Salmond finally stepped down, after losing the 2014 independence referendum, tensions grew over his demand for Mr Murrell to stand down as SNP chief executive.

His allies say those tensions dramatically escalated into all-out war in early 2018, when it was rumoured that, after losing his Westminster seat, Mr Salmond would stand for the Scottish Parliament – something which they say provoked a competitive reaction from Ms Sturgeon and her inner circle, and ultimately the criminal trial.

A source said: ‘There is a jealous and insecure element to Nicola and her gang.’"

Tbh that streak has become more obvious in her treatment of Joanna Cherry, who's seen as the other serious rival in the party. She set the mob on JC before sacking her.

@statistically shocking that they won't publish AS evidence now after the Spectator case. What a rotten farce. What is the point of Andy Wightman?

@WouldBeGood

The motive is power

Well yes - maintaining power, increasing power, controlling factions, who is in power in future... power in some way would be there.

I just meant that I personally think that not knowing the exact motivation doesn't inherently matter. In a general context if you have solid evidence that someone has committed a crime then whilst understanding motive is a nice to have, if you don't understand that doesn't mean you dismiss the evidence.

@derxa part 2 of that blog has been posted which has a bit more info on Barbara Allison's role - mentioning as I remember you were surprised so thought you might be interested

The corporate body has agreed the Salmond evidence can be published.

@Graffitiqueen

The corporate body has agreed the Salmond evidence can be published.

Thanks @Graffitiqueen. Hadn't seen that yet, but about time as it was getting bloody silly.

Not that it's going to make much difference with the way the committee is set up and run but it's a start

I'm looking forward to it now, even if I fear it won't make the slightest bit of difference to Nicola's job or the election outcome.

@jabbathebutt

I'm looking forward to it now, even if I fear it won't make the slightest bit of difference to Nicola's job or the election outcome.

No, probably not. So many think it's just about the date and what difference does a few days make that unless the reporting steps up a lot I think it's going to stay a fairly fringe, social media issue

I also see that RapeCrisis have inserted themselves in to this again with another letter to Fabiani. I know they do great work and there is a definite point about ensuring complainants are treated properly and making sure people feel safe to report - but the regular interjections on this particular case don't seem terribly wise.

The SNP have put out a statement too, see photo.

Both using similar lines about "powerful men", with the distinct implication that he got away with it because he's the former FM. I'm not convinced that's true from what I've read - it seems more like (in common with many similar cases) it came down to he said she said, only here there was evidence that the complainants weren't independent of each other, and evidence which seemed to severely weaken some allegations. Normally multiple complainants with similar allegations would strengthen the individual cases but here it seems to have done the opposite.

As I've said before when this was still reportedly I could easily believe it - him being known and powerful wouldn't have helped if I was a juror certainly!

The motive is power
it was a move that put an awful lot of power at risk though if true - probably one of the worst things the snp's been through in it's history. As i said before, don't know why Sturgeon would put her party through all of that deliberately, leaving it mired in scandal that's stained not just salmond but the snp itself.
That ' jealous and insecure element to Nicola and her gang' bit from 'a source' sounds a bit playground.
The Gordon Dangerfield stuff might convince me more if it wasn't so full of bluster. I'm sure he thinks all that gives it more weight, but it just makes me wonder as I wade through it how much substance there really is behind it. Very subjective in tone a lot of it. Does anyone here know who their HR person at work is? The very rare times I've had to contact mine over the years, when I've rung up it's changed to someone else. this is all very sinister in the world of Dangerfield though. very depressing he has to spend so much time dissecting how sexual assault complainants got all the procedure wrong - why didn't they contact their union, or phone a help line etc etc.
As I'd said before, parties and organisations all over were drawing up new procedure for dealing with sexual harassment complaints at that same exact time and they talked to sexual assault victims as part of that to try and draw up something as appropriate as possible. so there's nothing sinister about dialogue between complainants and people drawing up the new procedure. It's also been openly admitted that counselling and support is available to people with concerns even if they don't feel they are yet at the point of being able to make a formal complaint or take things forward. Surely that's as it should be?
I also think he twists Ms B, Allison's words very cynically. 'holding a space' for someone has a particular meaning - about support - not the one he gives it.
Could go on and on but as i said before this is all civil service stuff anyway and nothing to do with Sturgeon.
Still no explanation of why she would give wrong date for meeting with Salmond either - this is the thing she's supposed to have broken the ministerial code on - but unless it can be proved she lied deliberately i don't see how she has.
Anyway, have had enough. Guess we'll find out more during the enquiry in the coming weeks.