Sturgeon v Salmond - I'm confused!

[DublinGirl83]

I'm not in Scotland, a keen follower of UK gov politics, though less knowledgable about Scottish politics. I've been trying to follow this Salmond / Sturgeon thing closely, but I'm confused about a few details. Was wondering if any Scottish politics geeks could shed any light?

1. So far as I can tell, Salmond has made a number of specific accusations which have been redacted from the documents published online. I understand these docs were published but were subsequently taken down. Is anywhere publishing these details? They must have been out there is the general domain? BBC is not and it all sounds cryptic. Does anyone on here actually know what the issues are?

1. As a result of these details being blocked from public viewing by the state, Salmond therefore felt he couldn't give evidence as he would be unable to speak his version of events. Again, does anyone actually know what these details are?

1. Why would the Scottish gov and / or Sturgeon want to see him jailed? (As is his accusation). Surely his time had passed and he wasn't a threat?

1. What is the general consensus on here about who is telling the truth? And also, do we think he was guilty of the original sexual assault charges?

Thank you if you've read this far! X

i didn't deliberately leave that word off - in fact - I wish I hadn't - just proves the point more as it is just allegations against Sturgeon at this point - unlike the Tories' proven misdemeanours

I've just realised... they're both named after fish...

StarryEyeSurprise

Quite ridiculous MissBarbary. Noting the hypocrisy of those stating NS should resign is hardly a separate topic to the thread title

Your response is as ridiculous as your earlier post and just more whaboutery.

I keep hearing that SNP is a cult...most.people I know who vote SNP seem totally normal and have things in perspective, are fence sitters about who they vote for, have only recently come round to independence etc. I think we're just so used to people voting for political parties with reluctance/out of the sense that they're the "least worst option" that we've forgotten that it used to be more normal for people to vote with conviction/actually feel positive about their choice. Not big on the SNP myself but just some perspective on it.

Sorry I mean I keep hearing that people follow the SNP in a "cult like way"

people I know who vote SNP seem totally normal

i sometimes think it has a lot to do with the internet mumlurker. I wonder if it gives a false impression as it seems to bring out the extremists on both sides of the 'independence debate' and everything else too - Brexit etc etc. I think i said in the other thread on this subject early on that I feel a whole lot of voices in the middle, both unionist and pro-indy, get lost because of these extremists on both sides shouting at each other

For me the cult of snp comes from the politicians in that until this there was never any open dissent amongst the msp/mp’s and to me that’s just not normal.

I want to hear my msp/mp’s views not just toe the official line. Look at Tory and Labour Party rebels, they will absolutely criticise their leadership and policies and that’s a good thing as power corrupts.

In terms with the populace, I agree with @happygolurkey in that social media amplifies the entrenched voices and that also leads to cult like claims.

Oh and one other thing, I do find it strange when some seem to take it personally when the snp/Scottish government is criticised, this is normal and should be encouraged, we should never ever put politicians on a pedestal, they are to serve us, not the other way round.

I don't think you have to be on either side. It's perfectly possible to think that he is probably guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour (whether it was criminal or not) but that the complaints policy and process was a catastrophic fuck up, and that's the attempts to hide it that have happened since are appalling.

Well yes. This is it in a (sort of) nutshell. My take:

Salmond is, and has probably always been, what used to be described as Not Safe In Taxis.

Nicola Sturgeon knew this - she must have knew this.

A process for sexual harassment charges was drawn up very quickly in response to MeToo. It was not a good process. That's important when we're talking workplace policies, Salmond basically took the govt to court for wrongful process, nothing to do with the criminal charges.

Someone used this process to bring a complaint. Other women joined her. There was a body of evidence that then suggested it be referred to the police. Things then get murky - was pressure put on the system to bring charges?

Salmond is a narc and like all narcs his rage is now great and mighty. Everything post the court case is narcissistic rage at being found out/called out/questioned.

For me, the only question really is why now Nicola? Why has she gone on the attack? The best I can come up with came from a tweet along the lines of 'Salmond's a sex pest, he's always been a sex pest, everyone knew he was a sex pest, but now we're not allowed to let sex pests be sex pests, so we have to pretend we didn't know he's a sex pest and act like this is the first time we've heard he's a sex pest.' In other words, in a post MeToo world NS had to act in a way that she perhaps may not have chosen in the past. Thus AS is enraged, see point above.

For those who believe no smoke without fire, what do you find of the (IIRC) attempted rape claimant not even being at that location at that date? That definitely doesn't sit right with me and I think that was the most serious of the charges.

I think the longer Scotland (NS) talks about Independence but doesn't actually push for it, the more of a threat Salmond considering returning to politics could have been.

Starting. The intent to rape charge went not proven. It was a different one, I believe, where there was a dispute about whether the claimant was in the location on that date. One witness said she was, and another said she wasn't - obviously the jury must have been more convinced by the person who said she wasn't.

It was the attempted rape that had the "was she even there" issue (woman H). The intent to rape was, I think, woman F and is one of the two original ones

The other thing that's amazing about all this to me is that we are only talking 6 years since Salmond was FM.

So some people in the SNP knew and covered up for years, and now it's all been botched suddenly it's all no smoke without fire and how can you believe this conspiracy theorist/narc etc.

Nicola worked closely with him for years.

Sorry 7 years, I've forgotten the year has changed since so little has happened!

@StartingGrid

For those who believe no smoke without fire, what do you find of the (IIRC) attempted rape claimant not even being at that location at that date? That definitely doesn't sit right with me and I think that was the most serious of the charges.

I think the longer Scotland (NS) talks about Independence but doesn't actually push for it, the more of a threat Salmond considering returning to politics could have been.

You should direct your question to Sturgeon. She is the one sowing the "no smoke without fire" scenario. Her conduct at Wednesday's briefing was outrageous and inexcusable.

And as HoldontoOneMoreDay points out it doesn't reflect well on Sturgeon and the rest of the SNP hierarchy. After her husband, Salmond is the man she has been closest to for almost her entire adult life. He was her friend, coach and mentor- in all those years did she never notice the behaviour which she is now shamelessly calling out in an entirely inappropriate manner?

Everyone casting the 'no smoke without fire' aspersions about Salmond, please read this thorough but succinct review of each complainers case and say if it changes your view in any way... headline - is Alex Salmond Scotland's OJ Simpson? Click here: scotland.substack.com/p/is-alex-salmond-scotlands-oj-simpson

sessell that is an excellent article. It chimes with my understanding. Only thing I would add on the Not Proven. There is still an assertion that the jurors were "sending a message". My own gut reaction is more that the message was that they would indeed have convicted had a case been proven but it was not.

It is odd so many still believe that the jurors did not feel the weight of expectation to convict and to "stand with women" #metoo. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes.

The jurors must have thought it was a little different, I'd guess because of the more serious incidents it's the one where both sides admit something did happen?

From that article it seems like the cases are almost in 3 categories

• not really serious enough to constitute crimes, whether they actually happened or not (these probably wouldn't have been brought to court on their own but maybe were thought to add to the picture of behaviour as part of a bigger case?)
• may have happened but evidence wasn't strong enough to convict
• cases where the defence brought enough evidence to make the jury think it probably didn't happen

I do wonder if they might have got a difference result on the second group without the third. The combination of some cases which seem to have evidence against them and the whatsapp messages, plus the jury will of course know who the accusers are and may have realised that they are closely linked, probably tainted the lot

My understanding was that a lot of the not really criminal incidents were added to make it look like a more prevalent issue and that maybe the jury might be more willing to find guilty on at least some of the charges.

.most.people I know who vote SNP seem totally normal

I suspect if I still lived in Scotland I would have voted for SNP last time around. It wouldn't have been a vote for independence but there wasn't much alternative.

I think some of these 'normally people will have been frightened off the SNP.

It's a lot easier to say you support independence in a poll than actually vote for it.

And there will be others who would quite like independence but question the timing.

I just get frustrated by the lack of accountability and comparisons to Boris / Tories.

Tories are in a league of their own but it shouldn't excuse other unacceptable behaviour.