Salmond v Sturgeon Round 2.

[Cismyfatarse]

As the conversation is interesting and the thread is nearly full. Does it matter if Sturgeon is guilty - do you know or care? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/4153007-Does-it-matter-if-Sturgeon-is-guilty-do-you-know-or-care

"Its this reason that Joanna Cherry being sacked is concerning - she gave people like me a run for my money and what a bloody good job she did in twisting Westminster's tail. No offence but her replacement doesn't make me exactly sweat. "

This 👆

Out of all the most baffling decisions NS has made, the decision to sack Cherry is the one that to me highlights Sturgeon's weaknesses. She never needed to like Cherry, but she should be using her skills for the sake of her party, government & country's benefit. But to sack her? And for the party to ensure she got nowhere near the Scottish Parliament?

It's short sighted, it's based on personal & political insecurity & it just reflects badly on all those who agitated for it.

I wonder whether after all of this, it will come to anything? The committee seemed very weak in comparison to AS on Friday, and I suspect the same with NS on Wednesday. I think she's a good speaker and a good 'politiker' (is that even a word) and I think she has the potential to blind them with science so to speak and almost talk her way out of it.

If she is proven to have 'misled parliament' who will actually be the person to call for her resignation, and will she listen?

The whole Salmond, Sturgeon, Murrell triangle has always been a bit murky and the fact that she's married to Murrell, but has a different name, and it isn't particularly publicised also seems to me to be unethical.

I'm just thinking out loud really, but could it be one of those things where all the evidence is there, but it's so complicated that nobody is able to line it up correctly to prove the point?

I've just realised I've typed Aberdein so often my phone automatically autocorrects to the right spelling for his name!

His statesmen effectively says "leave me out of it" 🤷🏻‍♀️

@WaxOnFeckOff very strange.

Tweet Link

Interesting thread on why it's important to get the full legal advice disclosed by Scotgov & not just 'key' advice as has been suggested.

@TokyoSushi

I wonder whether after all of this, it will come to anything? The committee seemed very weak in comparison to AS on Friday, and I suspect the same with NS on Wednesday. I think she's a good speaker and a good 'politiker' (is that even a word) and I think she has the potential to blind them with science so to speak and almost talk her way out of it.

If she is proven to have 'misled parliament' who will actually be the person to call for her resignation, and will she listen?

The whole Salmond, Sturgeon, Murrell triangle has always been a bit murky and the fact that she's married to Murrell, but has a different name, and it isn't particularly publicised also seems to me to be unethical.

I'm just thinking out loud really, but could it be one of those things where all the evidence is there, but it's so complicated that nobody is able to line it up correctly to prove the point?

No I shouldn't think so. If the evidence is there it's there.

Also it's perfectly acceptable to keep your own name after marriage. It doesn't make anything murky or unethical. It's not a secret that they are married.

"I wonder whether after all of this, it will come to anything?"

If I'm honest, I don't think the committee is the last we'll hear of this.

There are some serious allegations made.

Obstruction of justice.

The criminal leak of the investigation/decision report to the Daily Record. That's been deemed criminal & not been investigated by the police.

The activities of the 'SNP 3' who allegedly interfered with the police investigation, pressured witnesses etc.

But who knows?

@TheShadowyFeminist

I've just realised I've typed Aberdein so often my phone automatically autocorrects to the right spelling for his name!

His statesmen effectively says "leave me out of it" 🤷🏻‍♀️

The interpretation of his evidence is very political - they have the choice to believe him and damn Sturgeon or fudge it. It is very unclear what can actually be changed as a result of their conclusions unless the Scottish Parliament is prepared to act make a vote of no confidence, a gesture rendered nearly impotent because the election is coming in May, and of course could always be delayed because of COVID issues.

Politics is very rough business. Even if Sturgeon is really crippled by the committee report, a vote in May for the SNP will vindicate her effectively in political terms. Forget the "but they didn't have a majority" arguments. This is a critical moment for Scotland.

I wonder whether after all of this, it will come to anything? The committee seemed very weak in comparison to AS on Friday, and I suspect the same with NS on Wednesday. I think she's a good speaker and a good 'politiker' (is that even a word) and I think she has the potential to blind them with science so to speak and almost talk her way out of it.

I'm inclined to disagree with a bit of this. When she is on comfortable ground and is able to divert the questions and is questioned by pretty tame journalists etc she can come across confident and well spoken.

Lately I think she is inclined to get angry and uppity and not in a productive way, whenever she is challenged. She still manages to lecture away at people she sees as beneath her (the general population of Scotland mainly) but you can see the agitation and anger at the challenge on anything where she is on dodgy ground and having to deal with awkward questions.

I don't think she will manage to keep the school that AS did tbh. But I could be wrong

"The interpretation of his evidence is very political"

That's the crux of this whole thing isn't it? The truth isn't as important as the outcome. And the timing of it all, now, is squeezing out any possibility of the truth being established, whether the committee get to see everything that's relevant or not.

It's been the longest game of chicken I can remember.

Yes I will be watching on Wednesday! I wonder if the committee will do its duty and really put heat on her. Or will be they be softball questions? It is an critical moment that will tell us so much about Scotland now.

Perversely, her turning over by the committee would show a robust democracy more ready for independence legally, but politically, it would be a no no because of her popularity with the electorate.

Interesting tweet from Wightman

twitter.com/andywightman/status/1366459961933508609

I'm hoping that's a sign the committee are sick of being made fools of by scotgov. 🤞

Also 🤞 I get no calls at all on Wednesday. One of the perks of working from home is the ability to watch/listen to this stuff while working. I barely did much on Friday for the 6 hrs salmon gave his evidence.

@TheShadowyFeminist

I have no idea what to make of this.

Statement from Geoff Aberdein.

Tweet Link

I read that as him saying he isn’t going to leak his statement - there have been calls for it to be leaked as if it’s in the public domain the committee can then discuss it.

Or possibly that he has been threatened with legal action by the clerks? Why were they speaking to him today?

It's starting to feel like this is a box of embroidery silks that's all messed up, and you have to gently tease them out, and then put them into a pattern. Then somebody's saying "no, you're not allowed that green thread", when you've just worked out where it will go.

It's whether the committee can untangle them and get them into place, then step back and look at the picture before we run headlong into the election!

(Astroturfing is in contrast to grass roots I think. Rather than individual blades growing up, somebody organises a big square to be put down, smothering the actual grass trying to grow underneath.)

It's starting to feel like this is a box of embroidery silks that's all messed up, and you have to gently tease them out, and then put them into a pattern. Then somebody's saying "no, you're not allowed that green thread", when you've just worked out where it will go

I'll add "and then a cat comes in and tangles it all up again"

Gets worse
www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/6757747/nicola-sturgeon-alex-salmond-inquiry-leslie-evans/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=scottishsuntwitter&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1614633180

This thread has moved on a pace. At the end of thread 1 there was a return to a bit of mud raking re Salmond. The threads and inquiry aren't about salmond, but as mud/deflection is part of Sturgeons strategy, it will probably keep coming up! In fact I saw it on my FB feed on Friday ... Basically 'AS is a sex pest out for revenge. NS is great leave her alone.' Lots of likes. This is local friends in southern England, lefty's. They don't care enough about Scotland to pay attention. Anyway I put them right. But wish I'd posted a link to this blog I've just read....headline - is Alex Salmond Scotland's OJ Simpson? It's a very thorough review of the evidence for each of the complainers. Highly recommended. Click here: scotland.substack.com/p/is-alex-salmond-scotlands-oj-simpson

From the article below

Labour’s Jackie Baillie, who sits on the Holyrood inquiry into the government’s unlawful harassment probe of Mr Salmond, said: “If this extraordinary allegation is true, then Leslie Evans has further serious questions to answer.

“This is contrary to the practice of most civil servants that keep records of important meetings, particularly of meetings with ministers.

“It is deeply disturbing and quite unbelievable that she destroys these records immediately.”

Lib Dem panel member Alex Cole-Hamilton added: “It’s been a source of continual frustration for the inquiry committee that information that could have illuminated our investigations has been destroyed or not recorded.

Interestingly that article mentions what I'd said upthread about the Wark documentary.

It's a reasonable summary, I think. Doesn't cover everything but it's a long story

I didn't see the Wark documentary at the time, but remember the strong sense of 'he'd got away with it' in the media. At the time I would have been a big admirer of NS and didn't give it too much attention.

My FB is all about "9 women can't be lying"

I have to sit on my hands to avoid saying: "its about how it was all handled, that is the issue now being considered, not whether it did happen!"

The rose tinted glasses of SNP supporters need to be smashed to pieces and I hope that will happen in the coming weeks.

I was critical of your comments earlier LexMitior. However I am in complete agreement with your clarification. Also agree with comments re Joanna Cherry which seem pretty much unanimous.

Commented on sessell's article link on the other thread. Definitely worth reading.

All the astroturfing chat has fair lightened the mood. Wish I didn't have to get up and get on cos it will take me ages to catch up.

I do care a lot about this as I see it as letting our politicians know what we the electorate are willing to accept/ignore.

Democracy is important and we should make it clear that we expect our politicians to stick to their rules as if we don’t then that becomes a slippery slope.

To the posters who don’t know what NS has allegedly done, read this and the many other threads on this issue as many articulate posters have made it clear.

It will is important to understand and then decide where your personal line in the land lies and if true whether you are willing to turn a blind eye if it is true.