You see I don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument that these allegations have been made to prevent Alex Salmond from returning to some kind of prominent position in Scottish politics. His career in that domain was effectively over after the No vote in the referendum of 2014. Leaving aside why someone would lie after swearing on the Holy Bible it's the sheer number of allegations by nine separate women which is perturbing. To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day-to-day working environment such as a school or factory and I don't see why it's brushed off just because of the position he held.
It's interesting to note that the allegation of rape was the one charge where the "not proven" verdict was returned.
You don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument because you don't want to. Instead of ignoring the new facts, you would alter your opinion to include the new information if you were being honest.
1) Your evidence free opinion that Salmond has no chance/intention of a political comeback is contradicted by reports even in mainstream media and statements by some leading SNP politicians.
2) It is not debatable that some witnesses lied after swearing on oath. What kind of weak argument is this? It's just that you prefer to believe that defence witnesses rather than prosecution witnesses lied. It is also clear that many incidents were given a more sinister framing than the reality.
3) You state, "To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips, may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day to day working environment..."
The hair touching incident was known as some kind of running joke in the office. Others testified that all in the office tugged her tight curly hair which sprung back. It was a joke that all including the complainant were comfortable with. You may ask yourself why none of these other incidents involving others doing the same thing became sexual assault allegations some years after the event.
The other incidents are similar or denied. Specifically the touching the buttocks allegation is absurd and again made years after the event.These are all allegations that some in the SNP had spent much time and resources acquiring by way of a huge fishing trip only to sit on them to deploy when required.
The standard of proof required to smear someone in a political selection battle is decidedly lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial. Sexual allegations obtained by fishing, not reported despite being criminal, sat on to be used as required, case falls apart as prosecution tacitly accepts the defence evidence. Are you there yet, Steve? It was a political smear job to be deployed when Salmond makes his return to frontline politics.
4) Your final point displays nothing but your unwillingness to accept the truth. What do you think the not proven verdict means? There were 13 jurors with 8 required for a majority verdict. So 8 or more of the 13 decided not guilty or not proven. At the most, 5 jurors thought him guilty. At least 8 didn't.
Finally, I must admit given the definitions accepted by you, that I have probably been both the perpetrator and victim of a number of sexual assaults over the years. I have also witnessed other people committing sexual assaults by touching others noses and hair and even kissing on the lips unsolicited. Context is everything though, Steve, something the jury and others see but which passes you by, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out the alternative.