Salmond v Sturgeon Round 3 — Comment along with Sturgeon

[PolkadotsAndMoonbeams]

Previous thread here.

I think it was a risky strategy to cast aspersions on the witnesses who corroborated Aberdein's evidence
She didn't cast aspersions. She says its hearsay, so they are corroborating that Aberdein said he was given the name, not that they independently witnessed him being given the name. Aberdein says he was told the name, the person he says gave him the name says they didn't. There is no independent corroboration of that.
Will be interesting to hear what those two people say themselves

@happygolurkey Aberdein's not exactly turned out to be the 'golden goose' he was being portrayed as on here. The one that would 'prove it all'. HIs statement doesn't really chime with being someone who believes Nicola Sturgeon set up his boss for rape. He speaks quite warmly about her.

It was never about Aberdein's motive. It is about his evidence. The fact that Aberdein speaks warmly about Sturgeon makes his evidence more powerful.

@happy I have to say you do seem to personify what seems to be the Sturgeon M.O. Deflect, personalise, smear.

Do you mean Hamilton and Pringle? Their statements have been published

If Aberdein wasn't told by the person he said told him then where did he get the names from? I'd expect something like the names of complainers of sexual harassment to be treated as hugely confidential and only known to a handful of people involved with the investigation. So either
A) it came from who he says it did, and he told the truth to the others at the time
B) it came from someone else and he was lying about at the time and since - but given confidentiality above it was still someone close to the investigation who shouldn't have been sharing it
C) as per B but someone more distant which means that the investigation was leaking like a sieve

None of these options are good for SG because in all of them someone who should not have known was able to find the identity of the complainers.

@TheShadowyFeminist

"Nicola Sturgeon’s government failed. It failed two women complainants. It failed the Parliament in its consistent refusal to share relevant information. It failed the public in allocating large sums of money, not to improving life chances but on a legal case its advisers warned about. It has failed to be accountable. It has failed to be transparent. This ought to worry all of us, including members of the SNP. "

Link to Holyrood article

This is a good overview of yesterday's session.

Agree. This is spot on. Especially the final sentence.

"I am appalled at the calibre of politicians in Scotland and through out the UK"

Me too. I think what's been jarring in all of this has been Salmond's evidence session last week. He's reminded me of what a skilled politician he was (not necessarily a compliment) and even those who loathe him cannot deny his political acumen, and the ability to get his message across. He really showed up the gulf between the current crop & what he once was. But, he's never getting the 'come back' he perhaps hoped for, or his supporters want. He'll never escape the fall out from this & that will hamper even his ability to communicate in the way he once did. All that & the fact he's of the ilk who saw nothing wrong with his behaviour. He's just not cut out for politics as they are now.

So it leaves us with, what now? I worry for the new crop of MSPs coming through because I don't think the current political arena is functioning well, coupled with the shadow of 'mob justice' with an online flare up more likely to direct policy decisions that scrutiny, debate & compromise.

It's actually depressing.

If Aberdein wasn't told by the person he said told him then where did he get the names from?
Well I would have thought Salmond is a good bet given they were firefighting complaints at that point. Plus he had contacted at least one of the complainants of his own volition.
The whole "Aberdein" thing only makes sense if the women involved invented the whole thing. If it was in fact (far more likely) a crossing of the line by Salmond he would know who the women were likely yo be because he knew where that line might have been breached and could have discussed that with Aberdein

The quality of politicians is an issue across the UK.

What does make difference is that in Scotland, the online culture relating to independence is vibrant (that is, it’s pretty dynamic).

It’s also intense! Online politics brings that intensity but out of the real world. The tone of political debate in person is invariably of a higher standard, and the techniques to divert tend to be less effective: it is usually harder to be aggressive or directly rude to another.

Yeah. What now

And we have that awful HCB bill as well

Well, if I were Alex Salmond I would pay NS back in kind. I would file more evidence that made it very hard for them not to extend the hearings again.

But here’s the thing - long term this damaging and Scotland won’t have someone incentivized to fix it, or work with the UK Government for constitutional reform.

@QuentinWinters

If Aberdein wasn't told by the person he said told him then where did he get the names from? Well I would have thought Salmond is a good bet given they were firefighting complaints at that point. Plus he had contacted at least one of the complainants of his own volition. The whole "Aberdein" thing only makes sense if the women involved invented the whole thing. If it was in fact (far more likely) a crossing of the line by Salmond he would know who the women were likely yo be because he knew where that line might have been breached and could have discussed that with Aberdein

That works on the basis there aren't lots of incidents, but given how similar the complaints at trial were could he have identified them from the initial letter? I think, from what I've heard, that he knew straight off who one was (the more serious incident) but not the other and had been trying to find it out. By the time he met Sturgeon he knew both. I think it's the second which was passed to him via GA. I think this is the person who Sturgeon was referring to him going through the flickr account to try to figure out.

And why would GA have lied to two different people at their time? He seems to be trying to keep out of it as much as possible.

But finally the point might be made that Sturgeon and her staff look really incompetent and the concept of negotiating anything or dealing with big constitutional decisions and technical detail to achieve independence in a good way is ver unlikely!

Good job defending - but doubt she’s up to the difficulty of actually meeting her party’s purpose.

The Prof Mitchell article is excellent. There are a few voices within the academic Law and Social Science community at Edinburgh writing similarly (curated via the Centre on Constitutional Change. Coming back to earlier discussion on academic writing on How It Works - Adam Tomkins in Glasgow is a critical voice on the right but there are similar left of centre concerns. Prof Tierney is his Public Law equivalent at Edinburgh - Constitutional advisor to the HoL among other things. He is currently on sabbatical writing a book on Federalism).

@LexMitior

Well, if I were Alex Salmond I would pay NS back in kind. I would file more evidence that made it very hard for them not to extend the hearings again.

But here’s the thing - long term this damaging and Scotland won’t have someone incentivized to fix it, or work with the UK Government for constitutional reform.

They're running out of time. They have to report before parliament rises

I know the statements have been published. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of putting them forward, just think it's bit weak when they weren't there, but were 'told'.

If Aberdein wasn't told by the person he said told him then where did he get the names from?

his boss knew the name of one as he told Nicola Sturgeon in the first meeting with him

like the names of complainers of sexual harassment to be treated as hugely confidential and only known to a handful of people

that's odd, these threads have been quite aggressive at times in trying to find ways to reveal the names of the complainants. At other times times a bit more cunning in trying to direct people to different places which would come dangerously close to jigsaw identification. i was scolded on here by someone for pointing out that was maybe a bit heartless. They told me firmly that they thought the names should be public. The link in the opening to the original thread was to Craig Murray, who has a stated agenda of trying to get the womens' names out in public. He's been charged with contempt of court for it in fact.
Nobody on this board seems to have a problem with any of that. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Lex that is a good point. The SNP have gone from working in coalition with Labour productively to being permanently in Defence / Attack mode as a majority and now minority Administration. It is difficult to see how anything constructive can be built from that mindset.

@StatisticallyChallenged - you extend the Committee days because of significant evidence submitted - an easy fix if the Committee feel minded.

the online culture relating to independence is vibrant (that is, it’s pretty dynamic).
It’s also intense! Online politics brings that intensity but out of the real world. The tone of political debate in person is invariably of a higher standard, and the techniques to divert tend to be less effective: it is usually harder to be aggressive or directly rude to another. (should be on bold)

oh for once you've found something Scotland is ahead on. No other countries have the internet. It's a good job - could you imagine all the heated and aggressive exchanges that would have resulted in Trump, Brexit, mask wearing etc

Aberdein's knowledge predates that meeting. He told Salmond according to their testimony/statements, not the other way around.

You cannot reasonably compare the confidentiality expectations of a bunch of randoms on a chat board to that of your employer and the government. That's almost as daft as NS trying to deflect the GDPR discussion yesterday with "but Alex told me"

[quote LexMitior]@StatisticallyChallenged - you extend the Committee days because of significant evidence submitted - an easy fix if the Committee feel minded.[/quote]
They can sit for more days until then but once parliament rises for the election I think the committees have to be dissolved. They're effectively not MSPs anymore

They're running out of time. They have to report before parliament rises

Some talk of it being unlikely they will reach a unanimous view. Starting to suspect they will let the clock run down rather than report. The Hamilton Enquiry would then stand alone and his findings would end up carrying more weight.

I have little interest in knowing the womens names really. I believe that some of them at least are in Nicola's ken in real life.

I believe that she is lying through her teeth when she stated she didn't know who they were. I have no idea why she would even say that, as far as I recall she wasn't asked that and it didn't constructively add anything to her defence.

The problem with rambling and avoiding answering is that sometimes you might run at the mouth a bit too much.

"Well, if I were Alex Salmond I would pay NS back in kind. I would file more evidence that made it very hard for them not to extend the hearings again."

It's already underway.

M.O. Deflect, personalise, smear.
who am i smearing? Do you mean Aberdein? I'm sorry if that's the case. I genuinely wasn't meaning to do that. I do wonder a bit if he feels he's been weaponised in all of this.

as for deflection - quite happy to be taken to task over anything I've said, if that's what you mean

Ah ha! Well I will keep my powder dry for now.

@TheShadowyFeminist

"Well, if I were Alex Salmond I would pay NS back in kind. I would file more evidence that made it very hard for them not to extend the hearings again."

It's already underway.

I wonder if that specific witness statement is the "we"ll get him in the criminal case" one?