The Alex Salmond trial

The legal advice to the government

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/conte.../OCT-+LA09+-LPP-+5-+FINAL-+Committee+copy.pdf

"5 In our view the majority of the grounds of challenge are weak and should be capable of being resisted successfully.

6 Nevertheless, we think that there is a real risk that the Court may be persuaded by the petitioner’s case in respect of the ground of challenge based on ‘procedural unfairness’. This is a lengthy ground of challenge attacking various aspects of the investigation process. We consider that the areas of greatest risk are in relation to the fact that witness statements and the initial report prepared by the investigating officer were not shared with the petitioner. The Procedure does not provide for the sharing of such information with the minister or former minister who is the subject of the complaint. We should stress that we do see an answer to this point and consider the defence to be perfectly statable, all for the reasons outlined below. However, it would be wrong to pretend that we do not see a vulnerability in this regard. Equally, we should stress that the vulnerability arises from the Procedure itself, and not from its implementation in this particular case."

The government was warned that there was a particular weakness in the procedure which made it vulnerable to Alex Salmond's challenge.
 
I note on Twitter tonight that a lot of people are asking why woman H is not being prosecuted for perjury. This article is a good summary of the evidence she was lying in her teeth in the witness box, but the twitter thing started before the article went up.

And justice for some

Basically she had an arm injury (not sure if she actually had a stookie on it but it was in a sling) so although she had originally been scheduled to attend the dinner and had actually organised it, she phoned a friend, Samantha Barber, and asked her to go in her place. So, she organised the dinner, but couldn't go because of her injury and asked Samantha Barber to go. There were only three people there, Samantha Barber, the Z-list actor and Salmond. I'm struggling to imagine how this could possibly be a mistake as to the date, especially as the Z-list actor only ever went to one dinner at Bute House. I understand they did check diaries and dates to see if there was another occasion she could have got mixed up with but nothing appeared to fit.

This being a government office and the official residence of the FM, they keep security logs of everyone who goes in and out. There was no record of woman H being there that day, although the other people at the dinner were logged in the usual way. Checking these logs on other dates didn't show woman H being present on any other day when this allegation could possibly have happened.

Woman H also prayed in aid Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, something about attending an international football match with her the following day. Tasmina gave evidence that while there was indeed such a match, she hadn't been there. She had been scheduled to attend but her father died suddenly and she'd had to call off.

The only apparent support for woman H was the Z-list actor, who didn't give evidence in court. He was allowed to send a video of his (unsworn) testimony in which he said he vaguely thought there had been a fourth person at the dinner (but if woman H was there, why was Samantha Barber there, SB was a substitute for H) but his description of this shadowy fourth person was nothing like woman H, he also described clothes entirely different from what she said she was wearing, and strangely he didn't mention the arm in a sling. A bit hard not to notice someone who is eating with one arm tied up in a sling. He couldn't be cross-examined so his evidence was essentially worthless.

While she was giving evidence H was apparently warned several times by the judge to be careful what she was saying, and warned about possible contempt of court. I didn't follow the trial closely enough to have spotted that but several people are now claiming this happened. If I find proof, I'll post it.

This is the person we're all being threatened with jail if we even vaguely hint at her identity, but she's not being charged. Or not yet, let's see how this goes.
 
Last edited:
Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence, defends reporting to the police the allegations against AS, despite police advice to respect the complainer's wishes, not make a complaint. Fails to report to the police criminality over leaks of a complainer's name and information to the Daily record.
 
Says she had to take action (about the complaints) when there were allegations of criminality, but that doesn't explain why the complaints were originally to be buried in a file in SNP HQ only to be referred to if Salmond applied to be a candidate in a future election. And that hopefully they wouldn't have to be used.
 
Alex Salmond had a far greater knowledge of the evidence than Nicola Sturgeon has. She has had to said she does not know or is not sure on many occasions.

I think the legal advice on minimum alcohol pricing has to be published, since she claims that advice was even more negative than the advice about the AS judicial review.
 
We have to bear in mind that she is a consummate actress whose main talent lies in presenting absolutely negative information as if it was good news (the covid briefings) or just plain lying - either about what had happened in the past or what she intends to do in the future.

I've been taken in by it myself and it took me quite a while to see it. I'm seeing many people on twitter still being taken in by it, and while I grind my teeth and say, why can't you see it after all this time, I concede that people might have said the same of me up to a couple of years ago, with just as much justification.
 
There is a lot of I do not know, I do not remember, I am not certain, as I understand it, I am not sure, my understanding, indeed phrases like that are being used constantly in every reply and then assertions without any evidence from NS.
 
Rolfe said:
We have to bear in mind that she is a consummate actress whose main talent lies in presenting absolutely negative information as if it was good news (the covid briefings) or just plain lying - either about what had happened in the past or what she intends to do in the future.

I've been taken in by it myself and it took me quite a while to see it. I'm seeing many people on twitter still being taken in by it, and while I grind my teeth and say, why can't you see it after all this time, I concede that people might have said the same of me up to a couple of years ago, with just as much justification.
Click to expand...



I think you'll find that much the same applies to every politician who's ever ascended to the top echelon of his/her political party. Salmond included, probably.

The key is a) to always cover your tracks (and leave no evidence connecting you to any cover-up), b) to concoct a plausible deniability, c) to bury all incriminating evidence, and d) to never to let things escalate until they're totally outside your control. If any or all of those things fail, then all bets are off. The most famous political figure to fall foul foul of this was Richard Nixon*; Sturgeon is merely the latest - in a very long line of senior politicians throughout c20-c21 history - to be (apparently) on the brink of joining their ranks.


* where, famously, it was the combination of an escalation of events and a failed cover-up which felled him: he'd previously successfully managed to distance himself from the Watergate break-in and the subsequent attempts to sabotage the investigations, but failed to prevent matters spiralling out of control to the point where his own taped phone calls and Oval Office conversations were ordered to be overturned - and those tapes explicitly proved his direct involvement and complicity.
 
Nessie said:
There is a lot of I do not know, I do not remember, I am not certain, as I understand it, I am not sure, my understanding, indeed phrases like that are being used constantly in every reply and then assertions without any evidence from NS.
Click to expand...



The frustrating thing (which, of course, Sturgeon and her legal advisers know full well) is the legal efficacy of an "I don't remember" approach. It's as close as someone can come to a "no comment" response - but with the benefit of not appearing overtly obstructive or as someone with something to hide.


ETA: Ooh I see that Sturgeon has just introduced a whole new layer of finesse into the tactic: "My recollection is still not as vivid as I would like it to be" - now she's claiming that she *really wishes* she could remember it, but is frustrated that she cannot... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
She's a pro. So is Salmond of course, but with different skill sets.

He was very careful not to slag off Sturgeon even though everyone and his budgie knows he's absolutely incandescent about what she did. She has spent the entire time slandering him and pretty much working on the assumption that the not guilty verdicts were some sort of aberration that can be ignored.
 
Rolfe said:
She's a pro. So is Salmond of course, but with different skill sets.

He was very careful not to slag off Sturgeon even though everyone and his budgie knows he's absolutely incandescent about what she did. She has spent the entire time slandering him and pretty much working on the assumption that the not guilty verdicts were some sort of aberration that can be ignored.
Click to expand...

I don't know what affect it will have on the outcome but this vindictive tactic by NS shows her in a very poor light.
 
I was half expecting Linda Fabiani and Margaret Mitchell to start fighting each other. Shame the BBC cut away at the end.

Overall, I think AS is more credible than NS, primarily due to her poor memory and recall of events and her lack of evidence to counter corroborated claims about her officials and their conduct. It is quite right, this has been a huge muck up and no one is apparently responsible.
 
Nessie said:
I was half expecting Linda Fabiani and Margaret Mitchell to start fighting each other. Shame the BBC cut away at the end.

Overall, I think AS is more credible than NS, primarily due to her poor memory and recall of events and her lack of evidence to counter corroborated claims about her officials and their conduct. It is quite right, this has been a huge muck up and no one is apparently responsible.
Click to expand...



Ah but this is precisely the name of the game for Sturgeon and her advisers: "Yes, it's clear that there have been failings etc for which some people must be to blame... but you can't - on the balance of probabilities - pin any of that blame upon me, can you?"

It's an intensely frustrating thing to witness, and it must be intensely frustrating for all the Committee members (well, the non-SNP ones at least). I am very confident that they all know exactly what's going on here. But in the absence of unimpeachable smoking-gun-style evidence of Sturgeon's complicity, or Sturgeon's lying, or both, there's very little they can actually do about it.
 
bluesjnr said:
I don't know what affect it will have on the outcome but this vindictive tactic by NS shows her in a very poor light.
Click to expand...



Unfortunately Sturgeon (with or without legal/political advice) is doing this very deliberately: a key plank in her attempted explanation of events is that she felt shocked, hurt and betrayed - not so much by the allegations in themselves, but by what (she claims) Salmond admitted to her personally in that 2nd April meeting.

She categorically does not want to give the impression of trying to "save" Salmond - whether policically or legally. After all, this would lend considerable credence to any theories centering upon her and other senior SNP figures spending that crucial period in early 2018 trying to sort things out politically rather than what should have happened (ie handing the entire matter over to the police, with all political matters being suspended until the end of any criminal proceedings).

And the best way of doing so is to come out all guns blazing against Salmond as she has done today.
 
LondonJohn said:
Unfortunately Sturgeon (with or without legal/political advice) is doing this very deliberately: a key plank in her attempted explanation of events is that she felt shocked, hurt and betrayed - not so much by the allegations in themselves, but by what (she claims) Salmond admitted to her personally in that 2nd April meeting.

She categorically does not want to give the impression of trying to "save" Salmond - whether policically or legally. After all, this would lend considerable credence to any theories centering upon her and other senior SNP figures spending that crucial period in early 2018 trying to sort things out politically rather than what should have happened (ie handing the entire matter over to the police, with all political matters being suspended until the end of any criminal proceedings).
Click to expand...

Well, it sounds plausible that they first tried to save Salmond but then their hand was forced by the process, and after that the falling out happened. Now the initial complaint is barely remembered and all attention is on this SNP civil war, but I always found those original accusations quite credible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom