The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Justin Z]

11 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

Are you saying you don't believe there was a conspiracy against Salmond or are you saying that the enquiry will find that there wasn't?

 

I am saying I have not as yet been convinced, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

12 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

Is there anything in particular about Davis that calls you to question his trustworthiness?

 

Seeing as he was credibly accused of lying to Parliament about Brexit, and repeatedly doubled down, the irony is pretty thick.

 

10 minutes ago, kila said:

Some hate the SNP so much they'll gladly let the Tories absolutely do whatever the **** they please, even if it is hundreds of times worse than the SNP.

 

I'd love accountability for all politicians but it'll never happen. It's a case of who is the least evil.

 

Does unfortunately sum it up. Whatever minor violations may have occurred here are freely amplified a thousand times over by a media hell-bent on its pro-Union agenda from above, with barely a whisper of a word about what's far worse.

 

If everyone who has openly and corruptly rifled through the public purse, protected liars, avoided scrutiny for dereliction of duty, etc., was going to receive a comeuppance, preferably before we got to this shadowy he-said she-said stuff, it might even seem above board.

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I am saying I have not as yet been convinced, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

 

Seeing as he was credibly accused of lying to Parliament about Brexit, and repeatedly doubled down, the irony is pretty thick.

 

 

Does unfortunately sum it up. Whatever minor violations may have occurred here are freely amplified a thousand times over by a media hell-bent on its pro-Union agenda from above, with barely a whisper of a word about what's far worse.

 

If everyone who has openly and corruptly rifled through the public purse, protected liars, avoided scrutiny for dereliction of duty, etc., was going to receive a comeuppance, preferably before we got to this shadowy he-said she-said stuff, it might even seem above board.

 

It's not minor to conduct investigations and tout for evidence during a Police investigation. 

 

You should look at the trial evidence again. But why isn't all the evidence available to the inquiry? Very little actually has any hint towards identity of the women. The reason touted for not being made available. Proven to be false in many cases. 

 

The trial evidence pretty much identifies some of the women. That wasn't prevented from being reported. 

[Justin Z]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

It's not minor to conduct investigations and tout for evidence during a Police investigation.

 

True. That has yet to be proven. Still.

 

7 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

But why isn't all the evidence available to the inquiry?

 

And this may be why. But until we do see for ourselves, I remain unconvinced, especially given the machinations of how this has been pressed.

[ri Alban]

13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's not minor to conduct investigations and tout for evidence during a Police investigation. 

 

You should look at the trial evidence again. But why isn't all the evidence available to the inquiry? Very little actually has any hint towards identity of the women. The reason touted for not being made available. Proven to be false in many cases. 

 

The trial evidence pretty much identifies some of the women. That wasn't prevented from being reported. 

Was it not good they touted for evidence against scum like rolf Harris etc... during yewtree? .If Salmond has abused his position multiple times, let's fecking hear it and don't just go against the Norm to attack NS and the SNP. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

Was Davis not Brexit minister at one point and he backed shutting WM so they didn't need to answer for the Brexit deal. 

 

Let's hope he's not Alex' tag team partner and has now put his foot in it. 

👮‍♂️

Edited March 17, 2021 by ri Alban

[Don Dan]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmonds-claim-that-complainant-name-leaked-by-nicola-sturgeons-staff-corroborated-3168955

 

Alex Salmond’s claim that Nicola Sturgeon’s staff leaked the name of one of the women who complained about the former first minister’s behaviour has been corroborated by an ex-civil servant.

[JackLadd]

Watch her attack Davis and ignore his devastating corroborated evidence of her lies and complicity.

[BRAVEHEART1874]

fall? more like thebrit nat tory 22.9 will fall, but its ok you can blame bosh. Cya back in may etc. after elections when thesnp are clear leaders once again. This first page esp the 2 yoon was histerical and how many peeps do you think converted, prob  zero must try harder.

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Can anyone who is fluent in Swahili help to translate the above?
 

 

Independence is more important than abuse of public office. Salmond is expendable. Joanna Cherry is expendable. An illegal Referendum bringing division is more important than recovering from Covid. 

[Peakybunnet]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's not minor to conduct investigations and tout for evidence during a Police investigation. 

 

You should look at the trial evidence again. But why isn't all the evidence available to the inquiry? Very little actually has any hint towards identity of the women. The reason touted for not being made available. Proven to be false in many cases. 

 

The trial evidence pretty much identifies some of the women. That wasn't prevented from being reported. 

 

Not sure if they did or not but to assist a police investigation cant be a bad thing. 

 

 

[Unknown user]

39 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Independence is more important than abuse of public office. Salmond is expendable. Joanna Cherry is expendable. An illegal Referendum bringing division is more important than recovering from Covid. 

Lol hasn't even been proposed yet and it's illegal, aye very good!

[Mikey1874]

35 minutes ago, Peakybunnet said:

 

Not sure if they did or not but to assist a police investigation cant be a bad thing. 

 

Well they didn't assist. Despite a monumental effort they didn't produce one more witness.

 

Now I don't know everything and I am careful not to be critical of the complainers. But it is certainly an argument that the 'get Salmond' approach harmed their (that's Sturgeon, Murrell etc) case. The jury heard so many accounts that were disproved including the main complainer ('woman H') wasn't at the location or event where she was supposedly  'raped'.  I think very quickly the jury had a clear picture of the case.

 

Maybe a bit less fishing could have led to a different outcome.

 

But as I've said elsewhere it will come out. Maybe not now. But Salmond is just getting started. 

[NANOJAMBO]

2 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

What did he lie about?

He lied about brexit, continually , and misled Parliament.

In simple terms : he said the govt was working on 50 economic analyses (for brexit) when there wasn't a single report being produced. 

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/david-davis-accused-of-blatant-lying-and-contempt-of-parliament-over-brexit-impact-papers

[jack D and coke]

26 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Lol hasn't even been proposed yet and it's illegal, aye very good!

Bit of a drama queen mikey methinks.

They were risking everyone’s lives the other day having an election that’s not happened yet and won’t be until most will be vaccinated and we’re almost completely out of lockdown. 
Just pure evil stuff. 

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

He lied about brexit, continually , and misled Parliament.

In simple terms : he said the govt was working on 50 economic analyses (for brexit) when there wasn't a single report being produced. 

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/david-davis-accused-of-blatant-lying-and-contempt-of-parliament-over-brexit-impact-papers

 

I remember now. I had him marked down as more of an idiot than a chancer. You can be both though especially in the Conservative party.

[JackLadd]

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

He lied about brexit, continually , and misled Parliament.

In simple terms : he said the govt was working on 50 economic analyses (for brexit) when there wasn't a single report being produced. 

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/david-davis-accused-of-blatant-lying-and-contempt-of-parliament-over-brexit-impact-papers

 

 

Your remoaner blog from 2017 has been superseded by the trade deal. Try harder next time shire boy.

[willie wallace]

Why is this even mentioned in Westminster.

Apart from Davies and Salmond apparently being buddies surely this is purely a Scottish problem.

[Cade]

1 hour ago, willie wallace said:

Why is this even mentioned in Westminster.

Apart from Davies and Salmond apparently being buddies surely this is purely a Scottish problem.

 

Westminster Tories openly electioneering on behalf of their shitey Scottish cousins.

 

 

[luckydug]

4 hours ago, willie wallace said:

Why is this even mentioned in Westminster.

Apart from Davies and Salmond apparently being buddies surely this is purely a Scottish problem.

Using parliamentary privilege to help out a mate is an abuse of power. 

 

[manaliveits105]

The only abuse of power is in the Scottish devolved administration and should rightly be called out at UK Government level 

[XB52]

8 hours ago, luckydug said:

Using parliamentary privilege to help out a mate is an abuse of power. 

 

Just part of the unionist campaign against NS. Luckily the complainer in question has confirmed that Davis lied. Of course this fact will be ignored by the unionist media 

[Justin Z]

6 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Just part of the unionist campaign against NS. Luckily the complainer in question has confirmed that Davis lied. Of course this fact will be ignored by the unionist media 

 

I wonder how many other Unionist politicians are lining up to abuse parliamentary privilege with invented "leaks" and the like.

 

This is really starting to feel like a full-on assault not just against the Scottish Parliament but the foundations of the nation itself. Critical time, potentially.

[pablo]

1 minute ago, XB52 said:

Just part of the unionist campaign against NS. Luckily the complainer in question has confirmed that Davis lied. Of course this fact will be ignored by the unionist media 

 

What on earth are you talking about? Have you watched or read his speech? He has produced the messages and they are with Police Scotland. He didn't send them! 

[coconut doug]

54 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Just part of the unionist campaign against NS. Luckily the complainer in question has confirmed that Davis lied. Of course this fact will be ignored by the unionist media 

 

Davis didn't lie. The messages exist as described by him. One anonymous woman has claimed that the messages relating to Liz Lloyd's interference were made in relation to a general enquiry rather than a specific one about Alex Salmond. If you believe that you will believe anything.  If this was such an inocuous message why was it illegally removed from the material sent to the enquiry?

 

Its about time these anonymous women were exposed. They are after all high powered political players well used to the machinations and skullduggery of government and not the timid shrinking violets the press would like us to believe. In all cases but one they were demonstrated to be liars at Salmond's trial and that is why they remain anonymous. They lied too at the enquiry where at least three of them had to return to the enquiry to change their testimiony after evidence similar to that produced by Davis appeared in the public domain. The press repeatedly give these women an unchallenged platform to repeat their allegations against Salmond and to reignite their victimhood status. The campaign is against Salmond and against Indy not Sturgeon and the trough feeders.

 

  There is no Unionist campaign against NS. They are protecting her by not fully exploring the issues around the Salmond fit up. That's why davis used parliamentary privilege to highlight the case. She and her cabal have no interest in attempting to deliver independence, that's why there is such division in the SNP. Salmond claims that's why he was targeted in the first place. 

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

I wonder how many other Unionist politicians are lining up to abuse parliamentary privilege with invented "leaks" and the like.

 

This is really starting to feel like a full-on assault not just against the Scottish Parliament but the foundations of the nation itself. Critical time, potentially.

 

It is looking like a full on assault and it is predicated on the corruption, incompetence and duplicitous behaviour of politicians, civil servants and the legal hierarchy.

 

That's why Sturgeon needs to go now and it is also why there are no calls for her resignation in the anti - indy press.

[XB52]

5 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Davis didn't lie. The messages exist as described by him. One anonymous woman has claimed that the messages relating to Liz Lloyd's interference were made in relation to a general enquiry rather than a specific one about Alex Salmond. If you believe that you will believe anything.  If this was such an inocuous message why was it illegally removed from the material sent to the enquiry?

 

Its about time these anonymous women were exposed. They are after all high powered political players well used to the machinations and skullduggery of government and not the timid shrinking violets the press would like us to believe. In all cases but one they were demonstrated to be liars at Salmond's trial and that is why they remain anonymous. They lied too at the enquiry where at least three of them had to return to the enquiry to change their testimiony after evidence similar to that produced by Davis appeared in the public domain. The press repeatedly give these women an unchallenged platform to repeat their allegations against Salmond and to reignite their victimhood status. The campaign is against Salmond and against Indy not Sturgeon and the trough feeders.

 

  There is no Unionist campaign against NS. They are protecting her by not fully exploring the issues around the Salmond fit up. That's why davis used parliamentary privilege to highlight the case. She and her cabal have no interest in attempting to deliver independence, that's why there is such division in the SNP. Salmond claims that's why he was targeted in the first place. 

There is no Unionist campaign against NS😁😁😁😁. How sad that you can actually post this. 

[Justin Z]

Just now, coconut doug said:

It is looking like a full on assault and it is predicated on the corruption, incompetence and duplicitous behaviour of politicians, civil servants and the legal hierarchy.

 

That's why Sturgeon needs to go now and it is also why there are no calls for her resignation in the anti - indy press.

 

I was saying this actually to a friend weeks ago, that the statement it would make if Sturgeon took that action from nowhere—if the PR was handled right—would be massive.

 

"In Scotland, there are consequences when elected officials allow things, intentionally or not, to get out of hand, and that is why I am resigning today.  Meanwhile over the last several years in Westminster, we've seen tens of thousands needlessly die due to dereliction of the Government's duty to the public health, twenty odd billion wasted for track and trace, billions corruptly funneled to Tory party backers for PPE, bullying, misleading Parliament, proroguing Parliament, and on and on, with no consequences whatsoever.

 

"And there will never be any consequences. Now more than ever it is clear that if what you want is a government that can be held to account, Independence is the only way forward."

 

9 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

She and her cabal have no interest in attempting to deliver independence

 

You really need to let crap like this go though. This is who you're being manipulated by:

 

 

Wings created Ghana Tourism Authority after his original account was banned. This is his true face. Everything he does is literally all about him. Please stop swallowing his bullshit fantasy.

 

[luckydug]

13 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

It is looking like a full on assault and it is predicated on the corruption, incompetence and duplicitous behaviour of politicians, civil servants and the legal hierarchy.

 

That's why Sturgeon needs to go now and it is also why there are no calls for her resignation in the anti - indy press.

Why do you think their was a campaign to 'get' Alex Salmond ? 

After all he was out of power and his successor had actually strengthened the SNPs position. 

He was surely powerless. 

[jack D and coke]

31 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Davis didn't lie. The messages exist as described by him. One anonymous woman has claimed that the messages relating to Liz Lloyd's interference were made in relation to a general enquiry rather than a specific one about Alex Salmond. If you believe that you will believe anything.  If this was such an inocuous message why was it illegally removed from the material sent to the enquiry?

 

Its about time these anonymous women were exposed. They are after all high powered political players well used to the machinations and skullduggery of government and not the timid shrinking violets the press would like us to believe. In all cases but one they were demonstrated to be liars at Salmond's trial and that is why they remain anonymous. They lied too at the enquiry where at least three of them had to return to the enquiry to change their testimiony after evidence similar to that produced by Davis appeared in the public domain. The press repeatedly give these women an unchallenged platform to repeat their allegations against Salmond and to reignite their victimhood status. The campaign is against Salmond and against Indy not Sturgeon and the trough feeders.

 

  There is no Unionist campaign against NS. They are protecting her by not fully exploring the issues around the Salmond fit up. That's why davis used parliamentary privilege to highlight the case. She and her cabal have no interest in attempting to deliver independence, that's why there is such division in the SNP. Salmond claims that's why he was targeted in the first place. 

It’s a strange one the accusations that they don’t want indy I’ll be honest. 
Why would they push for it when the polls are showing barely a plus for a Yes? I appreciate the demented hardcore support  demand that this push never stops but if they pushed too soon and a second vote is No imo that is it done. I don’t have a huge interest in a second indyref but if the mandate is there then fair enough. But I’d certainly have absolutely zero in a third. I’d literally vote anyone to get them out tbh. 

[coconut doug]

5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I was saying this actually to a friend weeks ago, that the statement it would make if Sturgeon took that action from nowhere—if the PR was handled right—would be massive.

 

"In Scotland, there are consequences when elected officials allow things, intentionally or not, to get out of hand, and that is why I am resigning today.  Meanwhile over the last several years in Westminster, we've seen tens of thousands needlessly die due to dereliction of the Government's duty to the public health, twenty odd billion wasted for track and trace, billions corruptly funneled to Tory party backers for PPE, bullying, misleading Parliament, proroguing Parliament, and on and on, with no consequences whatsoever.

 

"And there will never be any consequences. Now more than ever it is clear that if what you want is a government that can be held to account, Independence is the only way forward."

 

 

You really need to let crap like this go though. This is who you're being manipulated by:

 

 

Wings created Ghana Tourism Authority after his original account was banned. This is his true face. Everything he does is literally all about him. Please stop swallowing his bullshit fantasy.

 

 

  I'm not being manipulated any more than anybody else. I'm aware of the tweets you have posted and if you are aware of the account you will be aware of the literally hundreds of contributors many of whom long standing and highly committed SNP/Indy supporters who agree with the points i made. We have not been manipulated we have arrived at our conclusions based on th evidence available and our experiences. 

 

 I have always been cynical regarding politics and government and the current revelations surprise me not one bit. I know our institutions are run for the benefit of those who control them and i didn't need Stuart Campbell to tell me that. Gordon Dangerfield, Jim Sillars, Kenny MacAskill, Tommy Sheridan, Craig Murray and more would agree with me not because they have been manipulated by Campbell but because they are seasoned political operators with inside knowledge of how things work in Scotland.

 

  I've watched NS for 30 years way back to when she was a very articulate young firebrand and i always thought she would get a top job based on her committment and ability. She used every lever of argumentation to advance the cause of Indy at every opportunity, not so now. Salmond told her this too. Why is it now widely believed that any future referendum would need the approval of the UK government. Who conceded that point and why? I could go on, the evidence that NS is stalling on Indy is significant and i've even noticed some of it myself without having to refer to campbell for guidance.

 

  We currently have all the ducks in a row as far as Indy is concerned. I cannot imagine things ever being more favourable and yet as far as the SNP hierarchy is concerned Indy is the elephant in the room. 

[luckydug]

5 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

  I'm not being manipulated any more than anybody else. I'm aware of the tweets you have posted and if you are aware of the account you will be aware of the literally hundreds of contributors many of whom long standing and highly committed SNP/Indy supporters who agree with the points i made. We have not been manipulated we have arrived at our conclusions based on th evidence available and our experiences. 

 

 I have always been cynical regarding politics and government and the current revelations surprise me not one bit. I know our institutions are run for the benefit of those who control them and i didn't need Stuart Campbell to tell me that. Gordon Dangerfield, Jim Sillars, Kenny MacAskill, Tommy Sheridan, Craig Murray and more would agree with me not because they have been manipulated by Campbell but because they are seasoned political operators with inside knowledge of how things work in Scotland.

 

  I've watched NS for 30 years way back to when she was a very articulate young firebrand and i always thought she would get a top job based on her committment and ability. She used every lever of argumentation to advance the cause of Indy at every opportunity, not so now. Salmond told her this too. Why is it now widely believed that any future referendum would need the approval of the UK government. Who conceded that point and why? I could go on, the evidence that NS is stalling on Indy is significant and i've even noticed some of it myself without having to refer to campbell for guidance.

 

  We currently have all the ducks in a row as far as Indy is concerned. I cannot imagine things ever being more favourable and yet as far as the SNP hierarchy is concerned Indy is the elephant in the room. 

We do not have all our ducks in a row for Independence. 

Even allowing for the most positive polls it is far to close to call. 

Declaring Independence with anything less than a conclusive majority vote along the lines of 60/40 in favour leaves room for Scotland to be a very divided and unhappy nation. 

 

 

[coconut doug]

8 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

It’s a strange one the accusations that they don’t want indy I’ll be honest. 
Why would they push for it when the polls are showing barely a plus for a Yes? I appreciate the demented hardcore support  demand that this push never stops but if they pushed too soon and a second vote is No imo that is it done. I don’t have a huge interest in a second indyref but if the mandate is there then fair enough. But I’d certainly have absolutely zero in a third. I’d literally vote anyone to get them out tbh. 

 

I know you think we are likely to shit it on the day and i agree. I also agree that a second defeat would be curtains. 

 

Maybe they dont want the responsibilty that goes with Indy. Maybe they no longer believe in it. Maybe they don't want to lose and take the blame for that. 

 

I take the view that if it doesn't happen now it never will. 

 

The SNP have lurched to the right. The woke agenda is losing them huge levels of support. The notion (previously true) IMO that they were a competent administration is now gone. Performance indicators in any areas have deteriorated compared to Salmond's day. The fiscal strategy report was a pathetic piece of work. Broken promises. All in all an exemplary strategy to thwart Indy.

[coconut doug]

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

We do not have all our ducks in a row for Independence. 

Even allowing for the most positive polls it is far to close to call. 

Declaring Independence with anything less than a conclusive majority vote along the lines of 60/40 in favour leaves room for Scotland to be a very divided and unhappy nation. 

 

 

 

Then you will never have either. Indy or a cohesive society.

[coconut doug]

37 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Why do you think their was a campaign to 'get' Alex Salmond ? 

After all he was out of power and his successor had actually strengthened the SNPs position. 

He was surely powerless. 

 

Salmond claims it was because he questioned Nicola's commitment to Indy and she feared he might return.

[Justin Z]

20 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

It’s a strange one the accusations that they don’t want indy I’ll be honest. 
Why would they push for it when the polls are showing barely a plus for a Yes? I appreciate the demented hardcore support  demand that this push never stops but if they pushed too soon and a second vote is No imo that is it done.

 

Correct.

 

1 minute ago, luckydug said:

We do not have all our ducks in a row for Independence. 

Even allowing for the most positive polls it is far to close to call. 

Declaring Independence with anything less than a conclusive majority vote along the lines of 60/40 in favour leaves room for Scotland to be a very divided and unhappy nation.

 

Correct.

 

Time for folks to stop following a hate-filled, wacked out video game “journalist” for views on independence and think for themselves.

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I know you think we are likely to shit it on the day and i agree. I also agree that a second defeat would be curtains. 

 

Maybe they dont want the responsibilty that goes with Indy. Maybe they no longer believe in it. Maybe they don't want to lose and take the blame for that. 

 

I take the view that if it doesn't happen now it never will. 

 

The SNP have lurched to the right. The woke agenda is losing them huge levels of support. The notion (previously true) IMO that they were a competent administration is now gone. Performance indicators in any areas have deteriorated compared to Salmond's day. The fiscal strategy report was a pathetic piece of work. Broken promises. All in all an exemplary strategy to thwart Indy.

I’m firmly of the belief that the chance was in 2014 bud. Whether we shat it or whatever I honestly believe there might never be a better or possibly even another opportunity.

As for your points I’ve read similar stuff on wings etc and who knows it could be correct. However I stopped caring what he thinks a long time ago. A very strange dude and whenever I see him interviewed etc I’m more convinced he’s a bit of a wrong un. It’s in the eyes. 
The recent carry on has baffled me I’ll be honest, the Salmond affair etc. Salmond possibly bringing the whole thing down is mind blowing tbh. What has happened here...

[luckydug]

51 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Salmond claims it was because he questioned Nicola's commitment to Indy and she feared he might return.

I think he was kidding himself. 

I know lots of people who have voted SNP who would never have considered it under Salmond. 

Nicola Sturgeon's leadership was under no threat from Salmond. 

Alex Salmond was a liability we may well have won the referendum with NS as leader. 

[manaliveits105]

Scottish National Pavementdancers  - theres no enough of us the noo wull try later 

 

[Don Dan]

Not sure who to believe now. 

[Guest]

Who had 12.41 in the "Nicola will mention Ruth going to the House of Lords" sweep?

[Guest]

Just now, Candy said:

Who had 12.41 in the "Nicola will mention Ruth going to the House of Lords" sweep?

2nd prize comes in at 12.43

[manaliveits105]

No mention of hugging her parents yet though 

[manaliveits105]

4 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Not sure who to believe now. 

The SG have been dodgy all along and there is a definite cover up 

Both sides now trying to play the women at the centre of the allegations card when in reality neither side now gives a jot for them its all about the politics 

[pablo]

Have a read of this, what a sorry state of affairs.

Magazine: 20 March 2021

The Spectator

The Crown Office, The Spectator and a fight for a free press

From magazine issue: 20 March 2021

iStock

SHARE

The power wielded by Nicola Sturgeon and her Scottish government means it’s hard to hold her to account for basic policy failures — of which there are many. It’s even harder to investigate accusations that her aides conspired to frame and imprison someone who had become a political problem for her. The Alex Salmond affair has shown the many ways the public prosecutors in the Crown Office, led by a member of Sturgeon’s cabinet, have sought to censor and redact his allegations.

The House of Commons is immune to the threats and menaces of government lawyers. The notion of parliamentary privilege, a corner-stone of British democracy, means that anything can be said within the walls of parliament without fear of prosecution. David Davis, a senior Tory MP and lifelong member of the political awkward squad, this week took advantage of that privilege to give a no-holds-barred version of the Salmond story — including new allegations. Under British law, the notion of parliamentary privilege is extended to publications, so The Spectator cannot come under legal attack for reporting what is said in parliament.

Here is what we now know. Salmond has suggested that the criminal allegations against him (he was acquitted of 13 charges of sexual abuse) were at least in part drummed up by Sturgeon’s allies in the face of impeding defeat in the judicial review and to remove him from public life. Sturgeon denies she and her allies were out to get him. But her defence has been littered with contradictions.

For instance, she said she only found out about allegations against Salmond in early April 2018, when the internal inquiry was already under way. But Davis read the content of a message between civil servants heading the investigation into Salmond, which described ‘interference’ in the complaints process by Liz Lloyd, Sturgeon’s chief of staff. It was sent on 6 February 2018. If this is true, it means we’re to believe Ms Lloyd — who worked more closely with Ms Sturgeon than anyone — gave no hint about the bombshell allegations against Salmond for two months. We’re also asked to believe that Sturgeon’s husband, the SNP’s chief executive, told her nothing about them either.

When Salmond published his evidence, journalists were given legal advice not to report important parts of it. To do so, ran the argument, would violate a court order preventing the naming of complainants. Salmond’s evidence names no one, so we published it on our website (with one redaction to address this concern).

We duly received a threatening letter from the Crown Office in Edinburgh, so we went to the High Court in Edinburgh and sought clarification: was there any legal impediment to The Spectator repeating the Salmond allegations? This mattered, because a Holyrood committee was also investigating them and wanted to publish Salmond’s evidence too. The High Court raised no complaint about the publication, thereby giving the green light to the parliamentary inquiry. Salmond’s evidence was published by Holyrood too, after which the Crown Office censors swooped on Holyrood and bullied parliament into withdrawing the evidence.

We can now disclose that the Crown Office is doing a clear-up job, seeking to expunge remnants of Salmond’s evidence from the internet. It has ordered The Spectator to make further redactions to the Salmond submission. If we fail to comply, we have been advised that we could face penalties in excess of £50,000 (there is no cap), plus huge legal costs we would not recoup even if we win in court. It’s quite a risk, so we must consider removing Salmond’s evidence from our website.

Scotland’s Crown Office is doing a clear-up job, seeking to expunge Salmond’s evidence from the internet

We take solace in the fact it has been available for all to read for many weeks now, and especially over the crucial period when Salmond and Sturgeon gave evidence to the Holyrood inquiry. This underlines the absurdity of the Crown Office’s jackboot approach to a free press, in pursuit of an agenda which suits its political masters.

Happily, the original text remains published by an internet archive service in California, which permanently stores internet pages. This service is valued by researchers who seek originals of documents censored by authoritarian regimes. The Crown Office, as part of its clean-up operation, told us to delete this version too. Luckily this is not in our gift.

The Spectator opened its first editorial in 1828 with the credo written by its founding editor, a Dundonian named R.S. Rintoul: ‘The principal object of a newspaper is to convey intelligence.’ The principal object of the Crown Office has not only been to stop intelligence being conveyed, but to delete intelligence from the public domain.

The hurdle in front of The Spectator now is great. The Crown Office even told us not to tell readers about its demand — but we can’t be silent about its mendacious threats to a free press. Even if we end up succumbing to its censorship, we can still put its methods on record.

This is how the SNP government and its supine supporters operate. The recently passed Hate Crime Act gives them even more powers to menace the press. Scotland is being ushered towards an era of censorship, threats and state repression. The good news for those who cherish the principles of democratic debate — and those of the Scottish Enlightenment — is that this will not happen without a fight.

WRITTEN BY

The Spectator

SHARE

TOPICS

Alex SalmondNicola SturgeonScotland

MOST POPULAR

Useful links

Advertise with usSponsor an eventSubmit a story

More from The Spectator

Spectator AustraliaApollo MagazineThe Spectator Shop

About us

About The SpectatorContact & FAQsPrivacy & cookiesTerms and conditionsJobs and vacanciesSite map

Subscribe

Subscribe todaySign up to our emailsThe Spectator Club

[coconut doug]

3 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

I’m firmly of the belief that the chance was in 2014 bud. Whether we shat it or whatever I honestly believe there might never be a better or possibly even another opportunity.

As for your points I’ve read similar stuff on wings etc and who knows it could be correct. However I stopped caring what he thinks a long time ago. A very strange dude and whenever I see him interviewed etc I’m more convinced he’s a bit of a wrong un. It’s in the eyes. 
The recent carry on has baffled me I’ll be honest, the Salmond affair etc. Salmond possibly bringing the whole thing down is mind blowing tbh. What has happened here...

 

I'm not defending Campbell. He's not the only source for this information he is merely the messenger for some of it. There are others and i listed some. 

  FWIW i think Sturgeon has been played by the establishment who are staunchly anti-indy. Those around her have dubious levels of propriety Evans and Lloyd in particular. If we are going by personal attributes i'll stilll have Campbell, even though i wouldn't let him in the house.

[XB52]

4 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

  I'm not being manipulated any more than anybody else. I'm aware of the tweets you have posted and if you are aware of the account you will be aware of the literally hundreds of contributors many of whom long standing and highly committed SNP/Indy supporters who agree with the points i made. We have not been manipulated we have arrived at our conclusions based on th evidence available and our experiences. 

 

 I have always been cynical regarding politics and government and the current revelations surprise me not one bit. I know our institutions are run for the benefit of those who control them and i didn't need Stuart Campbell to tell me that. Gordon Dangerfield, Jim Sillars, Kenny MacAskill, Tommy Sheridan, Craig Murray and more would agree with me not because they have been manipulated by Campbell but because they are seasoned political operators with inside knowledge of how things work in Scotland.

 

  I've watched NS for 30 years way back to when she was a very articulate young firebrand and i always thought she would get a top job based on her committment and ability. She used every lever of argumentation to advance the cause of Indy at every opportunity, not so now. Salmond told her this too. Why is it now widely believed that any future referendum would need the approval of the UK government. Who conceded that point and why? I could go on, the evidence that NS is stalling on Indy is significant and i've even noticed some of it myself without having to refer to campbell for guidance.

 

  We currently have all the ducks in a row as far as Indy is concerned. I cannot imagine things ever being more favourable and yet as far as the SNP hierarchy is concerned Indy is the elephant in the room. 

We have our ducks in a row but people like you are determined to shoot them down. You and your ilk are a far bigger threat to our independence than any tory

[Konrad von Carstein]

47 minutes ago, pablo said:

Have a read of this, what a sorry state of affairs.

Magazine: 20 March 2021

The Spectator

The Crown Office, The Spectator and a fight for a free press

From magazine issue: 20 March 2021

iStock

SHARE

The power wielded by Nicola Sturgeon and her Scottish government means it’s hard to hold her to account for basic policy failures — of which there are many. It’s even harder to investigate accusations that her aides conspired to frame and imprison someone who had become a political problem for her. The Alex Salmond affair has shown the many ways the public prosecutors in the Crown Office, led by a member of Sturgeon’s cabinet, have sought to censor and redact his allegations.

The House of Commons is immune to the threats and menaces of government lawyers. The notion of parliamentary privilege, a corner-stone of British democracy, means that anything can be said within the walls of parliament without fear of prosecution. David Davis, a senior Tory MP and lifelong member of the political awkward squad, this week took advantage of that privilege to give a no-holds-barred version of the Salmond story — including new allegations. Under British law, the notion of parliamentary privilege is extended to publications, so The Spectator cannot come under legal attack for reporting what is said in parliament.

Here is what we now know. Salmond has suggested that the criminal allegations against him (he was acquitted of 13 charges of sexual abuse) were at least in part drummed up by Sturgeon’s allies in the face of impeding defeat in the judicial review and to remove him from public life. Sturgeon denies she and her allies were out to get him. But her defence has been littered with contradictions.

For instance, she said she only found out about allegations against Salmond in early April 2018, when the internal inquiry was already under way. But Davis read the content of a message between civil servants heading the investigation into Salmond, which described ‘interference’ in the complaints process by Liz Lloyd, Sturgeon’s chief of staff. It was sent on 6 February 2018. If this is true, it means we’re to believe Ms Lloyd — who worked more closely with Ms Sturgeon than anyone — gave no hint about the bombshell allegations against Salmond for two months. We’re also asked to believe that Sturgeon’s husband, the SNP’s chief executive, told her nothing about them either.

When Salmond published his evidence, journalists were given legal advice not to report important parts of it. To do so, ran the argument, would violate a court order preventing the naming of complainants. Salmond’s evidence names no one, so we published it on our website (with one redaction to address this concern).

We duly received a threatening letter from the Crown Office in Edinburgh, so we went to the High Court in Edinburgh and sought clarification: was there any legal impediment to The Spectator repeating the Salmond allegations? This mattered, because a Holyrood committee was also investigating them and wanted to publish Salmond’s evidence too. The High Court raised no complaint about the publication, thereby giving the green light to the parliamentary inquiry. Salmond’s evidence was published by Holyrood too, after which the Crown Office censors swooped on Holyrood and bullied parliament into withdrawing the evidence.

We can now disclose that the Crown Office is doing a clear-up job, seeking to expunge remnants of Salmond’s evidence from the internet. It has ordered The Spectator to make further redactions to the Salmond submission. If we fail to comply, we have been advised that we could face penalties in excess of £50,000 (there is no cap), plus huge legal costs we would not recoup even if we win in court. It’s quite a risk, so we must consider removing Salmond’s evidence from our website.

Scotland’s Crown Office is doing a clear-up job, seeking to expunge Salmond’s evidence from the internet

We take solace in the fact it has been available for all to read for many weeks now, and especially over the crucial period when Salmond and Sturgeon gave evidence to the Holyrood inquiry. This underlines the absurdity of the Crown Office’s jackboot approach to a free press, in pursuit of an agenda which suits its political masters.

Happily, the original text remains published by an internet archive service in California, which permanently stores internet pages. This service is valued by researchers who seek originals of documents censored by authoritarian regimes. The Crown Office, as part of its clean-up operation, told us to delete this version too. Luckily this is not in our gift.

The Spectator opened its first editorial in 1828 with the credo written by its founding editor, a Dundonian named R.S. Rintoul: ‘The principal object of a newspaper is to convey intelligence.’ The principal object of the Crown Office has not only been to stop intelligence being conveyed, but to delete intelligence from the public domain.

The hurdle in front of The Spectator now is great. The Crown Office even told us not to tell readers about its demand — but we can’t be silent about its mendacious threats to a free press. Even if we end up succumbing to its censorship, we can still put its methods on record.

This is how the SNP government and its supine supporters operate. The recently passed Hate Crime Act gives them even more powers to menace the press. Scotland is being ushered towards an era of censorship, threats and state repression. The good news for those who cherish the principles of democratic debate — and those of the Scottish Enlightenment — is that this will not happen without a fight.

WRITTEN BY

The Spectator

SHARE

TOPICS

Alex SalmondNicola SturgeonScotland

MOST POPULAR

Useful links

Advertise with usSponsor an eventSubmit a story

More from The Spectator

Spectator AustraliaApollo MagazineThe Spectator Shop

About us

About The SpectatorContact & FAQsPrivacy & cookiesTerms and conditionsJobs and vacanciesSite map

Subscribe

Subscribe todaySign up to our emailsThe Spectator Club

Aah the Spectator, that bastion of impartiality. Do you have a link to the article expressing their outrage at the recent bill that was passed that more or less prohibits the right to protest?

[Don Dan]

1 hour ago, pablo said:

Have a read of this, what a sorry state of affairs.

Magazine: 20 March 2021

The Spectator

The Crown Office, The Spectator and a fight for a free press

From magazine issue: 20 March 2021

iStock

SHARE

The power wielded by Nicola Sturgeon and her Scottish government means it’s hard to hold her to account for basic policy failures — of which there are many. It’s even harder to investigate accusations that her aides conspired to frame and imprison someone who had become a political problem for her. The Alex Salmond affair has shown the many ways the public prosecutors in the Crown Office, led by a member of Sturgeon’s cabinet, have sought to censor and redact his allegations.

The House of Commons is immune to the threats and menaces of government lawyers. The notion of parliamentary privilege, a corner-stone of British democracy, means that anything can be said within the walls of parliament without fear of prosecution. David Davis, a senior Tory MP and lifelong member of the political awkward squad, this week took advantage of that privilege to give a no-holds-barred version of the Salmond story — including new allegations. Under British law, the notion of parliamentary privilege is extended to publications, so The Spectator cannot come under legal attack for reporting what is said in parliament.

Here is what we now know. Salmond has suggested that the criminal allegations against him (he was acquitted of 13 charges of sexual abuse) were at least in part drummed up by Sturgeon’s allies in the face of impeding defeat in the judicial review and to remove him from public life. Sturgeon denies she and her allies were out to get him. But her defence has been littered with contradictions.

For instance, she said she only found out about allegations against Salmond in early April 2018, when the internal inquiry was already under way. But Davis read the content of a message between civil servants heading the investigation into Salmond, which described ‘interference’ in the complaints process by Liz Lloyd, Sturgeon’s chief of staff. It was sent on 6 February 2018. If this is true, it means we’re to believe Ms Lloyd — who worked more closely with Ms Sturgeon than anyone — gave no hint about the bombshell allegations against Salmond for two months. We’re also asked to believe that Sturgeon’s husband, the SNP’s chief executive, told her nothing about them either.

When Salmond published his evidence, journalists were given legal advice not to report important parts of it. To do so, ran the argument, would violate a court order preventing the naming of complainants. Salmond’s evidence names no one, so we published it on our website (with one redaction to address this concern).

We duly received a threatening letter from the Crown Office in Edinburgh, so we went to the High Court in Edinburgh and sought clarification: was there any legal impediment to The Spectator repeating the Salmond allegations? This mattered, because a Holyrood committee was also investigating them and wanted to publish Salmond’s evidence too. The High Court raised no complaint about the publication, thereby giving the green light to the parliamentary inquiry. Salmond’s evidence was published by Holyrood too, after which the Crown Office censors swooped on Holyrood and bullied parliament into withdrawing the evidence.

We can now disclose that the Crown Office is doing a clear-up job, seeking to expunge remnants of Salmond’s evidence from the internet. It has ordered The Spectator to make further redactions to the Salmond submission. If we fail to comply, we have been advised that we could face penalties in excess of £50,000 (there is no cap), plus huge legal costs we would not recoup even if we win in court. It’s quite a risk, so we must consider removing Salmond’s evidence from our website.

Scotland’s Crown Office is doing a clear-up job, seeking to expunge Salmond’s evidence from the internet

We take solace in the fact it has been available for all to read for many weeks now, and especially over the crucial period when Salmond and Sturgeon gave evidence to the Holyrood inquiry. This underlines the absurdity of the Crown Office’s jackboot approach to a free press, in pursuit of an agenda which suits its political masters.

Happily, the original text remains published by an internet archive service in California, which permanently stores internet pages. This service is valued by researchers who seek originals of documents censored by authoritarian regimes. The Crown Office, as part of its clean-up operation, told us to delete this version too. Luckily this is not in our gift.

The Spectator opened its first editorial in 1828 with the credo written by its founding editor, a Dundonian named R.S. Rintoul: ‘The principal object of a newspaper is to convey intelligence.’ The principal object of the Crown Office has not only been to stop intelligence being conveyed, but to delete intelligence from the public domain.

The hurdle in front of The Spectator now is great. The Crown Office even told us not to tell readers about its demand — but we can’t be silent about its mendacious threats to a free press. Even if we end up succumbing to its censorship, we can still put its methods on record.

This is how the SNP government and its supine supporters operate. The recently passed Hate Crime Act gives them even more powers to menace the press. Scotland is being ushered towards an era of censorship, threats and state repression. The good news for those who cherish the principles of democratic debate — and those of the Scottish Enlightenment — is that this will not happen without a fight.

WRITTEN BY

The Spectator

SHARE

TOPICS

Alex SalmondNicola SturgeonScotland

MOST POPULAR

Useful links

Advertise with usSponsor an eventSubmit a story

More from The Spectator

Spectator AustraliaApollo MagazineThe Spectator Shop

About us

About The SpectatorContact & FAQsPrivacy & cookiesTerms and conditionsJobs and vacanciesSite map

Subscribe

Subscribe todaySign up to our emailsThe Spectator Club

Its obvious to Blind Pew there is a deliberate attempt by the SG/SNP to suppress the evidence. The mere fact that Swinney with held documents and had to be threatened by a vote of no confidence to release the documents but chose to released them late in the day and still with held some says all you need to know about what they were up to. 
The texts message and WhatsApp exchanges also show what they were about. 
Something fundamental needs to change in the Government run by the SNP but I doubt it will change with them in charge. 
Let’s see what the voters say in May. Let’s hope there is enough discerning voters to see through the SNP smoke and mirrors.

[coconut doug]

55 minutes ago, XB52 said:

We have our ducks in a row but people like you are determined to shoot them down. You and your ilk are a far bigger threat to our independence than any tory

 

No. The real threat to Indy comes from the SNP and most of their elected representatives and officials. They can't run a competent and honest government. Their woke priorities are not popular.  They have no vision for the future. They can't tell us how Scotland will be different from rUk.  They have stifled the enthusiasm of 2014 and disassociated themselves with the wider Indy movement. Today at FMQs she had the audacity to deride parliamentary privilege at Westminster while being the FM who surrendered popular sovereignty to the same parliament.

 

  She had her chance and didn't take it. Why not? As you say the ducks are all in a row. 

[coconut doug]

5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Correct.

 

 

Correct.

 

Time for folks to stop following a hate-filled, wacked out video game “journalist” for views on independence and think for themselves.

 

You have a personalised attack on a messenger to counter the views of a long list of long committed Indy supposrters. 

 

Are you telling us Murray, MacAskill, Sheridan, Sillars, Cherry and many others can't think for themselves?