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?

reason for Rape Crisis releases is because people will be sitting thinking, 'I better never report anything that I suffer - look at what happens to you, and all for nothing - then the whole of social media is baying for your blood afterwards on top of that. it's not worth it.

Anybody noticed that the messaging has changed from the SNP. They're no longer saying the may elections are a plebiscite on independence but on the government's handling of covid. Mike Russell also rolling back on indyref2 by Christmas.

Wonder if they've had some new polling figures...

Well, when she does her briefings she can emphasise how well they've been managing Covid. I think people would quickly start to complain if she started talking about independence.

Those briefings are an absolute gift to the SNP in terms of canvassing, so everything about them needs to bring positive feelings, even if it's not their usual key message.

I believe Salmond is an abuser.
I believe Sturgeon has behaved in a criminal fashion to 'bring him down'.
I hope it leads to a long hard look at the SNP.
It is run like a dictatorship, with a put up or shut up mentality.
Bullying is rife and dissent is not tolerated (even questioning anything).
Any perceived criticism is met with howls of 'Westmonster is worse'.
Well, Johnson's crew are awful yes (criminally awful re C-19)
But that is no reason not to hold the SNP to the highest accountability too.
I fear that NS political capital is so high right now she is untouchable.

Agree @52andblue. I find it frustrating the way this is painted as anyone unhappy with Sturgeon over this must support Salmond and believe he's an innocent paragon of virtue

Good summary of the whole affair on Dan Vevers Scottish Sun Twitter today.

Personally I'm of the view that it's likely Alex Salmond has indulged in completely inappropriate behaviours, however, I believe that he was the victim of a concerted effort to 'put him away for good' using a combination of legitimate complaint, and completely baseless fabrications driven by spite. I also do not believe that this was driven by the FM, rather she was dragged into a rather compromising position by the incompetence and intransigence of civil servants and certain people within the SNP, and in the fullness of time she'll likely be completely exonerated, or at worst, be found to be guilty of a minor lapse in adherence to best practice, although knowing what I know, I think that even this lapse came about through a desire to 'do the correct thing' rather than being involved in some nefarious plot to stitch up her predecessor.

Do I care? Not particularly, as I think it's blindingly obvious that the various people sitting on this committee are familiar enough with Scots politics to be intimately familiar with exactly who is involved, their precise roles, and the very succinct reasons why the SNP can not supply them with the 'full disclosure' they are demanding. This is being used as a political points scoring exercise that will ultimately achieve nothing, but it suits the opposition parties to portray the FM and SG in a bad light, and work on the basis that 'throw enough mud...'

If you can imply that the FM and SG are being deliberately obstructive, even when you are well aware that there are significant legal barriers preventing the compliance that you are demanding, then it does raise the question in some minds that the FM and SG must have something to hide, when this is not necessarily the case whatsoever.

Ultimately though, I think the unionist press are jumping the gun a bit with the salivating at the 'SNP in crisis!!!' hyperbole. It smacks of trying to big this up into something much bigger than it is in reality, and despite the giddiness, I don't honestly expect this to have any particularly negative impact on the SNP's showing in May's SGE. Partly because of the goodwill NS has banked with the wider SNP support, partly because I think unionist media is vastly overstating just how many people have even a passing interest in this charade, but mainly because of the fact that I don't believe NS is guilty of anything more than a very minor error of judgement after being put between a rock and a hard place by third parties. Time will tell I suppose.

If you can imply that the FM and SG are being deliberately obstructive, even when you are well aware that there are significant legal barriers preventing the compliance that you are demanding, then it does raise the question in some minds that the FM and SG must have something to hide, when this is not necessarily the case whatsoever.

Unfortunately they have been using this excuse to redact and hide stuff which didn't need to be hidden on that basis, which is what the Spectator case essentially covered. You can say, for example, that person X attended a meeting, or sent an email, or made a phonecall, even where person X is one of the complainants, so long as saying that doesn't identify her as being a complainant.

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

JC is not, and never has been anywhere near becoming a remotely credible threat to NS or to become a future leader of the SNP. She's all about JC, is hugely unpopular inside the party, rubs people up the wrong way on a startlingly frequent basis, has never spent any time as an active politician in Scotland (the bit that's of utmost importance to the SNP), and indeed, has only been a Westminster MP since 2015.

This 'leader in waiting' nonsense is a fantasy cooked up by her aggrieved support to try and paint her as a martyr. She's intelligent, but she's horribly abrasive, entirely out for herself, is a total charisma void, and is completely incapable of mustering the sort of consensus support that would ever get her near a leadership position.

The people who have serious political ambitions within the SNP know that the place to be is Holyrood, hence why JC was flirting with a change of scenery. The fact the NEC felt the need to tamper with the rules to try and prevent that is a testament to how poorly she's regarded within the party, not how she is regarded as a threat. The truth is nobody wants her near Holyrood because of her odious personality and unfailing ability to grind people's gears. Nobody wants to have to share their workplace with nightmare colleagues, the SNP is no different in that regard.

TBH, I'll be dumbfounded if JC is still an SNP candidate at the next GE, because I think things will inevitable come to a head once the SGE is out of the way, and she'll be quietly told that she will not receive party backing if she intends to stand as a candidate at the next Westminster GE. I don't expect her to go quietly, and I'd imagine she'll stand as an independent anyway. But I for one won't miss her. I would be like lancing a particularly irritating boil at this point.

Unfortunately they have been using this excuse to redact and hide stuff which didn't need to be hidden on that basis, which is what the Spectator case essentially covered. You can say, for example, that person X attended a meeting, or sent an email, or made a phonecall, even where person X is one of the complainants, so long as saying that doesn't identify her as being a complainant

Before now, the SG have simply been following their legal advice by redacting and 'hiding' stuff. Had the Spectator ruling come weeks ago then I think things would have played out somewhat differently. It did not though, so I don't see how you can claim that the SG should not have been following their own legal advice before the Spectator challenge was ever a thing.

You know they've refused to disclose the legal advice they were using as the basis for refusing to release/publish evidence?

Confusing sentence lots of refusing going on!

They also have a history of not following legal advice (both SNP and SG). So I'm not exactly convinced that they have been following advice, no.

I think what you mean @XDownwiththissortofthingX is that you don’t care if she’s found guilty?

Why are you smearing her in such a way xdown ?

What a hate filled post

Do you think that Joanna cherry having to have police protection for threats against her is made up,shite

Do you think Joanna cherry having a man made rape threats against her made up shite

Do you think our first minister said nothing about this made up shite

Rember jo cox who was murdered by a man

Stop posting this hate stuff

The stuff about JC being hard to work with seems to be one of those often repeated yet rarely backed up things - it's been doing the rounds yet seems pretty unsubstantiated. It's possible she's an awkward arse but I think there's also a smear campaign on the go. And she is of course guilty of being a woman in possession of an opinion which makes her difficult by definition for some.

And the NEC stuff - really? If she wasn't so difficult they wouldn't have to make up new rules to force her out? No, if she was that difficult they wouldn't need to make up rules, they'd be able to legitimately not select (holyrood) or deselect (WM) her.

Course the fact they wanted to get Angus Robertson in to the Edinburgh seat she would have stood for has nothing to do with it at all.

Salmond's submission has now been published...

What’s she saying?

Is it Wednesday she’s on?

www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/Alex_Salmond_Final_Submission.pdf

Literally just came on to post the same link @ATieLikeRichardGere. Still reading it...

Havent read it yet. This is what Andrew Neil says about it on Twitter:

ALEX Salmond accuses Nicola Sturgeon’s husband + others close to her of plot to destroy his reputation and send him to jail. Claims evidence supports “a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort among range of individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP...

. to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned. That includes, for avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (SNP Chief Executive), Ian McCann (Compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (Chief Operating Officer) of the SNP + Liz Lloyd, Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff."

Alex is on Wednesday, Nicola next week.

Enjoying it to be honest. Can’t stand the lot of them and what they have done to my beautiful country. But watching the infighting and exposing them all for what they really are is helping soothe my tortured anti-independence soul

Salmond's evidence being pulled for redaction, at the request of the crown.

@StatisticallyChallenged

Salmond's evidence being pulled for redaction, at the request of the crown.

See, I really struggle to understand this. It has been made public, many thousands of people have read it (I have a copy on my computer!). If it could in any way identify the women that ship has sailed. So why bother trying to redact it now unless it's purely to limit what Alex Salmond can say? It all smells very dodgy.

Because if they redact it Alex Salmond can’t refer to any of the matters that his evidence details tomorrow.