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

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

I always assumed my loathing of the government - my feeling that they were thoroughly incompetent - was perhaps my own prejudice. That surely I was missing something. I have kept my incredulity largely to myself.

But they really are as bad as it seems.

Yes!! Agreeing with so many of you on here!

@StormzyinaTCup

actually can't keep up with the revelations. They just keep on coming and each one makes you think it is the last. And then there is another. And another.

It's a bit like a 24hour vomiting bug, you hope with each visit to the bathroom it will be the last, then you get that awful sensation of saliva in the mouth and off you go again (and again).

Things are being vomited out left right and centre at the moment (sorry if anyone is having a late dinner!).

Yes 😂😂

People really need to stop endorsing personalities when they vote (Boris Johnson exploits this greatly) and actually look at what they do. If you vote for a personality then do not be surprised when the substance is wanting.

Now now, it's a bit below the belt to accuse NS of having a personality is it not? :o

it is shocking the LA tells the parliament what questions they are allowed to to ask. No point in a parliament controlled by unelected officials or a FM who thinks she can ignore it.

The measure of the SNP will be at what point any SNP MSPs will criticise the Sturgeon and Swinney show.

this excellent article distills the issue: the LA is controlling what goes in front of parliament and increasingly it appears not for good reason.

Sadly the SNP drones are a busted lot. Public pressure is the only thing that will tell.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lord-advocate-shows-the-punishable-scottish-parliament-where-power-really-lies

Smart Sustainable in East Kilbride. Fabiani has championed its work in parliament. They have received funds from Scot Gov. Fabiani is a director

With the make up of Parliament, should there be a vote off, no confidence, what parties do you think would vote yes? Is the PO allowed a vote?

If they had and by accident, ie they hadn’t been made aware of the facts and then subsequently discovered that they had done so, what would they have done, would they have to disclose to the court?

They would have disclosed this to the court - their first duty is to the court not the client. And - if the Court considered that the matter should still be heard and not thrown out - replacement counsel might be required.

It isn’t that unusual for stuff to come to light after the case starts, and it wouldn’t be assumed that there was anything amiss in the behaviour of counsel.

Have just read the Speccie piece. Fraser Nelson is as shocked as anyone at the developments on this - why does Wolffe restrict the Scottish Parliament but not the Spectator magazine from what it says?

Thanks personal as I know perjury is taken really seriously but curious over accidental perjury and now I know!

Smart Sustainable in East Kilbride. Fabiani has championed its work in parliament. They have received funds from Scot Gov. Fabiani is a director

This should be brought to Andrew Neil's attention toot sweet

@Selkiesarereal

A wee question to the legal bods. I am hugely paraphrasing here but the spectator reports that the government lawyers nearly perjured themselves.

If they had and by accident, ie they hadn’t been made aware of the facts and then subsequently discovered that they had done so, what would they have done, would they have to disclose to the court?

This is purely a theoretical question and just for my own knowledge.

I haven't read the Spectator - but yes, in England, if there was evidence that went to the case, then the barrister concerned would have had to correct it at the first opportunity to do so. Professionally otherwise would be to allow the court to be misled.

Also there is the "duty of candour" which would likely not have been met in this instance by the Government and the barrister would have to deal with that, possibly disclosing documents etc

Statically challenged

All I know is Alex has beef with Nicola after a long working relationship and friendship but he was accused of sex crimes- was cleared and now Nicola is caught up in it. what has she done exactly?

Sorry Imlive in south east and we don't get a lot of the details in the news, unless it hits big like now -but it's explained in a way that assumes the background history is known.

it's like someone pulled a loose thread on a knitted sweater and it's now unravelled up to the oxters and we now await to see whether there is any jumper left by the morning.

You can see in the legal advice that Dunlop and co are very very annoyed at having repeatedly said "that's all the evidence from us" only for more to keep appearing.

They also say that they had received a draft affidavit from McKinnon which thankfully had not been submitted because it failed to mention a meeting she held with a complainant

Jeez

Well it looks like NS is going to the committee in the morning, it's a bit late to resign now, and a bit too early to do it before 9am.

I'm WFH and have worked so hard today to clear the decks for this, and the budget tomorrow, it's going to be a big day! I couldn't sleep last night for thinking about the whole thing, I find it's one of those things that I'm fairly certain that I have just about straight in my own head, but I couldn't really explain it to anybody else, so thanks to all of those more knowledgeable on this thread.

I should declare that I'm not Scottish nor do I live in Scotland and usually have my eye on Westminster instead. I did however live in Edinburgh for a few years in the early 2000's and it was just the most wonderful experience.

Kinda summed up here whenwillthis
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9317999/Nicola-Sturgeon-facing-demands-RESIGN-Minister-Alex-Salmond-sex-abuse-case.html

Interesting article in the Spectator by Alex Massie “What is Nicola Sturgeon Hiding ? “

@WaxOnFeckOff - oxters is a great word and I will be using that from now on!

I feel like I need to watch an episode by the writers of 'The Crown' summarizing the political machinations at work here to try and make sense of this whole sorry saga.

So if it goes as bad as expected and she doesn't resign. Then they have a vote of no confidence. Would members of her own party vote her out?

Is there anyone standing in the sidelines waiting to give her a push? Or are they loyal to her?

The Fabiani thing is unbelievable as well. Who appointed her to be head of an investigation into someone who sacked her?

And the money thing, isn't this exactly what people accuse the Tories of all the time? That they give money to their old boy network?

British people outside Scotland have every right to comment on and follow the unravelling of a corrupt and crooked administration.
Your money funds Sturgeon's £3,000 a week salary, her pension, her free all-found lifestyle which means she can salt away that £3,000 every week.
It's your taxes that went into the £500,000 compensation paid to Alex Salmond when he won his Judicial Review. The JR which is at the root of this whole abysmal saga.
In fact you should be writing to your MP to tell them what you think so they realise the whole UK is affected by this scandal, not just us long-suffering Scots.

@whenwillthemadnessend

Statically challenged

All I know is Alex has beef with Nicola after a long working relationship and friendship but he was accused of sex crimes- was cleared and now Nicola is caught up in it. what has she done exactly?

Sorry Imlive in south east and we don't get a lot of the details in the news, unless it hits big like now -but it's explained in a way that assumes the background history is known.

OK, it goes a little something like this;

The Scottish Government decided, in the light of metoo (supposedly) that they needed a new procedure to address sexual harrassment specifically. They decided to create one which covered not only current ministers but former ministers too

At the same time as they are writing the procedure, two women (possibly a third) come forward with allegations about Alex Salmond. They talk to various people and at least one of them is invited to opine on the possible procedure. The procedure is noticeable tweaked so that it is different for former vs current ministers

New procedure goes through, two complaints lodged on it before it's even published. At this point it's around Jan 2018

Salmond notified early March that he's under investigation. He starts arguing about fairness of procedure.

Around the same time his former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, is in touch with various people in govt and is told the name of one of the complainants. He also (disputed to some extent) sets up a meeting with Nicola STurgeon on 29th March. At that meeting he claims the allegations against AS are discussed and a meeting is agreed to take place at her home on 2nd April

They meet at her home, along with a few others. NS repeatedly claimed this meeting was the first time she was told. Has also claimed it was not govt business so she didn't record it or notify the civil service

Skip forward cos this is long...the government basically doesn't pay much attention to Salmond's complaints and concludes the investigation against him then says they're going to put out a statement. He threatens an injunction as the process is in dispute. They step back. Few hours later it's mysteriously leaked to the Daily Record

Alex Salmond lodges judicidal review (around August time)

Government defents judicial review

Government repeatedly withholds evidence from the JR, leading the govt solicitors to get very pissed off indeed. It then transpires that the invetsigating officer had prior contact with the complainers so she shouldn't have been the IO. Govt is told this is a big fucking problem and they'll probably lose case (end october)

Government keeps fighting case anyway. Simultaneously, police investigation in to Salmond starts. Members of both civil service and SNP go on a big fishing expedition for more complaints

It gets to December and the government's counsel have had enough. They threaten to withdraw if the govt don't concede. They do concede in early Jan.

Just a few weeks later police announce investigation in to Salmond. He's eventually charge with 13(? i think) complaints against 9 women.

Goes to court. Salmond is found not guilty of all but 1, which is not proven. Goes free. The defence evidence suggests some of the charges were very dodgy (see above re Woman H for example)

Salmond at the time says he's keeping schtum for now due to covid

There is a parliamentary committee investigating the botched handling of the complaints process and the judicial review. That's going on right now, and they have been blocked at every turn trying to get evidence, evidence being redacted and so on.

The stuff published tonight is some of the legal advice which was received which had been voted for twice in parliament to be released, and was only released when it looked like a vote of no confidence in the Deputy First Minister would succeed.

Nicola STurgeon is accused of breaking the minsterial code umpteen times by lying to parliament, failing to act on legal advice, and so on.

There is also a wider question of the veracity of the actual complaints. The complainers are protected by an anonymity order but are said to all be very close to Sturgeon and it came out in court that many of them had been messaging each other, including some damning texts about "having a plan where we can remain anonymous but see maximum repercussions".

I’ve found this thread a very helpful resource - albeit horrifying. I can’t get past my feeling that if it were any person less loathed that AS there would have been a far greater public response.

Thank you Shadowy & lex in particular 🥃