Pop Corn Ready? Alex Salmond v Nicola Sturgeon AND IT'S LIVE...

Is Salmond allowed to talk about any of the core allegations?

My understanding is that the effect of redacting them from the written testimony is that he's not allowed to raise them in person.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Is Salmond allowed to talk about any of the core allegations?

My understanding is that the effect of redacting them from the written testimony is that he's not allowed to raise them in person.
Click to expand...

I've no idea, but if they don't let him speak; Parliamentary Privilege and all that, then it's playing into his claims of censorship.

What's the odds of the feed going down?
 
Looks like they’ve decided it’s him they’re going to investigate for having the gaul to question their integrity.
 
Do you know what the most startling thing is about this mad situation.....

Not the fact that Alex Salmon was charged with two counts of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault, and one of breach of the peace........all in a year........what was the man on?

But the fact that Nicola Sturgeon is married........🤔
 
B_Side_The_C_Side said:
Do you know what the most startling thing is about this mad situation.....

Not the fact that Alex Salmon was charged with two counts of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault, and one of breach of the peace........all in a year........what was the man on?

But the fact that Nicola Sturgeon is married........🤔
Click to expand...
Blind date? With the emphasis on blind.
 
I'd say they are setting back the independence movement years, between them.

I can't recall a political Party imploding at the very top in quite this way before. Whether it will make any difference in May is moot, of course.
 
Yes interesting to see how,if at all,it affects SNP support.

Apparently Salmond thinks Sturgeon should have pursued independance using many more ploys a lot more aggressively.I wonder if Sturgeon does have to resign,which is probably unlikely,whether he could return as SNP leader?
 
basilrobbie said:
I'd say they are setting back the independence movement years, between them.

I can't recall a political Party imploding at the very top in quite this way before. Whether it will make any difference in May is moot, of course.
Click to expand...

Remember this is an inquiry into how ScotGov spunked away around £500,000 of public money in a judicial review their own lawyers told them they were going to lose.

On 30 August 2018, Salmond launched a crowdfunding appeal to pay for the legal costs of seeking a judicial review into the fairness of the process by which the Scottish Government handled the allegations. ... On 8 January 2019, he won his inquiry case against Scottish government.

The parliamentary committee has been set up "To consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s “Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers” procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code."

It's not completely about independence, it's about how the devolved government are acting now.
 
I've read all the alleged secret stuff in the spectator. Seems strange it's not out there more in the general press...
 
Didn't get to see too much of the second phase unfortunately, I'll have to take a look online.

I think his basic issue of a lack of separation between party/Government/legal is hugely worrying for Scotland; even more so if the SNP succeed in their desire to cede from Union.

It was all the more interesting for not knowing ask the MSP's and knowing which party they represented.

I think Nicola will ride it out, get a majority, ask for a referendum, and not get one.

Special mention for the convenor who I thought did a pretty good job of keeping everybody focussed on the task in hand and not put AS back on trial.
 
Ragnarok said:
I've read all the alleged secret stuff in the spectator. Seems strange it's not out there more in the general press...
Click to expand...
I think it was in the Daily Mail.

The Crown Office have been preventing certain evidence from being available to the inquiry.
AS instructed the committee on how to gain this evidence today by using the Scotland Act. He knows his stuff.
They have now requested correspondence held by the Crown between Liz Lloyd, P Murrell, Ruddick and McCann to be made available.
It's hard to understand why a parliamentary committee are being hindered in this way.

 
I saw some of the stuff before it was redacted, and couldn't believe that the Crown Office acted so. It was nothing to do with the original complainants, it actually concerned the date of a meeting between third parties. NO way was this jigsaw identification.

Amazed this is not getting more UK wide coverage. I remember when AS was accused, it was all over the papers, my personal opinion now is what was told was totally prejudicial to when he was then charged.
 
Loco said:
I think it was in the Daily Mail.

The Crown Office have been preventing certain evidence from being available to the inquiry.
AS instructed the committee on how to gain this evidence today by using the Scotland Act. He knows his stuff.
They have now requested correspondence held by the Crown between Liz Lloyd, P Murrell, Ruddick and McCann to be made available.
It's hard to understand why a parliamentary committee are being hindered in this way.

Click to expand...
It’s difficult to know for sure what’s going on but as far as I can tell:

1. People who complain about sex crimes are entitled to anonymity.
2. But the suggestion is that all or some of the complainants may have colluded between themselves and others. Obviously if more than one person makes similar allegations then the allegations carry more weight.
3. So the identity of the complainants and their relationship with other politicians becomes key to the issues. Especially when the original enquiry is criticised and then the criminal proceedings fail.
4. And at heart it’s the SNP at civil war. And the obvious question is how that’ll play in the May elections and then the credibility of any call for another independence referendum.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I saw some of the stuff before it was redacted, and couldn't believe that the Crown Office acted so. It was nothing to do with the original complainants, it actually concerned the date of a meeting between third parties. NO way was this jigsaw identification.

Amazed this is not getting more UK wide coverage. I remember when AS was accused, it was all over the papers, my personal opinion now is what was told was totally prejudicial to when he was then charged.
Click to expand...
I think wisely the English are largely keeping out of it. There’s plenty of publicity in Scotland and however it ends up it can’t be good for the SNP. The last thing the English want to do is distract attention from the bunfight or give the Scots Nats something to unite behind.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
It’s difficult to know for sure what’s going on but as far as I can tell:

1. People who complain about sex crimes are entitled to anonymity.
2. But the suggestion is that all or some of the complainants may have colluded between themselves and others. Obviously if more than one person makes similar allegations then the allegations carry more weight.
3. So the identity of the complainants and their relationship with other politicians becomes key to the issues. Especially when the original enquiry is criticised and then the criminal proceedings fail.
4. And at heart it’s the SNP at civil war. And the obvious question is how that’ll play in the May elections and then the credibility of any call for another independence referendum.
Click to expand...
The current inquiry is about this:
www.scottishlegal.com

Alex Salmond wins judicial review case as Scottish government admits procedural failings

The Scottish government has admitted it failed to follow the correct procedures in an investigation into Alex Salmond over allegations of sexual harassment and has had its findings struck down by Lord Pentland in the Court of Session. The former first minister crowdfunded £100,000 for his case
www.scottishlegal.com www.scottishlegal.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top