Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Scotsnet

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

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
Blurberoo · 23/02/2021 17:16

More likely the Westminster government are sitting back with popcorn enjoying the bin fire! It benefits them to do nothing.

Graffitiqueen · 23/02/2021 17:17

Yeah good point. I just don't think that the vast majority of voters are aware of what's going on though. All the stories about this should be headline news but seem to be hidden away in politics sections.

littlbrowndog · 23/02/2021 17:19

The redacted stuff is all over the internet

It’s in the daily mail

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 17:24

@Graffitiqueen

It's outrageous that the redactions seem to be nothing to do with protecting the identity of the complainants. It seems more to do with protecting NS. Who is going to hold them to account for any of this? Can the UK government do anything?
Exactly, they've redacted a major part of the timeline but nowhere does it in any way identify a complainant as being such.
anon444877 · 23/02/2021 18:04

Having seen what was redacted, I'm amazed anyone could claim this was to protect the victims - I was sympathetic to that viewpoint but now I've seen it, it's a case of you can say the words but there's no basis in fact that it's about victim protection.

Or is Nicola the 'victim' being protected here?

littlbrowndog · 23/02/2021 18:27

She is.

52andblue · 23/02/2021 18:32

@anon444877

Yes, I think NS / Mr Murrel / the current SNP gang are the 'victims' here. Or they think they may be, if AS gets his story out sufficiently.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is getting more ripe daily.

Graffitiqueen · 23/02/2021 18:34

Maybe it is filtering through to the public. Just seen on Twitter. SNP down 11% in Westminster voting poll. Think only a sub sample of 154 people but still...

littlbrowndog · 23/02/2021 18:36

It’s on front page of some papers

Graffitiqueen · 23/02/2021 18:43

I can't remember the last time I saw the front page of an actual paper!! Sad

frasersmummy · 23/02/2021 18:47

I am late to the party on this one. I had stuff going on in rl so haven't been following and still don't understand all the details.. But even I can see redacting a key piece of evidence the night before Alex salmonds appearance stinks of corruption

How on earth are the current sg getting away with this

Graffitiqueen · 23/02/2021 18:59

Because their toxic tentacles have ensnared the judiciary and the civil service.

Cismyfatarse · 23/02/2021 21:15

I have become more and more horrified each time I open the news. I have even started to read "Wingsoverscotland" which is a pretty toxic place for a unionist but has a lot of information archived there.

It really is so, so corrupt.

Bejazzled · 23/02/2021 21:22

@Cismyfatarse

I have become more and more horrified each time I open the news. I have even started to read "Wingsoverscotland" which is a pretty toxic place for a unionist but has a lot of information archived there.

It really is so, so corrupt.

Same Cis 👍
StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 21:27

Ha me too @Cismyfatarse, I feel like I need to have a shower afterwards. But whilst I have many issue with Wings he seems to be all over the SNP right now which is interesting.

Mind you, I do try to read a fair mix of news, blogs etc. Helps to keep an open mind

Viviennemary · 23/02/2021 22:04

How can you delete somebody's evidence because it makes you look bad. It's like some third world dictatorship. Oh wait a minute. Hope Sturgeon gets her Marching orders over this.

daisyfraser · 23/02/2021 22:18

FYI - not my summary but a useful one.
Sequence of events;

Word comes out that Salmond is thinking of returning to front line politics. Headlines and columns refer to his imminent return as a potential boost to the SNP, but also a potential problem for Sturgeon.

Sturgeon instructs the civil service in Scotland to amend the ministerial code to apply it retrospectively to former ministers.

The civil service, after some reluctance, complies with Sturgeons instruction.

Several women come forward with accusations against Salmond.

The Scottish Government carries out an investigation into the women's allegations, led by 'impartial' civil servants, who had been appointed by Sturgeon.

The Scottish Governments investigation collapses, because of apparent collusion between investigators and complainants.

Salmond initiates a judicial review of the investigation process because of the collusion, and its inherent and obvious bias.

The Scottish Government concede the case when their lawyers threaten to walk away, because of the clear injustices involved and the long term risk to the lawyers' reputations. Salmond is awarded half a million pounds.

Meanwhile, having failed to bring Salmond down via its own biased process, the Scottish Government initiates police involvement. This contravenes the Scottish Governments own process, and is against the wishes of some of the complainants.

Salmond faces the prospect of jail.

Senior figures from the SNP attempt to influence the police investigation, including attempting to find out what evidence would favour the prosecution, so that the SNP hierarchy could 'produce' it.

A criminal trial follows, after which Salmond is acquitted of all charges.

Following all of which the Scottish Government now want to gag the press and hide relevant information.

And during all of which the First Minister makes statements to the Parliament, the truth of which are contradicted by several others involved in the scandal, as well as being contradicted by her own subsequent testimony.

My update:
Scot Gov aka Sturgeon prevents inclusion of AS evidence

The Spectator magazine goes to Court to make the evidence able to be entered in Court

Scottish 'Govt' aka Sturgeon accepts the evidence.

The eve of AS in Court Scottish 'Govt' aka Sturgeon redacts the evidence to hide all mention of The First Minister ie Sturgeon 'misleading' parliament aka lying

In the background a story concerning 'minions' who would be made the fall guys for Sturgeon to remain in post.

Hope that helps

ResilienceWanker · 23/02/2021 22:34

I'm now so, so confused once again. How can (the crown office?) demand the redaction of evidence that has been deemed perfectly acceptable by the courts to publish? But by doing so means AS can't refer to it, hence meaning he can't refer to a major part of his case - ie that NS broke the ministerial code. Isn't that (part of) what the committee are attempting to determine? So AS's evidence suggesting that she did can't be heard, but her evidence claiming that she didn't can be, next week. How on earth is that even theoretically acceptable?!

They're trying to spin this out til may, aren't they?

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 22:38

They're trying to spin this out til may, aren't they?

March. Committee will be disolved then...

Ohnomoreno · 23/02/2021 22:41

Everyone should care if this level of corruption is true. It makes me very sad for Scotland.

daisyfraser · 23/02/2021 22:42

Anything redacted is now inadmissible to the inquiry- even if Salmond speaks about it in person tomorrow they can disregard it.
The redacted sections mention specific allegations that Sturgeon knowingly misled the Scottish parliament. The fact that you can browse the unredacted copy is irrelevant.

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 22:45

Salmond is now not appearing tomorrow. Letter from his lawyers circulating widely bit essentially IF the claim is that those sections would be contempt of court then he can't risk even oral testimony on it. His lawyers have said they need to see the leal advice the redactions were based on so they can advise him.

littlbrowndog · 23/02/2021 22:49

So if it is irrelevant does that mean by the fact it was redacted mean he is stuffed by the crown office ordering the redaction

So was that the urgent rush to redact.

Seems very very shady goings on

Swipe left for the next trending thread