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?

Well, I never thought I'd be glad to hear from Alex Neill, but if it hadn't been for him then the deep stench of corruption would have passed by unremarked! Newsnight missing the fucking point!

I've only just found this thread.

I didn't do a bit of work for the entire 6 hours Salmond was giving evidence.

I think that from what was said today, and based on the evidence that's said to be in support of what Salmond says corroborates his evidence, many many 'mistakes' bad decisions were made because a decision was made to try and get the JR buried as the criminal case overtook the JR. I can't think of any other reason that they would continue to throw public funds at a case they knew they hadn't a hope of winning.

Thinking back to the various sessions with Lesley Evans, her answers for not conceding the JR much sooner don't make any sense at all, unless it was believed there was an escape route for those involved in the "unlawful" investigation.

I've never been a Salmond fan or liked him generally. I (grudgingly) recognise he's a gifted politician (not necessarily a compliment) whose success I think has been largely due to his razor sharp political instincts. And despite the fact he's rumoured to have been a bit of a tyrant to work for (no idea if true or not but that was always the impression I had of him), his ability to control his apparent temper today & deliver such a composed performance was quite something to witness. Had any of the committee hit on a weak spot & riled him, that would have been a disaster for him. Instead, ACH managed to make himself look like a petty fool.

I expect Sturgeon to go down the 'plausible deniability' route with regards to lots of the investigation & JR decisions. But I think for to her plead the level of ignorance required to make that believable, would in turn make her look incompetent. I just don't know if she'll go down that route or not.

For someone like sturgeon to be in this position at this point, with an election coming up v soon, and with personal approval ratings so high, she might think it's doable to weather the storm and brazen her way through her evidence session claiming she had no part, knew nothing about the key info at key stages. But I'm not sure even she can work her way around what's been said today & what the (not yet public) evidence says about her own integrity.

It was a pretty compelling session. I cannot wait to see Sturgeon's evidence session next week.

I was appalled at newsnight dinna Faisal was useless, no attempt to grapple with the issues at all. C4 and Ruth Davidson were far better.

Lost count of the times Alyn Smith said 'we're ventilating the issues' and 'it's about victim protection' - that'll be Sturgeon's line.

No concession to the fact the redactions were about her and not the victims as the redacted bits can't be shown, and robot like repetition that it's all great as the inquiry's been had.

I noticed that a couple of them tried to delve in to the "tyrant at work" area and it just seemed unnecessary and irrelevant. They spent an extraordinarily long time on the "but we did need a new policy" line of argument

@anon444877

Lost count of the times Alyn Smith said 'we're ventilating the issues' and 'it's about victim protection' - that'll be Sturgeon's line.

No concession to the fact the redactions were about her and not the victims as the redacted bits can't be shown, and robot like repetition that it's all great as the inquiry's been had.

If it about victim protection why didn't they come up with a legal process in the 2 years that have passed since the judicial review?

As Salmond said, anyone that's see. The redactions knows it's not about victim protection but she can't be asked that can she? So victim protection it is.

I hope she feels a sense of shame about that.

It is a flawed system where a witness statement cannot be read in full by those in a position to investigate what has happened. It could be “in camera”. There is no logical reason that a person under oath should not be allowed to put their side of the story. There should not be threats of legal action. So they need to find a way to hear all the evidence. There have been suggestions made and, as they know there is more evidence, the committee must see it/hear it. It beggars belief that the Crown has conspired in a cover up. How can a progressive democracy put up with this?

Agree TheSadowyFeminist. Looks like classic case of not knowing when to stop digging with regard to the Civil Case and not stopping to think about the consequences of doubling down by bringing a Criminal Case (criminality has a higher standard of proof -beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities- so difficult to understand why anyone would expect a criminal conviction having already lost a civil case.
Usually a civil case is brought if you can't get a criminal conviction.
Reading between the lines I don't buy the line that they were ever hoping to get a rape conviction or prison sentence. They were just hoping enough mud would stick from the criminal case or even more optimistically that he would be persuaded to plead guilty to some sort of minor infraction (thankfully not au fait with the sliding scale in such matters but there are loads of cases where someone appears to get little more than a slap on the wrist).

I now understand what happened re Newsnight. Sarah Smith got a rap on the knuckles after the usual avalanche of complaints because she dared to explain that what Salmond said was tantamount to calling for Sturgeon's resignation rather than sticking to the exact wording.

BBC now all playing the long game to keep the story running in anticipation of next stages. SNP still in keep burying mode - cos that's been going so well

@PresentingPercy

It is a flawed system where a witness statement cannot be read in full by those in a position to investigate what has happened. It could be “in camera”. There is no logical reason that a person under oath should not be allowed to put their side of the story. There should not be threats of legal action. So they need to find a way to hear all the evidence. There have been suggestions made and, as they know there is more evidence, the committee must see it/hear it. It beggars belief that the Crown has conspired in a cover up. How can a progressive democracy put up with this?

Of course, it diesnt make sense. But you would be astonished the number of times the phrase "special and unique Scottish circumstances" in used in literature coming from the Scottish government.

Salmond made quite a good point yesterday re the women - it's been said that they were incredibly distressed that the Daily Record got hold of and published the story, yet Evans was trying to release it earlier the same day. So surely that would have caused them similar distress?

I don't think the women mattered to anyone in this, certainly not the government. They wanted to be seen to be doing something but I don't think that meant they cared

they've been the biggest losers here, women in general. No prosecution service is going to go hard after restrospective cases now and victim protection has been cheapened by political misuse.

I don't know why the media hasn't picked up on the political misuse of victim protection - I can only think it's a hard argument to prove when you can't show the redactions in detail.

Sturgeon will go down the route of we need to get on with solving the real problems Covid, housing, poverty and a lot of swipes at the Westminster government. And I'm really too important and busy to be wasting time answering questions like this. And she even laughed off questions during that Covid briefing. I expect there will be a bit of that too.

Sturgeon's going to go with the "arrogant man doesn't like to take responsibility for his own behaviour" line I think. Deflection all the way.

It doesn't matter how serious the accusations are, you still need to deal with them correctly. And that just seems the be getting lost in mud slinging.

She doesn’t seem to be a particularly honest person in any area. The more I read the less I am impressed.

I agree. There will be a lot of hand wringing and faux concern for the woman at the centre of this. Please please let her be out at the end of this.

For me it’s not really about not being a snp supporter

I watched most of the proceedings yesterday despite the kids 🤷‍♀️

The first 2 hours seemed mainly blah blah. None of the questioners seemed competent.. it seemed they were time wasting

It’s about the Scottish government the crown office the lord advocate the permanent secretary

I dont understand why the crown office asked for redaction of some parts of salmond s evidence. After all it was in the daily mail and there was nothing about the complainers

Also why are some very important parts of evidence being withheld from the committee even though they have asked for the evidence .

Also wher is Geoff aberdains evidence ?

You know I want to feel reassured in my government my crown office the lord advocate that they are trustworthy

At the moment I don’t

This whole thing has shown her in a very poor light.

Agree that Sturgeon doesn't come across as very honest. Ironically her overexposure with her daily briefings has really highlighted this for me, for example with the blended learning U turn that was flatly denied, and more recently her row back from the disastrous Road map unveiling. I used to think she was an improvement on Alex Salmond even though I'm a unionist, but she now strikes me as someone who will say anything for her own advantage and to maintain support whether that happens to be the best course of action for Scotland of not.

Salmond came across as very credible yesterday, not least because he stuck to what could be corroborated by evidence. It's clear to me that NS has broken the ministerial code on several counts (misleading parliament, not minuting SG meetings, ignoring legal advice and misusing public funds) but I fully expect her to deflect and brazen it out. The SG's actions on this, from the slapdash implementation of unlawful policy to the repeated and outrageous moves to suppress evidence, have undoubtedly set back women's rights in this respect, and that makes me really angry actually.

Why is Geoff Aberdein conspicuous by his absence?!

I really can’t see how she can survive this

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

Why is Geoff Aberdein conspicuous by his absence?!

Murdo Fraser alluded to this yesterday. He gave a statement but it was removed due to jigsaw identification on exactly the same basis as Salmond's.

This isn't about personalities. This is pure incompetence. The bottom line is that no one in the hierarchy of the SG seems up to the job!!
These are the people who are going to take Scotland into independence!! I wonder what the strategy is going to be? Can you imagine these people setting up trade deals, applying for EU membership? Sorting out their own currency? Hard border with the rest of the UK. The mind boggles.
As an investor. Would I invest money in a country that is run in this shambolic way?
The word despotic springs to mind!!!

That is ridiculous. Surely what he said at that first meeting is critical to the whole argument? I haven’t seen any reporting of
Him at all. Poor guy getting dragged into it

neugo this is how I have felt for years with theSNP running my country. I just despair at how incompetent they are and I find their supporters utterly obsessed. It’s a cult

I’m glad it’s being viewed for what it is