Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

wow, never saw that...

But whatever criticism I had made of his leadership, when he was charged with serious sexual offences from 2008 to 2014, I did not believe he was guilty, and I phoned to tell him that.

I went further and asked to meet him, and did so. He shared with me the evidence he had showing he was being deliberately set up; a clear political conspiracy at the highest levels of the party to bring him down, and stop him re-entering the political front-line. It was compelling evidence.

It was the dirtiest blow I have ever witnessed in 60 years of political life, and delivered to a man who, for all my criticism, had done more for independence than any other person alive or dead.

Nicola is leader of the SNP and FM, her husband is CEO of the SNP.

6 out of 9 accusers came from Nicola's inner most circle...

I don't think this could be any more obvious. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, thplinth said:

wow, never saw that...

But whatever criticism I had made of his leadership, when he was charged with serious sexual offences from 2008 to 2014, I did not believe he was guilty, and I phoned to tell him that.

I went further and asked to meet him, and did so. He shared with me the evidence he had showing he was being deliberately set up; a clear political conspiracy at the highest levels of the party to bring him down, and stop him re-entering the political front-line. It was compelling evidence.

It was the dirtiest blow I have ever witnessed in 60 years of political life, and delivered to a man who, for all my criticism, had done more for independence than any other person alive or dead.

Nicola is leader of the SNP and FM, her husband is CEO of the SNP.

6 out of 9 accusers came from Nicola's inner most circle...

I don't think this could be any more obvious. 

 

I have been a big fan of sturgeon but if she has had any part in this fiasco then she would have to resign. I hope she hasn't and has only tried to stand back and let justice take its course. Sounds like there is some snakes in the grass with regards the snp and maybe this trial will help get rid of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats damning. If Salmond is baying for blood, and Im sure he is, I actually hope he is, I hope he gets absolute revenge on the people guilty. Id be disappointed if Sturgeons involved, very disappointed actually.

Salmond was almost finished, I don't see why (some of) the SNP would go after him. Like him or not, he has done more for Scotland than anyone in generations.

Edited by kumnio
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, scotlad said:

Both scenarios seem plausible. In fact, where the first is concerned, I'd be shocked if the security services hadn't at the very least tried to infiltrate the SNP - a political party who's main reason for being threatens the very existence of the British state as we currently know it - at some point.  Security service plants were used to neuter trade unions in the 1980s and did so quite successfully.  It isn't as if it's exactly difficult to join the party either. 

Plus, look at how the MSM angle has turned on a sixpence from 'Alex Salmond badman!' to 'SNP in crisis!'.  Exile's theory has some weight to it, IMO.

On the other hand, like you say, the whole affair could just have been cooked up by egotistical careerists, psychopaths in the real sense of the word, who saw his continuing influence as an obstacle to their own career progression, and/or had old scores to settle.  It was a free hit for them, knowing that their identities would be protected throughout the trial.

You don't need to look as far as the MSM for this.   Some on here are wishing to provoke decapitation of the SNP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phart said:

Not really private when she signed off on the new legislation which was then used against Salmond about a month after it came into force.

Not legislation but the updated disciplinary code.

It's probably worth pointing out that originally there were complaints from two members of staff that formed the basis of the initial SG investigations.

Of these at least one resulted in charges, those relating to Woman F.   I've no idea if the complaints from the second staff member resulted in any charged but if they did it would have been one of the less serious ones.

The serious charge resulting from Woman F's complaint was sexual assault with intent to rape and is one where they ended up - fully clothed - lying on his bed together after they'd both been drinking.    Salmond essentially accepted that the incident had happened, it was whether or not it was a criminal act that was in dispute.   That was the only one he gave any substance to and funnily enough that was the one which was found not proven.

So there probably was something - at least in this case - which warranted an HR investigation, that doesn't excuse it being carried out in such a cack-handed manner.





 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phart said:

Not really private when she signed off on the new legislation which was then used against Salmond about a month after it came into force. Then the enquiry was unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias”.

OK, I accept that, but my main point was that NS's actions were understandable IF she believed (or was persuaded of) the accusations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-52017020

 

As in what Sillars said about their being a conspiracy to 'do him in' or bring him down.

 

I still don't understand why?? He wasn't even a politician when this was all brought forward. Why would anyone in the SNP want to 'do in' Alex Salmond. He is the reason the SNP is where is currently is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-52017020

 

As in what Sillars said about their being a conspiracy to 'do him in' or bring him down.

 

I still don't understand why?? He wasn't even a politician when this was all brought forward. Why would anyone in the SNP want to 'do in' Alex Salmond. He is the reason the SNP is where is currently is.

He had been talking about making a comeback.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iainmac1 said:

I still don't understand why?? He wasn't even a politician when this was all brought forward. Why would anyone in the SNP want to 'do in' Alex Salmond. He is the reason the SNP is where is currently is.

That's about the only thing I'm struggling to get my head around, why, unless its about personal grudges.

I never really got the impression he was looking to make a political comeback after losing his seat in 2017.   Taking the TV show on RT was a very strange one for anyone with future political ambitions as that's a whole load of baggage you really don't need.   Similarly the season at the Fringe was an odd one.  Not damaging politically but just an odd move for someone with one eye on a comeback.

I wasn't expecting him to sail off into the sunset but rather to do the time honoured tradition of writing his memoirs and going on the speaking circuit.

I really can't buy that Nicola Sturgeon felt she had to take him out at the knees so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

He had been talking about making a comeback.

 

That doesn't explain why there would be a conspiracy to do him in. He would have stood to be an msp. What's the problem. Surely a comeback would be welcomed by many. Those who don't like him just get on with it. There are many other politicians in the SNP who are very unpopular but no conspiracy to end them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

That doesn't explain why there would be a conspiracy to do him in. He would have stood to be an msp. What's the problem. Surely a comeback would be welcomed by many. Those who don't like him just get on with it. There are many other politicians in the SNP who are very unpopular but no conspiracy to end them.

You would need to ask them if you can find out who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t for the life of me think who might from the uk state   wish to cause harm to the movement for Scotland independence, their most successful politician and main party  that are by definition the enemy of the uk state . No siree, can’t think who might want that . Never been any skullduggery before, ever. No . 
Should there ever be voting again it looks good for Scotland being out the uk . The earliest voting would be the end of the year. Another voting platform has been required for multiple reasons including utilising the d’hondt system, the strammash in the greens and snp about GRA and the in party shenanigans amongst Scottish Government and to be more representative of the wide coalition of  supporters. 
There is time and resources to organise and mobilise . A coalition of independent Independence candidates standing on regional lists and where need be against SNP if that’s what constituents want. The vast majority of independence supporters are not SNP members and the SNP is only a vehicle. Turning into a tartan new labour that betrays it’s very raison d’etre  is the trap. 
time to use the passing game 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shaundy said:

Can’t for the life of me think who might from the uk state   wish to cause harm to the movement for Scotland independence, their most successful politician and main party  that are by definition the enemy of the uk state . No siree, can’t think who might want that . Never been any skullduggery before, ever. No . 
 

😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aaid said:

Not legislation but the updated disciplinary code.

It's probably worth pointing out that originally there were complaints from two members of staff that formed the basis of the initial SG investigations.

Of these at least one resulted in charges, those relating to Woman F.   I've no idea if the complaints from the second staff member resulted in any charged but if they did it would have been one of the less serious ones.

The serious charge resulting from Woman F's complaint was sexual assault with intent to rape and is one where they ended up - fully clothed - lying on his bed together after they'd both been drinking.    Salmond essentially accepted that the incident had happened, it was whether or not it was a criminal act that was in dispute.   That was the only one he gave any substance to and funnily enough that was the one which was found not proven.

So there probably was something - at least in this case - which warranted an HR investigation, that doesn't excuse it being carried out in such a cack-handed manner.





 

that's only a point of semantics though, i just wrote legislation instead of code, it doesn't change the substance of my argument which is the point.

Not proven is the same as not guilty both are acquittals of an equal nature.

None of the above answers what we were talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aaid said:

tl;dr

Sillars hates Salmond but hates Sturgeon more.

My enemy's enemy is my friend.

There's a claim that evidence which wasn't allowed in court has been seen by this person and it is compelling in favour of a plot against Salmond.

I'm getting a lot of stooge vibes off you atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

He had been talking about making a comeback.

 

He was away to sell his house and move to a more central location and go for a MSP apparently.  This has now obviously changed and he is going to stand in a north east seat i think his old stomping ground of banff and buchan which i am delighted with.

 

anyone questioning why folk in the snp were wanting to take him down, it is really simple, they are plants or possibly being forced to comply as someone has leverage on them in other words, blackmail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phart said:

that's only a point of semantics though, i just wrote legislation instead of code, it doesn't change the substance of my argument which is the point.

Not proven is the same as not guilty both are acquittals of an equal nature.

None of the above answers what we were talking about.

 

Not Proven and Not Guilty have the same legal effect but they are different verdicts.  Salmond accepted the incident took place, there were differences in some of the detail and interpretation and obviously whether there was criminality involved.   This is the only charge where Salmond stated that there was cause for complaint.    It was also addressed at the time and he apologised for his behaviour although there was no official complaint raised then.  This was all raised in evidence.  Not Proven or Not Guilty is not particularly relevant though.

What is very relevant is the timeline - not of the various alleged incidents - but also of when the various complaints started to come forward and who was in contact with who and crucially when.

Look at that and you can see there's two different threads here.   These seem to be getting confused and conflated but to me they look to be very separate.

One is alleged encouragement of complaints before and during the initial SG investigation which all occurred in late 2017/early 2018. 

The other is a separate group of complainers discussing the "AS stuff" after the details of that investigation was leaked to the Daily Record in late August 2018.

The first one is why the Judicial review collapsed in January 2019, this seems to be largely career civil service.

The second one came out during the trial and seems more about the SNP although some actors had government positions, ie spads, either at the time of the alleged incidents, or before that or at the time of the investigation(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

He was away to sell his house and move to a more central location and go for a MSP apparently.  This has now obviously changed and he is going to stand in a north east seat i think his old stomping ground of banff and buchan which i am delighted with.

 

Unless he goes down the Self-ID route he won't be standing in Banff and Buchan for the SNP, that's for sure.

All women shortlist remember. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Unless he goes down the Self-ID route he won't be standing in Banff and Buchan for the SNP, that's for sure.

All women shortlist remember. 

We should just wait and see how it pans out. Interesting indeed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phart said:

There's a claim that evidence which wasn't allowed in court has been seen by this person and it is compelling in favour of a plot against Salmond.

I'm getting a lot of stooge vibes off you atm.

He may well be right.  I suspect that might be a series of texts which could be interpreted as trying to encourage people to come forwards by person or persons unknown, who may or may not be among the complainers.  These weren't allowed to be entered as evidence as the judge deemed that as they didn't relate to any of the specific charges, they couldn't be entered as evidence.

i don't doubt they will come out in due course.

I think I've probably written as much about that in the sentences above as is in the article, the rest of it which seems to be along the lines of "I'm not making this up because I don't like Alex Salmond".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

We should just wait and see how it pans out. Interesting indeed 

Well of course, party rules on selection have been suspended when it's Alex Salmond who's been the candidate, such as in 2007 and 2015.  No sitting as an MP and MSP at the same time. 

Edited by aaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However this pans out it can only be bad for the SNP. Although the MSM are disappointed that an innocent man isn't going to be put away for a few years, this is tempered by the "civil war" they see brewing.

Hard to argue with that either. Clearly the SNP is infested with folk for whom independence is way down their list of priorities. How was it one of the accusers described herself - "indy lite" or something? FFS and she wanted to represent the party in parliament?!

The party is going to split in 2 - those who want independence and the "Nicola's so wonderful I think I'm gonnae greet" drones. It's easy to envisage a unionist coalition in power after the next Holyrood election and independence off the agenda for years. (Not that it'd ever be back on with Sturgeon at the helm of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...