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?

@Dinnafashyersel

Didn't watch it all but for me ACH was doing a decent job of asking the sort of open questions which allowed AS to make his case. So on that basis I thought he played it exactly right. Agree on all the rest though.

More fuel for the fire per Nick Eardley:
As the committee hearing continues, a legal order has been issued to the Crown Office seeking documents Mr Salmond believes shows a conspiracy against him.

He improved. His first questions were inappropriate. I'd need to rewind but he basically tried to get Salmond to apologise for his behaviour.

@Graffitiqueen

I can't believe ACH asked about currency in an Indy Scotland. 🤦‍♀️ cringe

Oh I missed that bit😬

I missed that too. It was a long session!

Oh I saw someone talking about that on Twitter. Maybe they were joking!!

Ah OK.

I think NS is a despicable creature. Not a fan of SNP or AS but he's carrying himself as very crediable.

If I hear wee Krankie say one more time that she's going to address the people of Scotland like "grown ups" I'm throwing out my TV!

Any scottish legal bods who know whether his grenade at the end about the Scotland Act is correct? As I understand it he, as the accused, is presented by section 162 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing act of disclosing information he obtained in prep for his trial and has had several letters to this effect from the crown.

Section 23 of the Scotland Act allows Scottish Parliament to compell witnesses or production of evidence.

He's suggested this is used on his lawyers; is the suggestion here that using it on him directly wouldn't work as then he'd be breaking the law under section 162, and similarly he can't order them to release it because he'd still be breaching it, but that 162 doesn't actually apply to the lawyers if they are compelled by someone else (SG using the Scotland Act)?

Did they draft this and not cover counsel? I can't see them explicitly mentioned. I've seen a tweeter saying they are covered by 162 but perhaps that only applies in the instance of disclosure at their client's request?

He did mention several times that he was the FM when it was brought in, the Macaskill was justice secretary abdicate name dropped the then Lord Advocate several times so it get the sense he's door his homework here.

Stats if I'm understanding Eardly (BBC) reporting (see pp) the Committee have just acted as suggested re S23.

Subsequent tweets from NE reflecting ongoing strategy to brazen it out. All the same starting to have an ever increasing whiff of Mrs T just before she resigned.

No, they've done it to the Crown Office first

Scotland is a circus run by clowns.

How many other bills that have passed through parliament are flawed?

A committee sitting and not allowed to see all the evidence or allow a witness to refer to evidence. Due diligence?

Are the Scottish people seriously going to follow these people to independence?

One thing I will comment on after watching the proceedings today was that AS is head and shoulders above any in that committee room as regards intelligence and statesmanship.
I mean the guy ACH How did he get elected?

I have never liked him but today he got through the nearly 6 hours and I ended up believing him

To hear what has been happening was incredible

The evidence that we couldn’t get hear and the evidence that the committee had not received was something else

Further update per Alan Smith (Radio Clyde News among others) Following evidence session with Alex Salmond - committee member Jackie Baillie says she will be encouraging colleagues to serve a Section 23 notice on his solicitors “so that we may receive vital documents that have so far been withheld from us”.

And, I assume, by "encouraging colleagues" she means - if you don't volunteer this is the next step.

Wonder if this has always been in the background. Certain advantage to getting the info after AS appearance as then NS has to speak to it first rather than rebutting him with bluster.

He did mention several times that he was the FM when it was brought in, the Macaskill was justice secretary abdicate name dropped the then Lord Advocate several times so it get the sense he's door his homework here.

it was mentioned today that in the bill the Lord Advocate did originally have discretion (in terms of lifting ban on documents) but by the time it got to statute that clause had disappeared!! So, yes, it was under Salmond's watch!! talk about irony. Of course AS being AS turns it round and rubbishes the Lord Advocate over it. (it was Alasdair Allan, then Andy Wightman that brought this to light today in the enquiry).
But of course, exceptions should always be made for AS.
insists any involvement from Nicola Sturgeon would have been a serious breach of ministerial code - so why seek meetings with her about it then? Also, why ask her to intervene? surely that would be an even bigger breach of the code - but, as he was at pains to point out over and over again, that intervention would be 'legitimate'. funny that. Okay when it suits him.
Alex Salmond also thinks it 'extraordinary' that new sexual harassment procedure wasn't debated in parliament before replacing the 'very robust and effective' Fairness at Work Policy (under which, surprise, surprise there were no complaints of sexual harassment).
And was Fairness at Work debated in parliament? asks Maureen Watt.
AS: 'It was debated by trade unions blah blah...long ramble.
MW: 'I take it that's a no.'

I think his lawyers have come up with this as a loophole and they probably avoided deploying it until now to limit the time for legal arguments.

It was so refreshing to hear a Scottish politician talking like a grown up. Stark contrast with the patronising claptrap and playground games we've become progressively accustomed to. (applies to Boris and Keir and co just as much as Holyrood). In fact Sir Keir should have been watching to learn how to convey gravitas in a compelling manner as opposed to sounding like a nit picking bore with nothing to add (frustrated Gordon Brown fan escaping )

Eh? Sturgeon was being asked to intervene on the potential illegality of the policy.

Salmond is extremely clever, smarter than NS.

You will see in his statement how he showed her before he issued his JR she was acting unlawfully. So she knew, apparently, and must have accepted he was right as apparently she then asked him to write a rebuttal as part of the investigation which then was said to affect his chances of bringing a successful review.

He then wins the eventual review and this is the basis of the huge costs award he receives of 500k.

Then there is a criminal trial where he acquitted. Outlining as defence an implicit conspiracy of evidence.

There is some much detail here that the "I don't remember defence" is going to have to be spread very very thin to do six minutes, let alone six hours.

I bet NS talks endlessly about responsibility with zero detail, combined with her useless phrasing "if you are asking me".

Whoever said previously that Salmond learned his craft in Westminster is right - and it shows. He has planned this out and knows (as he should) all the constitutional points to out do her. Its been two years of solid homework and he is not shutting up now.

I suppose I would be thinking if I were in the SNP whether it might not be better to aligning myself with his supporters since the natural conclusion of all of is to clear his name and also to say "I, Alex, will be you a true scottish independence"

His response to the fairness at work being debated in Parliament was one of his weakest responses. He had a valid point about the difference between the processes i.e. one was subject to external engagement and review, and done very openly, over a long period and the other was conducted in relative secrecy on the back of a fag packet. But he should have acknowledged that.

Maureen Watt was snippy and unprofessional throughout

Ms watt was dreadful

Jackie bailie was very good. Cut straight to the point

Alasdair Allan was shocking.

Student union debate stuff

AS is head and shoulders above every one else there he really is in a different class and NS can’t outdo him I don’t think...she is definitely on the ropes now! He talks the talk for sure and is very credible ...am no fan as I said but I have to say he gave an outstanding account of himself... and I believe him!

Can anyone explain the basis in layman's terms as I'd love to understand it but all the lesser names and issues I'm Not very familiar with

Thank you

@StatisticallyChallenged

Any scottish legal bods who know whether his grenade at the end about the Scotland Act is correct? As I understand it he, as the accused, is presented by section 162 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing act of disclosing information he obtained in prep for his trial and has had several letters to this effect from the crown.

Section 23 of the Scotland Act allows Scottish Parliament to compell witnesses or production of evidence.

He's suggested this is used on his lawyers; is the suggestion here that using it on him directly wouldn't work as then he'd be breaking the law under section 162, and similarly he can't order them to release it because he'd still be breaching it, but that 162 doesn't actually apply to the lawyers if they are compelled by someone else (SG using the Scotland Act)?

Did they draft this and not cover counsel? I can't see them explicitly mentioned. I've seen a tweeter saying they are covered by 162 but perhaps that only applies in the instance of disclosure at their client's request?

He did mention several times that he was the FM when it was brought in, the Macaskill was justice secretary abdicate name dropped the then Lord Advocate several times so it get the sense he's door his homework here.

Presumably because s162 doesn't have vertical effect, but only horizontal effect? Because thats really common in British constitutional law. But no, that still wouldn't be vertical effect, so perhaps because of their fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of their client at all times and overriding duties in the interests of justice?

noego How many other bills that have passed through parliament are flawed?

Named Persons (dropped after a legal challenge which alleged it breached human rights legislation), Minimum Alcohol Pricing (said by the Advocate-General at the European court of Justice to be disproportionate and therefore likely illegal under EU law), much property legislation appears to be in breach of EU competition law, from HMO legislation to disproportionate penalties on landlords who break rules, just off the top of my head. Oh, and the Hate Crime bill of course - again that problem of human rights. So much personal interest legislation interfering with people's lives comes out of the Scottish Parliament with no upper chamber overseeing it and providing a check on the exercise of its powers.

And have you ever noticed how none of these policies eventually bills is ever mentioned as part of a manifesto? They seem to think they have carte blanche to tell us all what to do.
And a minority vote for them!

Turn on Newsnight to check in on MSM spin machine. Turn off in disgust after 5 minutes of Lewis and Faisal playing the wide eyed innocents to Blackford's "nothing to see here" bluster.

Turn on Twitter. Angus B McNeil (SNP MP for Western Isles):
Alex Salmond schooling the Scots Parliament on Parliamentary Privilege.
Pretty bad that is required.

Wee contrast with Alasdair Allan his complementary MSP. Not to mention Blackford claiming unity within his WM troops.