"Have we all forgotten that Alex Salmond went to Russia to star in a TV show?"
What chdot said.
It was a strange decision that in many ways was the genesis of the current situation but I'm not sure what we're supposed to be concluding beyond that.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
We need a Scottish Parliament election thread
(1355 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
doesn't appear to be on TV, but this link looks like it will work:
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's on BBC Parliament now.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Oh dear. I fear Joyce McMillan jumped the shark with that polemic.
@Murun, "It was a strange decision that in many ways was the genesis of the current situation but I'm not sure what we're supposed to be concluding beyond that."
Agreed. I'm certain many on the liberal or "progressive" wings of politics (whatever their party affiliation or loyalties) cannot forgive Salmond for that.
To some in the West, any association with Russia is evidence of dark plots to destabilise our society and democracy itself. They rattle off stuff about internet troll farms, targeted Facebook ads, and apparently sinister GRU operations, like the plot of some Frederick Forsyth bestseller. Literally there are articles in the media just now alleging that pro-independence "Russian and Iranian bots" are fomenting support for Alex Salmond!
So it would appear there are conspiracy theories on both sides. Which to believe?
Posted 3 years ago # -
“So it would appear there are conspiracy theories on both sides. Which to believe?”
Which are additional layers to the problem!
Either world states are at it or British State or (Salmond version) elements of Scottish state or none (it’s just Salmond’s “ego” - says NS) or mixture or none.
Long part of AS opening remarks on World at One.
Says he doesn’t need to provide any evidence - which will disappoint many!
So ‘logically’ he can’t prove his (presumed) case.
But
His tack is that SGov already proved to be guilty and that’s what this investigation is about...
Will be interesting to see how committee deals with that.
I’m not watching it. Will have my prejudices confirmed/dashed by BBC/Channel 4 coverage later.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@chdot, I don't intend to watch it either. Not convinced it's quite the world shattering event the hype would have us believe.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Salmond played golf with Trump which technically not a crime is also not on the side of the angels
Posted 3 years ago # -
Trump made a cameo appearance in Home Alone 2, which was shot in one of his hotels in 1992.
Should I boycott that film? Delete my recording of it from the TiVo? "Cancel" Macauley Culkin? So difficult to know...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Salmond's appearance at committee relegated to last place in the Beebly Radio6Musak news bite headlines. Seems they have decided it's all a bit of a damp squib. A clip of him talking, he certainly sounds bitter about what's happened, and that the various parties have all kept their jobs. Can't quite believe it's taken him this long to realise there's very little honour in politics...
Posted 3 years ago # -
“Can't quite believe it's taken him this long to realise there's very little honour in politics...”
Fair comment!
Today he was trying the high-minded ‘we can’t have Independence until the system is fixed. It’ll only take a few heads to roll’.
I really don’t think he’s trying for a political comeback, but his faith in simple solutions is touching.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Salmond closing statement: If the Scottish Govt wont serve you with the documents you have ordered, might I suggest you serve my legal team who will be more than happy to provide said documentation to you within the confines of the law on Monday morning....
Posted 3 years ago # -
Anas Sarwar has been elected as Scottish Labour leader.
Posted 3 years ago # -
i am getting very tired of uninformed opinions on scottish politics from commentators who haven't paid any attention to it. but i thought this from andrew rawnsley was better than average. especially the point about turnout: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/28/what-does-salmond-v-sturgeon-feud-mean-for-future-of-union
Posted 3 years ago # -
“getting very tired of uninformed opinions on scottish politics from commentators who haven't paid any attention to it“
Yup
Andrew Rawnsley is usually an astute observer.
This could be overstating things or an understatement -
“
... Cameron versus Cummings. Cummings versus just about everybody. I thought I could no longer be shocked, but none of the above were as lurid as the bitter struggle that has erupted in Edinburgh.
“
Time may tell...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, that is good, and agree about the lazy ignorance about Scottish affairs from commenters outwith Scotland.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The (sub editor?) headline reflects the normal problem of UK press framing everything from an English onlooker perspective of "union good" -the future of the union, the union being in danger etc, not the future of independence, or independence being in danger. This article was better, as if written from Finland or something, good work.
Posted 3 years ago # -
This article on the union unit, also on The Guardian's website today, had me raising my eyebrows somewhat.
It's mainly made up of quotes from Tory Ministers, MPs, insiders, etc, and just seems to be a set of assumptions and views that I don't recognise. This one in particular:
“You’ve got to convince people who they are is not currently who they think they are – and in an age of identity politics, that’s really tough,” they said. “Covid has told people about the value of the military, the NHS and other UK-wide institutions. There’s a story to be told that says: ‘We got through this pandemic together because of who we are and it’s more fundamental to your identity than you might think.’”Does anyone think Covid has told them about the value of the military? The NHS is not constituted as a "UK-wide institution", and that has become clearer through the response to Covid. etc
Posted 3 years ago # -
A good response to the ‘Scotland is a one party state guff’ here: https://twitter.com/ballotboxscot/status/1365814154137862145?s=21
Trigger warning: includes graphs, and political wonkery.
Posted 3 years ago # -
This is seriously worth a read: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19123699.andrew-tickell-understanding-legalities-behind-holyrood-committee/
Posted 3 years ago # -
@SRD - just read my paper copy. Andrew Tickell writes a very clear overview on this as you say.
If this evidence disclosed clear evidence of a conspiracy on the part of one or more of the complainers, this is a difficult decision to understand. Scottish judges are not in the habit of preventing people on trial for serious offences from leading evidence which proves the allegations against them were confected or falsified.
But even stranger, in this context, is the failure to appeal against the decision to exclude this evidence from the criminal trial. Under section 74 of the 1995 Act, Alex Salmond had every right to instruct his lawyers to challenge Lady Dorrian’s decision. He did not do so.
If you had evidence in your possession which clearly established a conspiracy to make false allegations against you, why would you accept the judge’s exclusion of this evidence? If this evidence is compelling, I cannot understand why Lady Dorrian’s exclusion wasn’t vigorously challenged – but it was not, despite the fact that Mr Salmond’s liberty depended on the outcome of the criminal case.
But because no appeal was taken, this evidence wasn’t explored at trial, and because it wasn’t explored at trial, the ordinary application of section 162 means this evidence cannot now be used for any other purpose. Whatever you made of the evidence we heard – and did not hear this week – that’s the legal context. Judge for yourselves.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Only one paragraph of the evidence was originally redacted as per the Lady Dorrian judgement.
However the Spectator magazine went to court 2 weeks ago to have the information released, and won their case. The 2nd highest judge in the country judged the information could be made public. It is public, you can read it on the Spectator website, it has been linked to here. Of course the crown office intervened, and said more of the document had to be redacted, and hence not allowed to be used in the Scottish Parliament hearing. It's allowed to be viewed on a political magazines website with only one paragraph redacted, but the Scottish Parliament can't use that information in its deliberations.
It's nothing to do with jigsaw identification or the evidence wouldn't be allowed to be published in the public domain at all.Posted 3 years ago # -
@Baldcyclist: despite their spin, The Spectator did not win their case.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Although one of my favourite hobbies, it would be overly pedantic to say the Spectator ‘lost’ their case to prevent the suppression of Salmonds evidence - the judge agreed a compromise that solved thier aims in another way.
As much as life and politics becomes ever more partisan, we should not denigrate or discourage those who seek compromise and broad agreement.
From the Guardian (not Spectator fans..)
[/quote]Dorrian accepted that her order could be tightened up, although in a different form to that originally sought by the Spectator. She issued an oral ruling on Thursday after a two-hour hearing, confirming that she would change it.[quote]
Posted 3 years ago # -
“As much as life and politics becomes ever more partisan, we should not denigrate or discourage those who seek compromise and broad agreement.“
Agree.
Not sure how much Spectator is interested in compromise generally...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Not trying to defend the Spectator in any way.
However, they won in so far as it was agreed that the document could be published, and therefor used as evidence.
The Crown Office interveined, and said the Scottish Parliament had to republish a much redacted version of the document because it could potentially jigsaw identify one of the complainers.
The Scottish Parliament duly complied and republished the heavily redacted versions, which therefor meant only the portions not redacted could be used in evidence in the enquiry.
Isn't it curious however - if a complainer could be jigsaw identified fromt he evidence - that the Crown office didn't also order the Spectator magazine to heavily redact what it has published?
Nope, that's still in the public domain and free for all to see. All that's been heavily redacted is that which could have be used in evidence in the enquiry...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Re that Tickell article, one fairly specific article after the verdict said the defence team did challenge the ruling, even naming the appeal judge. Curiously little about it elsewhere.
"Lady Dorrian ruled that this would remove the focus of the trial to another matter - which took place a decade after some of the charges - and would distract the jury from the merits of the charges themselves.
The defence actually tried to challenge this decision with another judge, but were rebuffed by Lady Stacey in similar terms."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-52012145
Posted 3 years ago # -
More here:
"At a later hearing in February at the High Court in Glasgow, Mr Jackson said the judicial review defeat was a “pretty serious scandal” and “people were extremely nervous” about the outcome.
‘False complaints’
He claimed the same woman had been trying to “divert” public attention away from this and said she had “encouraged others to make false complaints” to the police.He read out a text from another of Mr Salmond’s accusers about the woman, which said: “Jeez, think [she] is in trouble. S isn’t going to stop until he gets her and he’s bringing down Nicola on the way.”
But Alex Prentice QC, for the prosecution, said any evidence about the judicial review defeat was “wholly collateral” to the issues due to be explored at the trial.
Describing it as a “complete distraction” by the defence, he added: “There’s nothing wrong with encouraging complainers to go to the police.”
At the end of both hearings, both Lady Dorrian and Lady Stacey agreed with Mr Prentice and ruled that the messages should not be presented to the jury."
https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/alex-salmond-nicola-sturgeon-snp-texts-trial-411139
Posted 3 years ago # -
"No-confidence motion tabled over Salmond legal advice"
This is about whether the Scottish Govt were advised in October that they would loose the case against it, but continued anyway hoping the criminal case would overtake it, costing the taxpayer a lot of money. The Scottish Govt only conceded the case when their legal team threatened to resign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56231222
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
