Jump to content

The rise and fall of The SNP.


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Byyy The Light
15 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

 

Nicola Sturgeon - "the behaviour they complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality. But that doesn't mean the behaviour they complained of didn't happen."

 

So they (the complainants)  made a complaint to the police about what he allegedly had done to them which is complaining about his behaviour to them. 
He was found not guilty but admitted his behaviour wasn’t as bad as they made it out to be. 
 

Sturgeon then claims his behaviour did not constitute criminal conduct but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained about didn’t happen. 
 

She called into question the courts and the jury by finding him not guilty. 


 

The term people should use is defamation. 
 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/defamation-scots-law-consultation/pages/4/

 

Sturgeons big problem with that statement may not lie with Salmond but with the courts. The court might see her statement as questioning the integrity of law and the jury from a position of high office.
I’m not sure if that is the case in this instance. 


I’m no Sturgeon fan boy but I can’t see how you arrive at all this. For me all she’s saying is the accusations weren’t a fabrication. Something happened, it just wasn’t deemed criminal.

 

Salmond himself admitted that his sleepy cuddles were not appropriate behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • jack D and coke

    708

  • manaliveits105

    634

  • Smithee

    970

  • Space Mackerel

    646

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

Nicola Sturgeon - "the behaviour they complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality. But that doesn't mean the behaviour they complained of didn't happen."

 

 

 

So, in a nutshell, if Sturgeon decrees that she did nothing wrong then that is it?  😆 

FFS, imagine for one second if the roles had been reversed, how she would react to that sort of BS. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Hardly, the man himself admitted inappropriate behaviour, she's acknowledging that and that it was deemed not to be criminal.

 

 

 

 

Lol, Why even bother with juries?

Let's just in future have the Chief Mammy, and she alone, decide on who walks and who swings from the nearest lamp-post, and she can just throw it in while she's performing in one of her daily pandemic meetings.

No that would be megalomaniac behaviour, erm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Byyy The Light said:


I’m no Sturgeon fan boy but I can’t see how you arrive at all this. For me all she’s saying is the accusations weren’t a fabrication. Something happened, it just wasn’t deemed criminal.

 

Salmond himself admitted that his sleepy cuddles were not appropriate behaviour.


 She is claiming that the behaviour the complaints levelled against him happened. The behaviour they complained about was he tried to rape them or something similar he was found not guilty of that. 
This is the killer line in her statement.

“But that doesn't mean the behaviour they complained of didn't happen."

She basically saying the behaviour of Salmond which he went to court for and was found not guilty of did happen. 
 

Im sure in the fullness of time this statement will be legally assessed as it will be investigated by either a court or a parliamentary committee or other body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

She's being entirely factual, there isn't a court in the land that could pull her up on that.

 

Slander and libel are in English law btw, the equivalent in Scots law would be defamation 👍

 

Lol, well according to the media there's many a legal eagle was stunned by the implications of what she suggested.

 

But let's listen instead to some gadge on a fitba forum.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Byyy The Light
15 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:


 She is claiming that the behaviour the complaints levelled against him happened. The behaviour they complained about was he tried to rape them or something similar he was found not guilty of that. 
This is the killer line in her statement.

“But that doesn't mean the behaviour they complained of didn't happen."

She basically saying the behaviour of Salmond which he went to court for and was found not guilty of did happen. 
 

Im sure in the fullness of time this statement will be legally assessed as it will be investigated by either a court or a parliamentary committee or other body.


There were considerably more charges than just the rape accusations. I’m not interested in getting in to the semantics of it so we can agree to disagree.  I personally don’t believe Salmond did nothing wrong but that’s my opinion. There are numerous shades of grey in what’s criminal, what can be proven or explained away as drunken errors of judgement.

 

Not linked to this case but I have very close connections to someone who works in these circles and her first few weeks in the job were learning which ministers to make sure you don’t get left alone with on a one to one basis and who to avoid speaking to, from her boss. 
 

As I said, that doesn’t mean Salmond is criminally guilty but the culture in that place sounds horrendous. People leave rather than speak up, I can’t imagine why!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JDK2020 said:

 

Lol, well according to the media there's many a legal eagle was stunned by the implications of what she suggested.

 

But let's listen instead to some gadge on a fitba forum.

You can be into my opinion or not, I'm not arsed either way, but the fact remains that what she said was entirely factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Australis said:

Looking tonight that Sturgeon is going to be quite happy throwing John Swinney under the bus?

 

 

 

 

 

Another ex best friend coming along shortly then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor
35 minutes ago, Australis said:

Looking tonight that Sturgeon is going to be quite happy throwing John Swinney under the bus?

 

Always wondered why the 35 gets diverted past Holyrood quite often

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:


There were considerably more charges than just the rape accusations. I’m not interested in getting in to the semantics of it so we can agree to disagree.  I personally don’t believe Salmond did nothing wrong but that’s my opinion. There are numerous shades of grey in what’s criminal, what can be proven or explained away as drunken errors of judgement.

 

Not linked to this case but I have very close connections to someone who works in these circles and her first few weeks in the job were learning which ministers to make sure you don’t get left alone with on a one to one basis and who to avoid speaking to, from her boss. 
 

As I said, that doesn’t mean Salmond is criminally guilty but the culture in that place sounds horrendous. People leave rather than speak up, I can’t imagine why!

 

 

 

I have always thought Salmond was a sleazy b'stard, and still do.

The fact is though it looks like he was stitched up, and that is not the way for the people running the country to behave. Sturgeon has only worsened matters for herself with that stupid, ill-advised statement born out of sheer petulance during one of her covid briefings, of all things.

That is no way for a First Minister to behave.

Not only does it belittle her position it also raises the spectre of her doubting the capability, judgement and integrity of the members of the jury.

Then there's the real possibility of ensuing court action and the complainants having to go through everything all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Byyy The Light
6 minutes ago, JDK2020 said:

 

I have always thought Salmond was a sleazy b'stard, and still do.

The fact is though it looks like he was stitched up, and that is not the way for the people running the country to behave. Sturgeon has only worsened matters for herself with that stupid, ill-advised statement born out of sheer petulance during one of her covid briefings, of all things.

That is no way for a First Minister to behave.

Not only does it belittle her position it also raises the spectre of her doubting the capability, judgement and integrity of the members of the jury.

Then there's the real possibility of ensuing court action and the complainants having to go through everything all over again.


Well hopefully it doesn’t come to that. I’d like some adults running the country and not this tinpot playground cabal we’ve got going on at the moment.

 

The same goes for the dribbling buffoon and his crooked pals in Westminster. The state of the place, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

What a conniving lot this current Scottish government are.

 

It stems from one person who is absolute poison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Byyy The Light said:

personally don’t believe Salmond did nothing wrong but that’s my opinion

As indeed do I. Sadly he is just like many other men from the past and possibly even now who use their position, their manhood and a few swallies to try it on. It’s not tolerated these days and rightly so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Baillie, who is a member of the committee, has revealed the body is considering writing to Levy & McRae, as suggested by Mr Salmond at his six-hour evidence session on Friday, to ask it to share vital documents which it has otherwise been unable to access.

She has said that despite legal restrictions placed on certain documents due to the rules which surround “disclosed materials” during a criminal trial, the solicitors can give the evidence she said the committee needs.

 

Ms Baillie added: 

"In legal terms, in these circumstances where something is mutually contradictory neither constitutes an offence, so it’s clear they can provide us with the information when requested.”

However, The Scotsman understands section 162 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act is “absolute” and would therefore prohibit the solicitors from handing over the evidence, as would the provisions of their code of conduct.

 

The committee has already written to the Crown Office under a section 23 Order asking it to release all documents which “represent correspondence” between chief of staff to the First Minister Liz Lloyd, SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, and the party’s operating officer Sue Ruddick and compliance offcer Ian McCann between November 2017 – when the Scottish Government was developing its policy which was used to investigate Mr Salmond – and January 2019, which was two months before his criminal trial began, and after he had won his judicial review which found the government’s process unlawful.

Edited by Boy Daniel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

It can’t be good if the greens have deserted them 

 

I'd not be the least bit surprised if there is some fudge at work and only part of the legal advice is made available, but the Greens step in and say, yeah, we're OK with that. I trust them not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nicola Sturgeon’s file is clean, but her hands are dirty

 

The first minister will argue there is nothing to pin on her as the Salmond inquiry continues

Magnus Linklater
Monday March 01 2021, 12.01am, The Times
 

We can now see what Nicola Sturgeon’s defence will be when she comes before the Holyrood committee on Wednesday. She will point to Alex Salmond’s six hours of testimony and argue that he produced no smoking gun — nothing to pin on her the charge that she was behind the “malicious scheme” he talked of, apparently aimed at ending his political career.

Collusion with witnesses? Not guilty. Breaches of the ministerial code? Not proven. Calls for her resignation? Even Salmond did not go that far.

It is a defence oddly parallel to the one Salmond’s own counsel gave at his trial: my client may not be perfect, but he is not a criminal. It persuaded the jury, and in Sturgeon’s case, it may persuade the public.

There is a problem, however. The evidence presented by Salmond last Friday painted a picture that amounted to institutional corruption — government lawyers, civil servants, political advisers, all set on shoring up a case against the former first minister, and when that case was palpably failing, pursuing it to the point where it finally collapsed, at huge cost to the public purse, and even greater cost to the reputations of those involved. It has been routinely labelled “botched”. Salmond preferred “illegal”. He may have a point.

I was reminded of the long-forgotten Westland helicopter affair in 1985 that almost ended Margaret Thatcher’s career. There too, desperate efforts were made to find evidence that would incriminate her political rival — in that case, Michael Heseltine — including illegally publishing a confidential letter written by her attorney-general. It was all carried out at the direction of her office but her fingerprints were never found near the scene of the crime. Others took the blame.

Sturgeon may argue that her focus was the welfare of the women who complained about sexual harassment at the hands of her predecessor, and that her lapse of memory about when she first heard about them was a minor oversight. She will say she was not involved in details of the inept inquiry system established by her permanent secretary and, when the government pursued its response to Salmond’s judicial review in defiance of legal evidence, it was not her job to intervene.

All this happened on her watch. Sturgeon, whose attention to detail is legendary, and who has shown an extraordinary grasp of scientific evidence through the pandemic, will have to concede that events in one of the most potentially damaging episodes of her career spiralled out of control. She will have to confront embarrassing evidence about her husband, Peter Murrell, whose apparent calls for pressure on a police-led inquiry were ill-judged at best; and defend her permanent secretary for managing a process of investigation that was shambolic. She may also be asked to explain the role of the Crown Office, which asked that evidence given to the committee was redacted, despite her assurance that MSPs examining the affair would be given every assistance.

Perhaps the most devastating part of Salmond’s testimony was when he described what happened as he and his lawyers were preparing their case for a judicial review of the government’s inquiry into the claims made against him. He accused the government of withholding documents from him, from the court, and even from its own lawyers. “That is a totally extraordinary position,” he said, labelling it “a sequence of deliberate suppression of information inconvenient to the government”. It is hard to disagree.

Who made those decisions? The first minister may argue these matters are legally privileged. The lord advocate has explained he deliberately distanced himself from the decisions of his own office. But a situation in which the public interest is so clearly an element must raise questions about his role as guardian of the country’s legal system as well as adviser to the government.

 

Whether the committee is equipped to interrogate the first minister with sufficient rigour on these matters is open to doubt. We have seen how it splits along party lines, and while some members stick to the evidence, others will inevitably be aware that they are questioning the boss. The committee has been far too weak in standing up to the Crown Office, and has failed to speak with a consistent voice. Its chairwoman, Linda Fabiani, has not been firm enough in directing it and I was surprised that key legal decisions have had to be referred back to the Scottish parliament’s corporate body.

One test of the committee’s resilience will be the way it questions Sturgeon on her apparently vague recollections of the meeting in March 2018 when she first learned of allegations against Salmond. She describes it as a “fleeting, opportunistic meeting”. The committee knows better, because it has seen contradictory evidence from Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff.

As a master of detail, the first minister will be in the unusual position of explaining that, in this matter, she has no grasp of it. Just one meeting in a crowded diary, she will say. Many of her supporters will agree. To others, however, it is a lapse that undermines her reputation for straight dealing. And when set against a background of systematic failure by the institutions over which she presides, it will count against her. She may emerge from Wednesday’s hearing with her position as first minister of Scotland intact. But something more profound will have been lost in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

Swinney is releasing "key legal advice"

 

Expect there to be black marker lines throughout after Sturgeon has given it the once over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Famous 1874 said:

Game over if the news tonight is true that the senior civil servant shredded evidence 


Link to this? 
 

Can’t find news on this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Famous 1874
4 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


Link to this? 
 

Can’t find news on this 

From that rag so take with a pinch of salt. By purely guessing based on the comings and going’s of the situation I’d gauge that some of it is true. 

 

(it didn’t let paste the direct link to the article so I’ve attached a tweet which has the link in it)
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, luckydug said:

This is an Internet forum anyone can be anyone. 

 

 

True, but sometimes they are who they say they are.  Unfortunately, the post by @chuck berrys hairlinethat you quoted seems to have disappeared, so I can't quote it directly, but he may have a point.  When you see something you think is out of order, there are ways to deal with that, and ways not to.  I think I made the wrong call this time.

 

 

 

On 01/03/2021 at 01:57, Zlatanable said:

I am amazed I use the 'autism' defence as often as you make out. (you seem to know better than me, have I ever used it?)

From my pov as an autistic person I rarely do.  

 

As a person who is Autistic, yes, I am not pretending to be Autistic to gain modern progressive point scoring stuff. I am #ActuallyAutistic . 

 

The thing that disturbs me is your entire effort to wipe my character as a human being. I have never done that to other human beings, and I won't. You seem vicious in your comments about me. I am just a person.

 

 

 

 

@ZlatanableFor my own personal reasons, I have my biases on this issue.  I saw your posts, and formed an opinion that you were using autism as an excuse or a cover up for posts that in my view were out of order.  In the course of the exchange of posts between us it has become very clear that in fact you were not using autism as an excuse or cover up.  It is also clear that defending or explaining my opinion is only making the situation worse.   With that in mind, I am now withdrawing my comments, and apologising for any offence caused by them.

 

Apologies also to others for my off topic posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

True, but sometimes they are who they say they are.  Unfortunately, the post by @chuck berrys hairlinethat you quoted seems to have disappeared, so I can't quote it directly, but he may have a point.  When you see something you think is out of order, there are ways to deal with that, and ways not to.  I think I made the wrong call this time.

 

 

 

 

 

@ZlatanableFor my own personal reasons, I have my biases on this issue.  I saw your posts, and formed an opinion that you were using autism as an excuse or a cover up for posts that in my view were out of order.  In the course of the exchange of posts between us it has become very clear that in fact you were not using autism as an excuse or cover up.  It is also clear that defending or explaining my opinion is only making the situation worse.   With that in mind, I am now withdrawing my comments, and apologising for any offence caused by them.

 

Apologies also to others for my off topic posts.

He's full of shit. He's self diagnosed and wouldn't know autism if it slapped him in the face. 

 

 

I self diagnosed as having tourettes, but then I asked my doctor  and she told me my language was just fecking terrible. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/02/2021 at 18:17, JDK2020 said:

 

I think it was Andrew Neil who first coined the banana republic phrase. One headline read :

 

ANDREW NEIL: Censorship, bullying, threats of jail... how Nicola Sturgeon's storm troops turned Scotland into a banana republic without the bananas


I think you are splitting hairs here by suggesting that he is doing down Scotland in it's entirety, all aspects of Scotland, including every last one of us.

Nor do I think you are doing it by accident, it's a well worn path for pro-indy supporters to travel : any criticism of Sturgeon, the SNP or the indy movement is automatically portrayed as an attack on Scotland itself, which you are entitled to believe if you wish. But what I read was him talking with Sturgeon and her cronies very much within his sights.

 

I sense that you, like other Sturgeon/indy supporters elsewhere, have real fears that she will not survive this crisis and are already changing the narrative in anticipation of that to one of - well we don't need Sturgeon for independence, it can still happen without her.

 

This of course may well be true, but the will it/won't it aspect only greatly adds to the whole spectacle for everyone. 

 

...and I agree 100% that the outburst at the covid briefing was ill-advised at best petulant, nasty and distasteful in it's insinuation. Possibly a sign that we could see fireworks on Wednesday is she cant keep her temper under control. 

Andrew Neil is just another pet Scot. 

One day I hope to meet these strange little traitors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Andrew Neil is just another pet Scot. 

One day I hope to meet these strange little traitors. 

I see Jack McConnell is coming up with new ideas to neuter the SNP. Like he tried to do and massively failed the first time they tried to rig this Parliament up. 
What no one can ever answer for me is why Scotland is to be denied? Why has there been such concerted amd prolonged efforts to ensure we stay at heel for centuries. As soon as the SNP formed they stopped producing receipts that showed we sent much money to WM than we received and saying it was “empire costs” Then inventing GERS to obfuscate our finances. Set up a Parliament but then try rig it?? Wtf man?!! Now it’s just we’ll be telt no?! It’s not like there’s anything even semi recent to point to for say nationalism causing unrest other than that bellend Jim Murphy getting egged. 
Sort of getting away from the point about NS and AS of last few days but anyway. 
 

D21A8753-A900-490E-9FE8-F5DE4EEDEE2E.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I see Jack McConnell is coming up with new ideas to neuter the SNP. Like he tried to do and massively failed the first time they tried to rig this Parliament up. 
What no one can ever answer for me is why Scotland is to be denied? Why has there been such concerted amd prolonged efforts to ensure we stay at heel for centuries. As soon as the SNP formed they stopped producing receipts that showed we sent much money to WM than we received and saying it was “empire costs” Then inventing GERS to obfuscate our finances. Set up a Parliament but then try rig it?? Wtf man?!! Now it’s just we’ll be telt no?! It’s not like there’s anything even semi recent to point to for say nationalism causing unrest other than that bellend Jim Murphy getting egged. 
Sort of getting away from the point about NS and AS of last few days but anyway. 
 

D21A8753-A900-490E-9FE8-F5DE4EEDEE2E.png

I wonder whats in it for Lord McConnell and Lady Davidson. I wonder indeed 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Burgundy
4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

He's full of shit. He's self diagnosed and wouldn't know autism if it slapped him in the face. 

 

 

I self diagnosed as having tourettes, but then I asked my doctor  and she told me my language was just fecking terrible. 

Jesus wept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Jesus wept.

I couldn't tell you if he did or not. Even a book told me so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor
8 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

 

 

Whatever time the session is it will be 5 or 6 hours of waffle, refute and deflection.

 

She should also ask for a neck brace to keep her head steady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

Everyone getting their knickers in a twist because politicians are behaving like.........err politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone thinking the SNP is going to give up the powers they have gained through COVID legislation are deluded. 
 

Immediate future is at grave risk here. Willing to throw sections of society to the wolves to further their agendas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Andrew Neil is just another pet Scot. 

One day I hope to meet these strange little traitors. 

 

Lol, and what are you gonna do like? 

 Even given his age, he would probably knock feck out of you!  :clyay:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone think the WM government will try and use the current situation to shut down Holyrood and end devolution  ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

Everyone getting their knickers in a twist because politicians are behaving like.........err politicians.

 

That's right, a FM conspiring with others to have the previous FM, her colleague of 30 years, confidante, political partner and mentor slung in jail, whilst defying court orders to release files, is just an everyday occurrence of politicians behaving like politicians. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Anyone think the WM government will try and use the current situation to shut down Holyrood and end devolution  ? 

 

 

To be honest that would only be an improvement.  However, I think they are willing to see how these problems for the SNP play out in the lead up to the Holyrood elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Anyone think the WM government will try and use the current situation to shut down Holyrood and end devolution  ? 

 

 

We can live in hope, it's just a bloody circus these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Anyone think the WM government will try and use the current situation to shut down Holyrood and end devolution  ? 

 

No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

To be honest that would only be an improvement.  However, I think they are willing to see how these problems for the SNP play out in the lead up to the Holyrood elections.

 

As they say(ish) - if the opposition is making a howling arse of things, don't interrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
23 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Anyone think the WM government will try and use the current situation to shut down Holyrood and end devolution  ? 

 

 

That would be a step to far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor
36 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Anyone think the WM government will try and use the current situation to shut down Holyrood and end devolution  ? 

 

 

No going back on devolution, just like the constitution.

 

That's why we have to be very careful to what we wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
15 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

That would be a step to far.

 

Just now, Maroon Sailor said:

 

No going back on devolution, just like the constitution.

 

That's why we have to be very careful to what we wish for.

Gorgeous George has called for it already. All the hoose jocks calling us tinpot and a banana republic denigrating our Parliament. 
I see it all over Twitter and FB too. A LOT of “Scots” would be delighted if they shut it down let’s not kid ourselves. 
It took over a century for them to give us a wee glorified council to kiddy on it was a government but only after they tried to rig it so that that’s all it would ever be. Don’t forget the scare mongering before devolution too, basically saying the same things would happen as they do about full independence. 
Gove has recently mentioned keeping money back from the SG going forward too. 
I’m really not 100% convinced they wont and that plenty wouldnt be absolutely delighted about it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Swinney has admitted ‘reservations were raised’ around the legality of the prior contact between the investigating officer and the complainants as early as October 2018 during the judicial review action brought by Alex Salmond.

The case was eventually conceded in January 2019 on the grounds the harassment complaints process was “tainted by apparent bias” due to the prior contact.

The admission raises further questions around why the Scottish Government continued to fight the judicial review despite this advice.

 

 

 

 
 
Edited by Boy Daniel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes as Geoff Aberdein, Alex Salmond’s former chief of staff, released a statement on Twitter about the non-publication of his evidence to the committee.

He said he was “disappointed and dismayed” at the suggestion of “opposing camps” within the SNP, but the publication of his evidence was “entirely a matter for Parliament”.

Mr Aberdein said: “I was informed by clerks of the committee in January of this year that for legal reasons they had taken the decision not to publish my submission in any form.

"This position was reiterated to me by the clerks today and I will not put myself in a position of contravening these legal considerations.

"I am very disappointed and dismayed at the prominent narrative of ‘opposing camps’ as far as the SNP is concerned.

"That does not reflect my experience of advising the SNP and Scottish Government.”

 

The publication of the legal advice also follows revelations in the Scottish Sun that permanent secretary Leslie Evans may have destroyed her notes of a ‘secret meeting’ between her and the First Minister in November 2018.

The paper reports that testimony to a commission on diligence from Ms Evans stated that while she takes notes from meetings with the First Minister, she destroys her notebooks once they are full.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
1 hour ago, JDK2020 said:

 

That's right, a FM conspiring with others to have the previous FM, her colleague of 30 years, confidante, political partner and mentor slung in jail, whilst defying court orders to release files, is just an everyday occurrence of politicians behaving like politicians. 😆

You must be a mere youngster. Do some reading on the history of British politics and British politicians. You will be surprised how tame this stooshie is compared to many others involving all the British major political parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...