Salmond v Sturgeon

Bleak Ridge is a family-run business, selling country clothing and workwear
CarlW said:
What's the story about his testimony now being postponed?
Click to expand...
Basically, Salmond has been told what he can say and what he can't. He is not allowed to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", only a little bit of the truth. The rest has been deemed inadmissible. There are even documents that are already in the public domain that the inquiry is not allowed to consider.
Because of the restrictions being placed upon the inquiry committee, Salmond is not prepared to appear before them. The whole thing appears to be a whitewash designed to get Nicola out of her current problems.
If you're really interested, below is the text of the letter that Salmond's lawyers sent, with the reasons that he is not prepared to be part of this flawed process:

Dear Ms Fabiani and Committee Members,
We have now had the opportunity to consult on Friday evening and over the weekend with our client on your clerk’s latest emails of Friday afternoon. Those followed the convener’s letter informing us that you do not intend to publish our client’s submission on the Ministerial Code, a submission which was sent to you on December 31st and which was carefully considered by this firm, and by Counsel, prior to submission.
Your latest communications and the decision not to publish exemplify the confusion and legal difficulties created by the Committee and which now plainly undermine the capacity of the Committee to fulfil the remit set by Parliament.
Click to expand...


It must be clear to you that our client cannot accept a position where his evidence submitted in good faith to your Committee (and in greater part still publicly available) is not to be published and therefore form part of the evidence leading to conclusions in your report. The submission was not simply for James Hamilton’s Inquiry. It was also specifically to address Part 4 of your Inquiry on the Ministerial Code and was framed entirely to assist you in fulfilling the remit given to you by Parliament. The latest emails seeking to clarify the position do not assist. Our client is still in the dark about the parameters of his evidence and what assurances and protections you can provide to him to enable him help you to fulfil your remit, while being truthful and transparent.
Asking a witness to accept the constraints of speaking only to evidence selected by you on the undisclosed advice and direction of unidentified others is not acceptable in any forum and is, in our client’s view, particularly offensive when the remit he seeks to address has been set for you by Parliament and addresses the unlawful actions of an elected Government and the needless squandering of hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money.
You advise that there are ‘elements’ of the submission which can be spoken to in oral evidence or in the opening statement. Which elements? You offer one example (the leak to the Daily Record). Which other elements are deemed acceptable?
Simultaneously, you appear to have identified specific elements which are problematic. Please set those out in writing, together with the legal basis for that stance. In the absence of such clarity, we are no further forward in advising our client. Not only does clarity require to be given in relation to oral evidence, but it also necessarily informs the content of his written submission. It is at present entirely unclear to us what he is able to submit and what you view as unacceptable.
Even your suggestion of a ‘detailed opening statement’ is immediately subject to the caveat of complying with the Committee’s approach to evidence. That is meaningless until we understand what interpretation of the Section 11 order (the key barrier as we understand it) you are taking.
Similarly, why would a ‘supplementary submission’ made after a hearing have any more chance of being published by you, and relied upon by the committee in its deliberations, than the initial submission you have already refused to publish?
Beyond that, there is the obvious question of what legal advice could possibly justify the absurd position of our client being told he can essentially read out or repeat ‘elements’ of a submission but that the same elements (freely available to all online at ‘The Spectator’) cannot be published.
You advise that legal advice cannot be published or shared to support the stance the Committee has taken on this matter of overwhelming public interest. I am sure the irony of that will not have escaped you. Regardless, what is required is an understanding of your legal advice so that we can assess that, respond to it and advise in light of it.
Given the importance of this, a telephone call is not sufficient. Your position needs to be set out in writing to ensure clarity.
There are other matters which require a definitive and urgent response.
We have written on numerous occasions on this matter without substantive reply.
We require to advise our client ahead of his proposed evidence session. In order to do so, we need fully to understand all restrictions placed on his evidence and the legal bases therefor. Accordingly, we need you to set out the totality of the restrictions upon him. For example, which chapters of evidence are restricted or excluded, what reference can be made to the existence and content of documents which are known to exist but which the Committee has not recovered, which individuals or meetings is our client prevented from referencing? Which other prohibitions are in place?
The committee, on its own unpublished legal advice has attached a series of restrictions on evidence without offering either a comprehensive list of such restrictions or any legal advice which supports them. The effect is that we, as legal advisers, are left in the dark and are severely hampered in any advice that we can give. No body taking evidence can seriously expect a witness in the position of our client to do so blind to the full range of prohibitions, restrictions and penalties of even an inadvertent breach.
We note, for example, that the evidence of Geoff Aberdein has been withdrawn in its entirety and will form no part of the Committee’s deliberations. We do not know why or which parts of that evidence have led to that decision. We do not understand why the entirety of that submission had to be withdrawn. We understand the same will apply to at least one and probably more of the submissions made by our client. Further, we understand that limited or possibly no evidence is to be allowed in relation to specific meetings in March and April 2018, many of which are in the public domain and have been since January 2019. Moreover, the evidence given by the First Minister will similarly be restricted, a remarkable position which fundamentally undermines the value of the committee investigation.
In addition it is now claimed in today’s Sunday Mail that evidence sessions from “senior officials” are no longer to take place because of legal restrictions being placed on your Committee. What are these legal restrictions, which senior officials are involved, and how does the exclusion or absence of such evidence affect our client’s evidence and indeed the Committee’s own remit to “consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers”?
These are only examples and we do not understand either the extent of these restrictions or the legal advice on which the Committee is proceeding which underpins them. In order to advise our client properly, we require clarity on the totality of the restrictions. We require very specific direction on this. A generic reference to a court order is not sufficient. We have advised you on many occasions that our client is fully aware of that Order (he was in court when it was made and indeed did not oppose it) and has been fully compliant with it. We are perplexed by the Committee’s interpretation of that order in relation to much of the evidence, hence the need for clarity.
We have been seeking this clarity for months and time is now extremely short.
We must advise our client of the potential legal implications of giving evidence. Allowing our client to proceed without clear direction from you as convener is to place him in legal jeopardy. We cannot responsibly do that. We have told you on many occasions about correspondence from the crown office about the consequences of breaching s. 162 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, which creates a criminal offence. Despite raising those concerns we have had no meaningful response which allows us to give our client any assurance that he can fulfil his oath.
Our client remains willing to give evidence to the committee at any point up to the final date for evidence (currently fixed for 16th February). However, he cannot take his oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth unless and until you properly address in writing the legitimate concerns set out in this and our numerous previous letters.
Yours sincerely,
David McKie
Levy & McRae
Click to expand...
 
I see the SNP want to investigate Donald Trump's finances (in Scotland)

I trust Westminster will investigate the SNP's finances and look at where the SNP have been stashing the money that Westminster has sent them.

That will be a can of worms well worth opening :)
 
Ade8mm said:
I see the SNP want to investigate Donald Trump's finances (in Scotland)

I trust Westminster will investigate the SNP's finances and look at where the SNP have been stashing the money that Westminster has sent them.

That will be a can of worms well worth opening :)
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think that it was actually the Greens (Patrick Harvie) who wanted Trump's finances investigated, and the SNP rebuffed the suggestion. The Green party in Scotland appear to spend little of their time looking at Green issues and much more time looking into increasing the rights of transgender individuals.
As for the finances of the SNP, I suspect that Boris is storing that one up to use if the SNP don't implode first.
 
Feugh said:
To be fair, I think that it was actually the Greens (Patrick Harvie) who wanted Trump's finances investigated, and the SNP rebuffed the suggestion. The Green party in Scotland appear to spend little of their time looking at Green issues and much more time looking into increasing the rights of transgender individuals.
As for the finances of the SNP, I suspect that Boris is storing that one up to use if the SNP don't implode first.
Click to expand...
And the destruction of wildmspecies by ineptitude and ignorance, viz the mountain hare culling ban.

Letter sent yesterday to local paper:

It may interest your readers to know that the mountain hares in Scotland are to be found in viable numbers only where heather moorland habitat is actively managed, and predators are controlled, i.e. In areas managed principally for grouse shooting. Elsewhere, particularly where self-styled 'conservation bodies' profess to 'manage for wildlife, they are largely absent.

An example of this well-meaning but completely disastrous policy decision already exists: a prominent Deeside Estate submitted to vocal pressure from so-called conservation interests a few years ago, and ceased moorland management, including burning small heather areas in patchwork form form the benefit of grouse and other ground nesting upland birds; they also stopped the shooting of mountain hares. At the time, there were no less than three eagle eyries to be found on the estate in question, all achieving successful rearing of young annually.

Left unmanaged (i.e. unshot), the hare numbers rapidly increased, only to crash thereafter, as was all too predictable; they have not recovered in the intervening years, and ever since the crash, successive breeding seasons have resulted in not a single eaglet reaching the fledgling stage. The danger of the 'half full glass', when left in the hands of those without a care.

The worst enemy of a hare (ignorant Parliamentarians apart) is another hare, as generations of real wildlife managers are only well aware. Turning them into political footballs will not end well.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Feugh said:
Basically, Salmond has been told what he can say and what he can't. He is not allowed to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", only a little bit of the truth. The rest has been deemed inadmissible. There are even documents that are already in the public domain that the inquiry is not allowed to consider.
Because of the restrictions being placed upon the inquiry committee, Salmond is not prepared to appear before them. The whole thing appears to be a whitewash designed to get Nicola out of her current problems.
If you're really interested, below is the text of the letter that Salmond's lawyers sent, with the reasons that he is not prepared to be part of this flawed process:
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that, @Feugh. Outstanding letter. Have moved David McKie to the top of my list of people to call if I ever get in any Caledonian bother.
 
The above are perfect reasons why a formal Judicial inquiry would have been the ideal way of ascertaining the truth..... rather than selective bits of a half-truth. After all, well over £500K was lost to the tax payer after the initial screw up and the continuing inquiry (in Holyrood) will be quietly paying out many thousands more in legal fees and poor use of our hard working elected members' time (sic). It would be nice if Sturgeon, Murrell and Salmond all fell on their collective swords and the public realised what a bunch of morons had been "running" the country for years, but sadly the tame press will not ask the hard questions and fall for the usual flag waving twaddle that is fed to them from SNP central.....
 
Salmond intends to hold a press conference and publicise his evidence in full and againconfirm his assertions in his evidence (not admissible, that the female Stalin broke the ministerial code. It would appear that Alex is bound on sinking the First Minister for her failures and what he believes was a personal attack - I have no doubt it was, given the way in which it would seem from recent sackings, the SNP operate. One hopes this clears the motes from the eyes of the Scottish people and they see their justified nationalism has been supporting a pointless approach to nationalism - independence and change tackor we here in the rest of the UK get to vote. If we do the Scots may well wish they had never followed the piper.
The SNP look like toast.
 
There's rather a LOT in the fallout to be meekly swept under the carpet. It is likely to be the biggest scandal in UK Politics since before Profumo. Police, Crown Office, Lord Advocate, several senior SNP MPs & MSP's, senior civil servants in Hollywood all implicated in the collusion/conspiracy.

I'm no fan nor defender of Alex Salmond, but to fit him up for something that he did not do, where the outcome was the possibility of an innocent man going to prison is not something either required or sought by the Scottish people. As far as I can determine, all involved are servants of the people of Scotland, Unionists and separatists alike. Foul!
 
Starting to look like even more like Macbeth and Great Birnam Wood is getting closer by the minute, ye ken! The Krankie is dooooomed, doooooomed!!
🦊🦊
 
Alas poor Krankie i knew her well<NOT> a strange and fell creature much taken to devious ways and use of the back for target practice :old:.Still as the wife says what goes around comes around and i,m sure theyre queueing up to take her place ,salary <delete as required :norty:>.
 
Freeforester said:
There's rather a LOT in the fallout to be meekly swept under the carpet. It is likely to be the biggest scandal in UK Politics since before Profumo. Police, Crown Office, Lord Advocate, several senior SNP MPs & MSP's, senior civil servants in Hollywood all implicated in the collusion/conspiracy.

I'm no fan nor defender of Alex Salmond, but to fit him up for something that he did not do, where the outcome was the possibility of an innocent man going to prison is not something either required or sought by the Scottish people. As far as I can determine, all involved are servants of the people of Scotland, Unionists and separatists alike. Foul!
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree with this more, I too am not a fan of Salmond but the way he (and the Scottish people) has been treated has been deplorable.
 
Soooo ok - a bit like Michael and Janet Jackson - but just to be sure - has anyone really ever seen Mizz Sturgeon and Mrs Krankie in the same room? Photographic evidence is required!
🦊🦊
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fishing Gran Canaria
Replies
6
Views
354
opticron1
opticron1
It all makes sense now
Replies
1
Views
370
Donkey Basher
Donkey Basher
Started a little doodle
Replies
11
Views
509
Liveonce
L
Is there anything more satisfying than?
Replies
8
Views
476
Bavarianbrit
B
Online Chess Gripe
2
Replies
20
Views
629
BenBhoy
BenBhoy
Game Larder - Your reliable choice for Game Larder solutions - www.gamelarder.com
Back
Top