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?

So I cannot stand NS or AS and would never vote SNP and would be delighted to see them implode. I feel though like we will never know the truth here. Craig Murray’s article feels a bit fantasist to me...he clearly worships AS and has put a lot of thought into how he articulates his version of events. If it is all true, it’s an appalling thing to happen to AS but I just can’t see AS as a victim at all. At the same time, I can absolutely believe it of NS...I thinks she would stoop at nothing.

What an embarrassing mess. There is no good outcome here - well except maybe the SNP implodes and threats of independence go with it - but then we have to start rebuilding our country...we have so much work to do, and I’m not sure anyone in government of any party is capable. It’s depressing.

I'm suspicious of Nicola S's husband's involvement.
Not good to have a spouse of the first minister in such a powerful position. CEO of the SNP. Incestuous.

I care. If the FM conspired in the manner alleged then she should go.

I think that Salmond has been accused of behaviour that we could all have believed. Which I suppose was the intention.

There are too many journalists up here afraid/ in the SNP's pockets.

It's a complete abuse of power.

@TheDuchessOfAquitaine the point for me is that Craig Murray’s statement was not just an article he had decided to publish online it was his affidavit for Scotland’s court of law in relation to his contempt of court charges.

Peter Murrell has now refused to appear again to answer for the contradictions in his evidence last time, before the parliamentary inquiry. I read they can force him.

There are obviously two factions at war here.
My SNP members in my family (live and let live folk, just want to get on with their lives) reckon NS is on the way out and say members are desperate for Peter murrell to go and have no time for the Gender stuff. However my SNP middle aged female friend (very forthright and argumentative online and in real life) adores NS and she can do no wrong.
Time will tell.

Unless Craig Murray is exceptionally stupid - which I don't think is likely - I would expect that he is telling the truth about what he was told , and would probably be backed up by a variety of sources who would confirm that they told him x, y and z. Whether a) the sources were truthful or b) his extrapolation and evaluation of the info given is valid is a different matter.

Surely if he was outright lying or wasn't confident he could prove the substance of his claims then he'd be going from a contempt charge to a perjury one very quickly? Which of course may be what comes next.

Scotland's Covid and death rate would be worse if we didn't have huge areas of the country so sparsely populated.

Sweden, which is considered to have a high death rate, has double Scotland's population and just under double the number of deaths.

We've nothing to proud of here.

But surely ALL the females would already have been charged with perjury and wasting police time if they made up sexual offences * including attempted rape. That's very serious.

And that is what people on this thread / Craig Murray is saying- there was a coup by NS. Using women to 'imprison AS' 'like Putin'.
I mean you'd have to be an evil psychopath to do that to someone but obviously people believe she has done this..?
I can't believe it myself but each to their own.

Is it not true that in Singapore they have corruption police especially for officials? We should have them here.

This is the way the Labour party went in Scotland. Corrupt and sleazy.
Focussing on trans rights does nothing for the life chances of children in Port Glasgow.

It's not the norm for women to be charged after a not guilty verdict - and there's no evidence the police are investigating. So no, I don't think you can assume that lack of charges = they're being truthful. The whole allegation includes police and prosecutorial corruption after all.

But on that basis you must believe that anyone not charged has not commited a crime?

But I think the point of the post was less about whether it's true - because none of us know - but about why people don't even seem to care if it is.

@StarryEyeSurprise

But surely ALL the females would already have been charged with perjury and wasting police time if they made up sexual offences * including attempted rape. That's very serious.

This seems to be what Wings and CM have implied previously, and why I am very reluctant to take what they are saying with anything other than a huge fistful of salt. Wings seems to have a problem with women generally, and CM strongly supports Julian Assange and his embassy-hiding to avoid his rape charge . However, I confess the evidence they are referring to, in terms of what they heard, what was shown in court and so on did make me wonder whether the charges were as clear cut as I had thought (well, obviously not, as AS was found not guilty/ not proven) and the background machinations do seem murky. I was surprised not to totally dismiss articles from those two out of hand... and did wonder if I was coming down with something .

I have no doubt the allegations have some truth... that seems to have been basically agreed in court - so there can't be any question that the women were lying. They weren't, from their point of view, but the timelines/ consent and so on just didn't establish beyond reasonable doubt that AS had done anything illegal.

I agree with statistically that the wording of CMs statement is cleverly done, and relates to his opinion of what was said to him, rather than claiming that what was said was truthful. But assuming it's a truthful account of what was said, by people who presumably would know better than to spread blatant and provable lies about senior politicians, its still not looking good...

I was surprised not to totally dismiss articles from those two out of hand... and did wonder if I was coming down with something grin.

Haha so true. Wings especially, I'm finding it quite funny as in the run up to indyref you used to get slaughtered for saying anything in his wee blue book was not utterly accurate. Now he's totally persona non grata.

I agree what Craig Murray has said in his affidavit could be true but only to the point of that's what he has been told and he's now documenting it. That actually does not mean the information is correct.
The fact people are saying it's an affidavit not just a column piece literally means nothing here.

That was my point - it being an affidavit makes it more likely imo that he is telling the truth as he perceives it to be based on what he has found out/seen/been told. He could be telling his truth whilst having been fed a pack of lies - although it sounds like there were a fairly high number of sources

@Horehound

I agree what Craig Murray has said in his affidavit could be true but only to the point of that's what he has been told and he's now documenting it. That actually does not mean the information is correct. The fact people are saying it's an affidavit not just a column piece literally means nothing here.

I find it incredibly difficult to pick through this, @Horehound.

Craig Murray would appear a credible source, given his credentials - which he himself stresses, a fair bit - and he argues that he finds his sources credible.

But ... but ... as others have said, why the fuck and how the fuck does NS concoct a situation where women make up allegations in court about sexual assault / indecent assault? Why would those women do that?

And then again ... there's something murky around the 'When was NS told?' question, about the allegations against AS, given that the CEO of the SNP is her spouse.

And J Cherry seems to know a thing or two.

It's all got a bit Tudor court and the Stewarts.

Forgive me if I know fuck all.

The fact people are saying it's an affidavit not just a column piece literally means nothing here.

Of course it means something. This isn't some random journalist giving his opinion. This is an intelligent man of senior standing who has no wish to perjure himself or be in contempt of court, submitting a sworn legal affidavit. This means that his claims warrant proper investigation

Yes, we don't know if what he says happened or not as we don't know to what extent the people he spoke to lied or not and what can be proven.

The point is that there is an element of people who don't care whether it's true or not and will continue to support and vote for these people regardless.

I know it's not the norm for women to be charged after a non guilty verdict.
But what people are saying is that NS set AS up and got women to lie about sexual offences, no? That is VERY different.

Re Craig Murray his affidavit is in relation to allegations of contempt of court against him (I think?). He is not recalling or bringing up these things in detail for the first time. He is defending a column he wrote during the court proceedings which was deemed to sail too close to the wind.

I suspect one of the reasons so many women were "persuaded" to add their testimony was the "safety in numbers" approach.

Either the allegations are concocted or everyone knew and said nothing for years. Neither is acceptable and I'm on the fence as to which is worse legally or ethically. I don't think it credible that NS didn't know and if she didn't it is equally damning because you would expect her to be available to her closest aides raising concerns about her direct boss (I certainly was when I was 2nd in command in a corporate structure).

I clicked on your link, got to para 16 and his nasty comments about a woman "setting her cap" at AS and her being regarded as a booby prize and decided I wasn't interested in his opinion.

But ... but ... as others have said, why the fuck and how the fuck does NS concoct a situation where women make up allegations in court about sexual assault / indecent assault? Why would those women do that?

I was actually pondering this (whilst doing other stuff it was rolling around) and one possibility I thought of is that the truth is somewhere in between? So some accusations true, some maybe happened but didn't meet the jury's perception of sexual assault, and some actual lies by people who wanted to ensure he was totally sunk? Something along these lines could make sense as if some of the allegations were demonstrably false in court, and if any sort of conspiracy was raised by the defence, then it would have called all of it in to question for the jury.

Not saying this is what happened, just a possible scenario

@JaimeLeeCurtains I agree, it's a very risky thing that multiple women had to be willing to do and could have ruined their lives. Also all their family will have been asking questions to them etc so I just don't see women doing this.

I DO think Nicola might have lied about when she found out the allegations.

If there has been a conspiracy to frame Salmond, that must be investigated and dealt with.

I'm not Scottish and thought it was all sorted so am behind the times.

No I don't care that much but conspiracies are awful.

ancientgran You would be incredibly naive to assume political animals at all levels do not use their personal qualities for advancement or to entrap others. This applies equally to men and women.

@Dinnafashyersel

Re Craig Murray his affidavit is in relation to allegations of contempt of court against him (I think?). He is not recalling or bringing up these things in detail for the first time. He is defending a column he wrote during the court proceedings which was deemed to sail too close to the wind.

I suspect one of the reasons so many women were "persuaded" to add their testimony was the "safety in numbers" approach.

Either the allegations are concocted or everyone knew and said nothing for years. Neither is acceptable and I'm on the fence as to which is worse legally or ethically. I don't think it credible that NS didn't know and if she didn't it is equally damning because you would expect her to be available to her closest aides raising concerns about her direct boss (I certainly was when I was 2nd in command in a corporate structure).

It's not the content of the column in terms of accusations which is the issue, is it? I thought it was the claim that his various writings had enabled the accusers to be identified through jigsaw identification. I think he could probably have contested it without all the other stuff.

Re the booby prize - hard to tell due to redaction but I don't think the booby prize was the woman...I think it was her spouse