The Scottish Politics Thread

[Tichtheid]

It maybe doesn't help that Sturgeon's version of the truth bears little relation to her hubby's version. It's hard to reconcile the claim that it was purely a party matter with the fact he wasn't asked to be present and his initial statement that he left because he thought it was SG business.

Murrell at first said he wasn't at home for that meeting, he later changed his story to saying he arrived as the meeting was coming to a close.

He says it wasn't in any way unusual for Salmond to be in their house.

[tc27]

On another note, that statement on COVID restrictions was pretty underwhelming...

Also doesn't seem to leave much of a window for an election campaign?

[Blackmac]

It maybe doesn't help that Sturgeon's version of the truth bears little relation to her hubby's version. It's hard to reconcile the claim that it was purely a party matter with the fact he wasn't asked to be present and his initial statement that he left because he thought it was SG business.

Murrell at first said he wasn't at home for that meeting, he later changed his story to saying he arrived as the meeting was coming to a close.

He says it wasn't in any way unusual for Salmond to be in their house.

Still doesn't fit that she claims she didn't record the meeting because it was party business not SG. Why would the Chief Executive of the party not be informed or involved in such a meeting.

[Blackmac]

On another note, that statement on COVID restrictions was pretty underwhelming...

Also doesn't seem to leave much of a window for an election campaign?

She is basically unprepared to make a decision that might come back to bite her. More concerned with her own reputation than the welfare of the country.

[Tichtheid]

It maybe doesn't help that Sturgeon's version of the truth bears little relation to her hubby's version. It's hard to reconcile the claim that it was purely a party matter with the fact he wasn't asked to be present and his initial statement that he left because he thought it was SG business.

Murrell at first said he wasn't at home for that meeting, he later changed his story to saying he arrived as the meeting was coming to a close.

He says it wasn't in any way unusual for Salmond to be in their house.

Still doesn't fit that she claims she didn't record the meeting because it was party business not SG. Why would the Chief Executive of the party not be informed or involved in such a meeting.

Well it absolutely does fit her version of events because the only situation under which there is a requirement to officially record the meeting is if it was SG business.
Murrell’s attendance or absence has nothing to do with that.

However, I concede that no explanation will satisfy her opponents

[Jasonstry]

So Salmond has pulled out and the inquiry descends to another level of pointlessness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56176365
Oops looks like he might attend Friday.

[Blackmac]

Murrell at first said he wasn't at home for that meeting, he later changed his story to saying he arrived as the meeting was coming to a close.

He says it wasn't in any way unusual for Salmond to be in their house.

Still doesn't fit that she claims she didn't record the meeting because it was party business not SG. Why would the Chief Executive of the party not be informed or involved in such a meeting.

Well it absolutely does fit her version of events because the only situation under which there is a requirement to officially record the meeting is if it was SG business.
Murrell’s attendance or absence has nothing to do with that.

However, I concede that no explanation will satisfy her opponents

Her version justifies why she didn't record it, but Murrell's absence casts significant doubt on that version and implies she is lying through her teeth.

[Blackmac]

So Salmond has pulled out and the inquiry descends to another level of pointlessness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56176365
Oops looks like he might attend Friday.

I've seen the redacted part of his submission. There is nothing at all that would lead to a possible identification of the complainers. Absolute bullshit from the Crown Office and SG. We are descending to banana republic levels here.

[tc27]

So Salmond has pulled out and the inquiry descends to another level of pointlessness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56176365
Oops looks like he might attend Friday.

I've seen the redacted part of his submission. There is nothing at all that would lead to a possible identification of the complainers. Absolute bullshit from the Crown Office and SG. We are descending to banana republic levels here.

Yeah it suggests to me Salmond isn't lying.

[Tichtheid]

Still doesn't fit that she claims she didn't record the meeting because it was party business not SG. Why would the Chief Executive of the party not be informed or involved in such a meeting.

Well it absolutely does fit her version of events because the only situation under which there is a requirement to officially record the meeting is if it was SG business.
Murrell’s attendance or absence has nothing to do with that.

However, I concede that no explanation will satisfy her opponents

Her version justifies why she didn't record it, but Murrell's absence casts significant doubt on that version and implies she is lying through her teeth.

Alex Salmond was FM for what, 8 years over two terms? Wasn't he the FM who introduced the ministerial code and had been through the process several times to ensure the procedures of particular events were all above board?

Why didn't he insist on minutes being taken?

I think there is an issue with the leader of the party and FM being married to the CEO of the party, just because of the ammunition it hands to your opponents, as we've all seen, but you don't necessarily involve the CEO at the very first stages of a problem.

As far as I'm aware Murrell's responsibilities are to do with the overall strategy of the party and its approach to elections, rather than day to day stuff. This was a crisis, so he would have been made aware of it soon enough, but to repeat, the presence of the CEO wasn't necessarily mandatory at that stage.

Sturgeon has stated that at the meeting at her house Salmond asked her to appoint Liz Lloyd as a broker to mediate between himself and the ten women who made the allegations against him, that seems to be the substance of that meeting.

I can understand why Salmond might not want that recorded, but that is conjecture on my part.
However he is now saying that by not doing so Sturgeon broke the ministerial code.

[Caley_Red]

Well it absolutely does fit her version of events because the only situation under which there is a requirement to officially record the meeting is if it was SG business.
Murrell’s attendance or absence has nothing to do with that.

However, I concede that no explanation will satisfy her opponents

Her version justifies why she didn't record it, but Murrell's absence casts significant doubt on that version and implies she is lying through her teeth.

Alex Salmond was FM for what, 8 years over two terms? Wasn't he the FM who introduced the ministerial code and had been through the process several times to ensure the process of particular events were all above board?

Why didn't he insist on minutes being taken?

I think there is an issue with the leader of the party and FM being married to the CEO of the party, just because of the ammunition it hands to your opponents, as we've all seen, but you don't necessarily involve the CEO at the very first stages of a problem, that isn't necessarily the normal course of action.

As far as I'm aware Murrell's responsibilities are to do with the overall strategy of the party and its approach to elections, rather than day to day stuff. This was a crisis, so he would have been made aware of it soon enough, but to repeat, the presence of the CEO wasn't necessarily mandatory at that stage.

Sturgeon has stated that at the meeting at her house Salmond asked her to appoint Liz Lloyd as a broker to mediate between himself and the ten women who made the allegations against him, that seems to be the substance of that meeting.

I can understand why Salmond might not want that recorded, but that is conjecture on my part.
However he is now saying that by not doing so Sturgeon broke the ministerial code.

Ministerial code was introduced at advent of parliament, hence why McLeish and Mcletchie had to resign over trivial matters in- i think- 2001 and 2003 respectively.

Not convinced sturgeon will resign if found guilty (she's hinted as much) bit there is absolutely precedent, especially for far more trivial matters.

[Tichtheid]

Ministerial code was introduced at advent of parliament,

You're right, it was a revised version that was implemented in 2008, when Salmond was FM.

[Blackmac]

Well it absolutely does fit her version of events because the only situation under which there is a requirement to officially record the meeting is if it was SG business.
Murrell’s attendance or absence has nothing to do with that.

However, I concede that no explanation will satisfy her opponents

Her version justifies why she didn't record it, but Murrell's absence casts significant doubt on that version and implies she is lying through her teeth.

Alex Salmond was FM for what, 8 years over two terms? Wasn't he the FM who introduced the ministerial code and had been through the process several times to ensure the procedures of particular events were all above board?

Why didn't he insist on minutes being taken?

I think there is an issue with the leader of the party and FM being married to the CEO of the party, just because of the ammunition it hands to your opponents, as we've all seen, but you don't necessarily involve the CEO at the very first stages of a problem.

As far as I'm aware Murrell's responsibilities are to do with the overall strategy of the party and its approach to elections, rather than day to day stuff. This was a crisis, so he would have been made aware of it soon enough, but to repeat, the presence of the CEO wasn't necessarily mandatory at that stage.

Sturgeon has stated that at the meeting at her house Salmond asked her to appoint Liz Lloyd as a broker to mediate between himself and the ten women who made the allegations against him, that seems to be the substance of that meeting.

I can understand why Salmond might not want that recorded, but that is conjecture on my part.
However he is now saying that by not doing so Sturgeon broke the ministerial code.

Jesus, that is some pretty pathetic defence to suggest that Salmond, not a minister, was responsible for ensuring the ministerial code was upheld. Presumably we will now hold complainers responsible for ensuring police officers act correctly??

Plus your second last paragraph actually backs the claim that it was SG business, why would Sturgeon feel it's appropriate for a senior SG official to intervene if it wasn't government business. As with Sturgeon and Murrell's evidence you are all over the place.

As to Murrell, you don't think that deciding how the party dealt with a scandal involving it most famous leader doesn't fall under the banner of strategy. If I didn't know better I would almost think you are on a Bimboesque wind up.

[Blackmac]

Her version justifies why she didn't record it, but Murrell's absence casts significant doubt on that version and implies she is lying through her teeth.

Alex Salmond was FM for what, 8 years over two terms? Wasn't he the FM who introduced the ministerial code and had been through the process several times to ensure the process of particular events were all above board?

Why didn't he insist on minutes being taken?

I think there is an issue with the leader of the party and FM being married to the CEO of the party, just because of the ammunition it hands to your opponents, as we've all seen, but you don't necessarily involve the CEO at the very first stages of a problem, that isn't necessarily the normal course of action.

As far as I'm aware Murrell's responsibilities are to do with the overall strategy of the party and its approach to elections, rather than day to day stuff. This was a crisis, so he would have been made aware of it soon enough, but to repeat, the presence of the CEO wasn't necessarily mandatory at that stage.

Sturgeon has stated that at the meeting at her house Salmond asked her to appoint Liz Lloyd as a broker to mediate between himself and the ten women who made the allegations against him, that seems to be the substance of that meeting.

I can understand why Salmond might not want that recorded, but that is conjecture on my part.
However he is now saying that by not doing so Sturgeon broke the ministerial code.

Ministerial code was introduced at advent of parliament, hence why McLeish and Mcletchie had to resign over trivial matters in- i think- 2001 and 2003 respectively.

Not convinced sturgeon will resign if found guilty (she's hinted as much) bit there is absolutely precedent, especially for far more trivial matters.

That's the biggest problem. We are now at a place where Sturgeon herself is bigger than her party and indeed the whole SG.
I have voted SNP in every Scottish election but the situation we now have is completely unacceptable to any real democracy.

[Slick]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">One thing is evidently clear: the current constitutional settlement is not fit for purpose. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Scotland?sr ... </a>&#39;s devolution is corruptible; exposed by the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SturgeonSca ... Scandal</a>. Nobody wants to go back to London Rule.<br><br>The ONLY option is to modernise our nation with <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Independenc ... r><br>⏱️<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ScotsIndy?s ... otsIndy</a> <a href="https://t.co/dP77q04NWJ">pic.twitter.co ... </p>&mdash; Kirk J. Torrance (@KirkJTorrance) <a href=" 23, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Tichtheid]

Jesus, that is some pretty pathetic defence to suggest that Salmond, not a minister, was responsible for ensuring the ministerial code was upheld. Presumably we will now hold complainers responsible for ensuring police officers act correctly??

Nope, he wasn't some guy off the street, he was a vastly experienced man with 8 years first hand experience of being First Minister of Scotland, forty odd years in politics and had overseen the implementation of the revised ministerial code.
He was head and shoulders above anyone else as a political operator in the UK for a long time.

Plus your second last paragraph actually backs the claim that it was SG business, why would Sturgeon feel it's appropriate for a senior SG official to intervene if it wasn't government business. As with Sturgeon and Murrell's evidence you are all over the place.

You might want to read it again.

Salmond was the one to suggest Lloyd get involved, not Sturgeon.

[Slick]

How do you post tweets?

Anyway, this is the kind of twisting and staring into the distance intelligent SNP supporters have to do.

We are corrupt because of London, only way to stop ourselves being corrupt is independence.

[Tichtheid]

As to Murrell, you don't think that deciding how the party dealt with a scandal involving it most famous leader doesn't fall under the banner of strategy. If I didn't know better I would almost think you are on a Bimboesque wind up.

That is not what I said, what I did say was that you don't necessarily involve the CEO at the very first stages.

keep the personal stuff out of this

[Biffer]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

[Slick]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

Tories fault again. Got it.

[Tichtheid]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

The SNP are down a wee bit from last summer's high of 58%, but they still polled at 54% last week, the Tories are on 23%, Labour on 16%

This isn't having much of an impact.

[Slick]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

The SNP are down a wee bit from last summer's high of 58%, but they still polled at 54% last week, the Tories are on 23%, Labour on 16%

This isn't having much of an impact.

Is that a good thing?

[Tichtheid]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

The SNP are down a wee bit from last summer's high of 58%, but they still polled at 54% last week, the Tories are on 23%, Labour on 16%

This isn't having much of an impact.

Is that a good thing?

Is that a good thing?

If you see this as "Banana Republic level corruption" then it's awful.

If you see it as a personal battle, a political storm in a tea cup then, meh, it doesn't impact on Wee Shuggie or Senga in the street.

I personally think that the only people that care have entrenched views and won't change them. The other 98% of Scotland don't give a monkey's.

I'm kind of in the entrenched camp myself, but I'd change sides if the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal are shown to be in cahoots with the Scottish government in a conspiracy against Salmond.

[JM2K6]

How do you post tweets?

Anyway, this is the kind of twisting and staring into the distance intelligent SNP supporters have to do.

We are corrupt because of London, only way to stop ourselves being corrupt is independence.

Just post the URL. The board will automatically convert it.

[tc27]

The SNP are down a wee bit from last summer's high of 58%, but they still polled at 54% last week, the Tories are on 23%, Labour on 16%

This isn't having much of an impact.

Is that a good thing?

Is that a good thing?

If you see this as "Banana Republic level corruption" then it's awful.

If you see it as a personal battle, a political storm in a tea cup then, meh, it doesn't impact on Wee Shuggie or Senga in the street.

I personally think that the only people that care have entrenched views and won't change them. The other 98% of Scotland don't give a monkey's.

I'm kind of in the entrenched camp myself, but I'd change sides if the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal are shown to be in cahoots with the Scottish government in a conspiracy against Salmond.

Looking at the parts the Crown Office demanded be supressed how come you come to any other conclusion? By the looks of it the redacted passages are entirely parts which would require sturgeon to answer questions about areas where she may have broken the ministerial code. If the apparent break down of the separation of powers and a judicial system that's in hoc to the executive is not enough to get you out of your trench then nothing is.

[Tichtheid]

Looking at the parts the Crown Office demanded be supressed how come you come to any other conclusion? By the looks of it the redacted passages are entirely parts which would require sturgeon to answer questions about areas where she may have broken the ministerial code. If the apparent break down of the separation of powers and a judicial system that's in hoc to the executive is not enough to get you out of your trench then nothing is.

This is from the Herald yesterday

A 36-page submission from the former First Minister, which was published by the parliament last night, was removed in its entirety this morning, then reissued with a series of redactions.

That followed the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) holding an emergency meeting after the Crown Office asked it to remove or redact the material.

The Crown Office raised "grave concerns" there could have been a breach of a court order related to Mr Salmond’s criminal trial last year. However that would ultimately be a matter for a court to decide.


In response, the SPCB agreed to redact parts of Mr Salmond's evidence and republish it in a revised form to avoid any possible breach of a court order.

It has now reissued the material with five sections spanning six paragraphs removed and replaced with purple lines and the word "redacted".

Controversially, one of the paragraphs deleted is wholly unrelated to Mr Salmond's criminal trial, and alleges Ms Sturgeon breached the Scottish ministerial code by making an "untrue" statement to Holyrood in 2019.

Other claims to the same effect remain untouched.

So the redacted passages are not, as you claim, "entirely parts which would require sturgeon to answer questions about areas where she may have broken the ministerial code."
In fact there are other areas in the submission which are "to the same effect".

[Slick]

The SNP are down a wee bit from last summer's high of 58%, but they still polled at 54% last week, the Tories are on 23%, Labour on 16%

This isn't having much of an impact.

Is that a good thing?

Is that a good thing?

If you see this as "Banana Republic level corruption" then it's awful.

If you see it as a personal battle, a political storm in a tea cup then, meh, it doesn't impact on Wee Shuggie or Senga in the street.

I personally think that the only people that care have entrenched views and won't change them. The other 98% of Scotland don't give a monkey's.

I'm kind of in the entrenched camp myself, but I'd change sides if the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal are shown to be in cahoots with the Scottish government in a conspiracy against Salmond.

You think only 2% of Scotland have entrenched views? I think it has taken time but there is a lot of interest now.

I like to think my views on independence are not entrenched but this stinks. Even if there is nothing to it the obfuscation warrents a properly open enquiry, that should be something everyone can agree on. Sadly, it seems not.

[Caley_Red]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

Right there.

That's why Sturgeon's disastrous policy-making goes completely unchallenged (electorally), some false equivalence drawn by a hardened ideologue to excuse the SNP leader of a potential lie to parliament whilst ignoring the disaster she's made across vast swathes of policy.

I'd say the real equivalence is a previous FM resigning for misleading parliament over a far more trivial matter.

[Biffer]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

Tories fault again. Got it.

Not really what I'm saying. The public no longer gives a shit about this kind of thing. The Tories knew it and exploited it, and the other parties have followed suit. So when Douglas Ross criticises it, no one pays attention. It's a result of the polarisation of our politics, and that's not something to lay at the feet of one party.

[Tichtheid]

You think only 2% of Scotland have entrenched views? I think it has taken time but there is a lot of interest now.

I like to think my views on independence are not entrenched but this stinks. Even if there is nothing to it the obfuscation warrents a properly open enquiry, that should be something everyone can agree on. Sadly, it seems not.

Well, maybe 2% was an underestimate, but the polls are not moving much in either direction.

I do think people see what they want to see and their view of what appears to be happening in front of them is viewed through whatever prism they have. I'm no different in that of course, though I hold no candle for the SNP as a party, I think Nicola Sturgeon is well-regarded in Scotland.

I think parts of this are going to go to court, which may in turn lead to an inquiry.

[Blackmac]

Jesus, that is some pretty pathetic defence to suggest that Salmond, not a minister, was responsible for ensuring the ministerial code was upheld. Presumably we will now hold complainers responsible for ensuring police officers act correctly??

Nope, he wasn't some guy off the street, he was a vastly experienced man with 8 years first hand experience of being First Minister of Scotland, forty odd years in politics and had overseen the implementation of the revised ministerial code.
He was head and shoulders above anyone else as a political operator in the UK for a long time.

Plus your second last paragraph actually backs the claim that it was SG business, why would Sturgeon feel it's appropriate for a senior SG official to intervene if it wasn't government business. As with Sturgeon and Murrell's evidence you are all over the place.

You might want to read it again.

Salmond was the one to suggest Lloyd get involved, not Sturgeon.

That's not true. Salmond and Aberdein have both stated that Aberdein was approached by Lloyd who claimed to have been asked by Sturgeon to act as her point of contact. At the meeting on the 29th, Lloyd subsequently brokered the meeting at Sturgeon's house. No mention of Salmond requesting Lloyds presence.

As to your ascertion that Salmond should somehow be responsible for ensuring the incumbent First Minister uphold her duties, that is absolute nonsense with no standing whatsoever.

[Slick]

I think the standard has now been set in the UK that ministers don’t resign and carry on regardless. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the way public life now is. The vast majority of voters don’t give a shit. Whatever the outcome of this, it’ll have a negligible effect on the election. The most likely serious action taken will be someone being pursued for contempt of court, whether that’s Salmond or someone in the parliament for release of documents.

I know none of that will go down well with the ‘SNP aaaargh’ brigade on here, but that’s where our public life has been taken by the Tories in government for the last ten years.

Tories fault again. Got it.

Not really what I'm saying. The public no longer gives a shit about this kind of thing. The Tories knew it and exploited it, and the other parties have followed suit. So when Douglas Ross criticises it, no one pays attention. It's a result of the polarisation of our politics, and that's not something to lay at the feet of one party.

You just did. I'm not defending the Tories but it just seems to be the SNP's answer to just about everything, it's pathetic.

[tc27]

Looking at the parts the Crown Office demanded be supressed how come you come to any other conclusion? By the looks of it the redacted passages are entirely parts which would require sturgeon to answer questions about areas where she may have broken the ministerial code. If the apparent break down of the separation of powers and a judicial system that's in hoc to the executive is not enough to get you out of your trench then nothing is.

This is from the Herald yesterday

A 36-page submission from the former First Minister, which was published by the parliament last night, was removed in its entirety this morning, then reissued with a series of redactions.

That followed the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) holding an emergency meeting after the Crown Office asked it to remove or redact the material.

The Crown Office raised "grave concerns" there could have been a breach of a court order related to Mr Salmond’s criminal trial last year. However that would ultimately be a matter for a court to decide.


In response, the SPCB agreed to redact parts of Mr Salmond's evidence and republish it in a revised form to avoid any possible breach of a court order.

It has now reissued the material with five sections spanning six paragraphs removed and replaced with purple lines and the word "redacted".

Controversially, one of the paragraphs deleted is wholly unrelated to Mr Salmond's criminal trial, and alleges Ms Sturgeon breached the Scottish ministerial code by making an "untrue" statement to Holyrood in 2019.

Other claims to the same effect remain untouched.

I disagree

So the redacted passages are not, as you claim, "entirely parts which would require sturgeon to answer questions about areas where she may have broken the ministerial code."
In fact there are other areas in the submission which are "to the same effect".

Fair cop - having looked at the redacted evidence I accept some of his allegations of breaches have made it through into the redacted evidence and my previous statement was wrong.

However this is one of the passages redacted:

30. The First Minister told Parliament (see Official Report of 8th,10th & 17th January 2019) that she first learned of the complaints against me when I visited her home on 2nd April 2018. That is untrue and is a breach of the Ministerial Code.

The evidence from Mr Aberdein that he personally discussed the existence of the complaints, and summarised the substance of the complaints, with the First Minister in a pre arranged meeting in Parliament on 29th March 2018 arranged for that specific purpose cannot be reconciled with the position of the First Minister to Parliament. The fact that Mr Aberdein learned of these complaints in early March 2018 from the Chief of Staff to the First Minister who thereafter arranged for the meeting between Mr Aberdein and the First Minister on 29th March to discuss them, is supported by his sharing that information contemporaneously with myself, Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton, Advocate.

I cannot find any replication of this specific evidence in the unredacted parts of Salmond's evidence. Its really odd that this specific passage has being removed (I would suggest because there's suspicion AS can prove it).

In what possible way is the above passage at risk of identifying the complainers or in contempt of court?


What other reasonable conclusion is to be reached other than its being removed as a political act by the Crown Office (to prevent Sturgeon having it answer questions about it under oath).

[Blackmac]

I see the Daily Mail have published the submission in full with a clear "fuck you" to the Crown Office. As someone who spent the majority of his working life in the Criminal Justice system and personally knows two of the senior Crown Office officials directly involved, I am disgusted at their behaviour in the whole matter.

[Slick]

You think only 2% of Scotland have entrenched views? I think it has taken time but there is a lot of interest now.

I like to think my views on independence are not entrenched but this stinks. Even if there is nothing to it the obfuscation warrents a properly open enquiry, that should be something everyone can agree on. Sadly, it seems not.

Well, maybe 2% was an underestimate, but the polls are not moving much in either direction.

I do think people see what they want to see and their view of what appears to be happening in front of them is viewed through whatever prism they have. I'm no different in that of course, though I hold no candle for the SNP as a party, I think Nicola Sturgeon is well-regarded in Scotland.

I think parts of this are going to go to court, which may in turn lead to an inquiry.

I might be misunderstanding here, but isn't the fact the polls are not moving mean that a lot of folk have entrenched views? Or are you saying that people just don't care about this? I must admit it took me a long time to be bothered as I can't stand the petty bickering and calls for resignations across the board, but this does seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser and has my attention now.

[Blackmac]

As to Murrell, you don't think that deciding how the party dealt with a scandal involving it most famous leader doesn't fall under the banner of strategy. If I didn't know better I would almost think you are on a Bimboesque wind up.

That is not what I said, what I did say was that you don't necessarily involve the CEO at the very first stages.

keep the personal stuff out of this

If you feel that is personal then I apologise, however It does fit with the way you seem to be able to distort your impression of the evidence to support your own point of view. The facts clearly paint a sinister picture to anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity.

[Blackmac]

You think only 2% of Scotland have entrenched views? I think it has taken time but there is a lot of interest now.

I like to think my views on independence are not entrenched but this stinks. Even if there is nothing to it the obfuscation warrents a properly open enquiry, that should be something everyone can agree on. Sadly, it seems not.

Well, maybe 2% was an underestimate, but the polls are not moving much in either direction.

I do think people see what they want to see and their view of what appears to be happening in front of them is viewed through whatever prism they have. I'm no different in that of course, though I hold no candle for the SNP as a party, I think Nicola Sturgeon is well-regarded in Scotland.

I think parts of this are going to go to court, which may in turn lead to an inquiry.

I might be misunderstanding here, but isn't the fact the polls are not moving mean that a lot of folk have entrenched views? Or are you saying that people just don't care about this? I must admit it took me a long time to be bothered as I can't stand the petty bickering and calls for resignations across the board, but this does seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser and has my attention now.

Like you I don't know how to post tweets and Facebook posts, but there was a belter from the "Women for Independance" which basically says fuck the consequences, Independance is all the matters. I find more and more of my Independance supporting friends have that attitude.

Also like you I am not that politically active and find the petty point scoring pathetic, however this is something entirely different and very, very sinister.

[Tichtheid]

You think only 2% of Scotland have entrenched views? I think it has taken time but there is a lot of interest now.

I like to think my views on independence are not entrenched but this stinks. Even if there is nothing to it the obfuscation warrents a properly open enquiry, that should be something everyone can agree on. Sadly, it seems not.

Well, maybe 2% was an underestimate, but the polls are not moving much in either direction.

I do think people see what they want to see and their view of what appears to be happening in front of them is viewed through whatever prism they have. I'm no different in that of course, though I hold no candle for the SNP as a party, I think Nicola Sturgeon is well-regarded in Scotland.

I think parts of this are going to go to court, which may in turn lead to an inquiry.

I might be misunderstanding here, but isn't the fact the polls are not moving mean that a lot of folk have entrenched views? Or are you saying that people just don't care about this? I must admit it took me a long time to be bothered as I can't stand the petty bickering and calls for resignations across the board, but this does seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser and has my attention now.

It could be either, I suppose

If the Crown Office & PFS and Scottish government are in cahoots in a conspiracy to jail the former FM, then that is huge, and if proven there could be jail right enough, but not for Eck.

Does it change my opinion that Scottish people should determine their own future?
Not a jot.

[Tichtheid]

Jesus, that is some pretty pathetic defence to suggest that Salmond, not a minister, was responsible for ensuring the ministerial code was upheld. Presumably we will now hold complainers responsible for ensuring police officers act correctly??

Nope, he wasn't some guy off the street, he was a vastly experienced man with 8 years first hand experience of being First Minister of Scotland, forty odd years in politics and had overseen the implementation of the revised ministerial code.
He was head and shoulders above anyone else as a political operator in the UK for a long time.

Plus your second last paragraph actually backs the claim that it was SG business, why would Sturgeon feel it's appropriate for a senior SG official to intervene if it wasn't government business. As with Sturgeon and Murrell's evidence you are all over the place.

You might want to read it again.

Salmond was the one to suggest Lloyd get involved, not Sturgeon.

That's not true. Salmond and Aberdein have both stated that Aberdein was approached by Lloyd who claimed to have been asked by Sturgeon to act as her point of contact. At the meeting on the 29th, Lloyd subsequently brokered the meeting at Sturgeon's house. No mention of Salmond requesting Lloyds presence.

Sturgeon claims that at the meeting on 2nd of April at her home, Salmond asked that Lloyd act as an intermediary between himself and his accusers.

As to your ascertion that Salmond should somehow be responsible for ensuring the incumbent First Minister uphold her duties, that is absolute nonsense with no standing whatsoever.

Aberdein claims that no one but Sturgeon and Salmond were at the meeting on 2nd of April. Is it reasonable to assume that someone with Salmond's experience and background would notice that there were only two of them in the room and minutes were not being taken?
If this was to be a formal meeting with the FM, why not hold it at her office or even Bute House?

[westport]

I see the Daily Mail have published the submission in full with a clear "fuck you" to the Crown Office. As someone who spent the majority of his working life in the Criminal Justice system and personally knows two of the senior Crown Office officials directly involved, I am disgusted at their behaviour in the whole matter.

Have you seen this from Alastair Bonnington

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... r-BB1dWMss