Alex Salmond Rape Charge.

[guest7363]

But why does it matter that she lied about this?  What specifically is it she lied about?

I could lie to you and say you're as handsome as Tom Cruise, but does it matter that I've lied?

The two instances could be argued as truth, it’s your assessment of me and Mike Tesko, even  having said you’ve met him, who’s to argue that you never spoke to him just by saying morning?  The Salmond case is totally different, we’re talking about an ex first Minister who probably still posed as a threat to Sturgeon and it involved Salmond being accused and found not guilty of all 12 of the sexual assault charges facing him, while another was found not proven.  The women who made the allegations against Mr Salmond included an SNP politician, a party worker and several current and former Scottish government civil servants and officials.  After the trial Salmond said  As many of you will know, there is certain evidence I would have liked to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we were not able to do so.
 It’s this evidence that is being questioned, how much the SNP party knew beforehand and how much Sturgeon and her husband and other cronies knew and fuelled, especially having being told it wouldn’t stand up.  What it all equates to, they leaned on the Crown Office to still go ahead even though there was grave concern of a breach and it resulted in a witch hunt and backstabbing effort to ruin him and even have him jailed. 

[ngb1066]

She had "forgotten" about a meeting she had had with one of Alex Salmond's advisors four days before the meeting with Salmond himself, which she did recall. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758

Of course had Alex Salmond kept his hands to himself and respected women's space he wouldn't have needed to go crawling to Nicola in the first place in an attempt to get the incidents hushed up.

You obviously have not looked into the details of this case.  You are very wide of the mark.  In due course I believe you may come to realise that.  I suspect Sturgeon and her horrible gang will not be able to keep the lid on this indefinitely.  There is a lot which is known about this which cannot legally be published but it is possible to piece it together from various reliable sources.  I think the dam will burst before too long and as a minimum a number of high profile people will lose their jobs and some, I think and hope, will be prosecuted. The rot goes right to the top, including the Lord Advocate.  I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this was certainly a wicked conspiracy.

[guest7363]

She had "forgotten" about a meeting she had had with one of Alex Salmond's advisors four days before the meeting with Salmond himself, which she did recall. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758

Of course had Alex Salmond kept his hands to himself and respected women's space he wouldn't have needed to go crawling to Nicola in the first place in an attempt to get the incidents hushed up.

I agree he hasn’t been an Angel and I personally don’t like him, but it doesn’t alter the fact the Government put pressure and leaned on authorities to go ahead with the case.

[guest7363]

You obviously have not looked into the details of this case.  You are very wide of the mark.  In due course I believe you may come to realise that.  I suspect Sturgeon and her horrible gang will not be able to keep the lid on this indefinitely.  There is a lot which is known about this which cannot legally be published but it is possible to piece it together from various reliable sources.  I think the dam will burst before too long and as a minimum a number of high profile people will lose their jobs and some, I think and hope, will be prosecuted. The rot goes right to the top, including the Lord Advocate.  I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this was certainly a wicked conspiracy.

I agree NGB, I think there is more to come, they have covered up as much as was allowed and hoped it would go away, it goes a lot deeper into how the the workings of the SNP operate.

[Steve_uk]

You obviously have not looked into the details of this case.  You are very wide of the mark.  In due course I believe you may come to realise that.  I suspect Sturgeon and her horrible gang will not be able to keep the lid on this indefinitely.  There is a lot which is known about this which cannot legally be published but it is possible to piece it together from various reliable sources.  I think the dam will burst before too long and as a minimum a number of high profile people will lose their jobs and some, I think and hope, will be prosecuted. The rot goes right to the top, including the Lord Advocate.  I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this was certainly a wicked conspiracy.

I have but unlike yourself I'm not willing to cast aspersions on all and sundry until I read the report of the independent and impartial Irishman, James Hamilton QC.

[guest29835]

She had "forgotten" about a meeting she had had with one of Alex Salmond's advisors four days before the meeting with Salmond himself, which she did recall. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758

Thanks Steve.  You've answered my question.  However, from what RJ is saying here, it sounds like this isn't really about her lying, it's actually about her and others leaning on the criminal justice system in Scotland.  The lying is taking centre stage but it's a collateral issue.  The real issue is interference in a criminal prosecution.  If she did interfere, then of course she must resign, not because she lied, but because she meddled without proper reason in a legal case in which somebody's liberty was threatened. 

To be specific, if she interfered without having a proper reason to do so, then she compromised the integrity of her ministerial office and the Scottish government.  This is the case even if, as David Davis suggested in his parliamentary speech, there is no meaningful separation of the political and judicial branches of the devolved system.  Nobody can have confidence in a criminal justice system where a minister can be involved in pressuring the authorities to pursue, or not pursue, a criminal suspect for reasons outside the ambit of the minister's role.

Of course had Alex Salmond kept his hands to himself and respected women's space he wouldn't have needed to go crawling to Nicola in the first place in an attempt to get the incidents hushed up.

I don't agree with you here.  There is little doubt that Alex Salmond was inappropriate in his behaviour, as his own defence advocate was overheard saying as much.  And I agree that this may not show respect for women's space and I agree that's wrong.  But based on what I have read of the allegations, I am not convinced his behaviour was deserving of criminal charges.

[guest29835]

The two instances could be argued as truth, 

Yes, it is true that both you and Mike are handsome men, and Mike may have had a chat with Nicola at Scotch Corner.

Nevertheless, I think you've explained and I do agree that if the First Minister, whether personally or by proxy, leaned on the Crown Office, then her position is untenable and she must resign.

[guest7363]

I have but unlike yourself I'm not willing to cast aspersions on all and sundry until I read the report of the independent and impartial Irishman, James Hamilton QC.

How can you call him independent Steve when he was  appointed an independent advisor by SNP in 2013 and reappointed by Nicola Sturgeon in 2015.

[guest7363]

Thanks Steve.  You've answered my question.  However, from what RJ is saying here, it sounds like this isn't really about her lying, it's actually about her and others leaning on the criminal justice system in Scotland.  The lying is taking centre stage but it's a collateral issue.  The real issue is interference in a criminal prosecution.  If she did interfere, then of course she must resign, not because she lied, but because she meddled without proper reason in a legal case in which somebody's liberty was threatened. 

To be specific, if she interfered without having a proper reason to do so, then she compromised the integrity of her ministerial office and the Scottish government.  This is the case even if, as David Davis suggested in his parliamentary speech, there is no meaningful separation of the political and judicial branches of the devolved system.  Nobody can have confidence in a criminal justice system where a minister can be involved in pressuring the authorities to pursue, or not pursue, a criminal suspect for reasons outside the ambit of the minister's role.

I don't agree with you here.  There is little doubt that Alex Salmond was inappropriate in his behaviour, as his own defence advocate was overheard saying as much.  And I agree that this may not show respect for women's space and I agree that's wrong.  But based on what I have read of the allegations, I am not convinced his behaviour was deserving of criminal charges.

You have put it so much better than I could QC, your right it goes much deeper than just forgetting a meeting.

[Steve_uk]

Thanks Steve.  You've answered my question.  However, from what RJ is saying here, it sounds like this isn't really about her lying, it's actually about her and others leaning on the criminal justice system in Scotland.  The lying is taking centre stage but it's a collateral issue.  The real issue is interference in a criminal prosecution.  If she did interfere, then of course she must resign, not because she lied, but because she meddled without proper reason in a legal case in which somebody's liberty was threatened. 

To be specific, if she interfered without having a proper reason to do so, then she compromised the integrity of her ministerial office and the Scottish government.  This is the case even if, as David Davis suggested in his parliamentary speech, there is no meaningful separation of the political and judicial branches of the devolved system.  Nobody can have confidence in a criminal justice system where a minister can be involved in pressuring the authorities to pursue, or not pursue, a criminal suspect for reasons outside the ambit of the minister's role.

I don't agree with you here.  There is little doubt that Alex Salmond was inappropriate in his behaviour, as his own defence advocate was overheard saying as much.  And I agree that this may not show respect for women's space and I agree that's wrong.  But based on what I have read of the allegations, I am not convinced his behaviour was deserving of criminal charges.

Well the point was that Alex Salmond sought a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon before these allegations broke, and one has to ask oneself why.

[Steve_uk]

How can you call him independent Steve when he was  appointed an independent advisor by SNP in 2013 and reappointed by Nicola Sturgeon in 2015.

Well everyone comes with baggage of some kind. You might as well say the leaked Holyrood report of a 5/4 split is useless because it divided on party lines.

[guest7363]

Well everyone comes with baggage of some kind. You might as well say the leaked Holyrood report of a 5/4 split is useless because it divided on party lines.

And this happened even without all the evidence.
There were messages, too, between Scottish government and SNP officials, shared on a WhatsApp group called ‘Vietnam’. A few of these messages became public. One from Evans, sent after the government lost the judicial review and found on the phone of Barbara Allison, then Scottish Government director of communications, read: ‘We have lost the battle but we will win the war.’ Two messages from the SNP chief executive, Peter Murrell (who is married to Sturgeon), sent the day after Salmond was first charged, were leaked to the Westminster MP and former Holyrood justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, one of Salmond’s allies. In the first, Murrell appeared to call for pressure to be put on the police to speed up their investigations. In the second, he added: ‘The more fronts he [Salmond] is having to firefight on the better for all the complainers.’ Most of the WhatsApp messages were ruled inadmissible as evidence in the trial, but Salmond could not hand them over to the parliamentary inquiry because a law that his own government introduced forbids the sharing of material disclosed by the Crown to a defendant in a case.

[guest29835]

Well the point was that Alex Salmond sought a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon before these allegations broke, and one has to ask oneself why?

At one point (and maybe this is still the case), Salmond was complaining about Sturgeon avoiding him and lying about where she was, as he was trying to secure a meeting with her.  It's all very dreary.  There are texts between the two of them with Salmond saying, 'Will you meet me at such-and-such a place?' or 'Will you be at your office in Edinburgh later?', and blah and blah.  She gives it blah and blah and it becomes obvious after a couple of texts that she's avoiding him and saying she'll be there and then she isn't.  This would normally be because her ministerial office put her in an embarrassing position given that Salmond was a criminal suspect, but Salmond seemed to be implying (and is now alleging) that Sturgeon was avoiding him because she was somehow behind the pressure to prosecute him. 

This in turn implies that Salmond was approaching Sturgeon not because he wanted her to influence the criminal justice system in his favour, but because he wanted her to stop influencing the criminal justice system at all.  If he was simply approaching her in an effort to stop the prosecution, I doubt he would be making anything of this as he would then be admitting to the same mischief that he accuses Sturgeon of, but in any event, he was contacting her to influence her.

Conversely, if Sturgeon was acting innocently in avoiding Salmond on account of ministerial ethics, then surely she would have precluded anything other than the most perfunctory meeting or encounter with him by explaining this or having this communicated to Salmond by Scottish government lawyers.  Yet she did not do so.

I'm afraid on that logical basis it does look very much like both Salmond and the First Minister were up to no good. 

In Salmond's case, he should have pursued the matter through the official channels (and ironically, had he done so, it may have had the effect of stopping the case in its tracks at that early stage due to abuse of process, and could have also brought down Sturgeon).  I assume he didn't follow the proper avenues because he is a Scottish politician who is used to working behind closed doors in a devolved system that has lacked the necessary checks and balances, and as a former First Minister himself, he has just got used to operating like this.

In Sturgeon's case, she should not have been interfering in the criminal justice system except within the ambit of her role as a minister in the Scottish government.  This was clearly not within her ministerial role.  If she did interfere, she must resign - immediately.

[Steve_uk]

I'll wait for James Hamilton QC's report and not be influenced by gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo.

[guest29835]

I'll wait for James Hamilton QC's report and not be influenced by gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo.

Certainly no-one could accuse you of being influenced by such things.

But I was careful to use the word 'if'.