Forum menu
One of the verdicts was “not proven”
there is no legal distinction between not proven and not guilty. As the judge will have explained to the jury they have the same outcome and legal meaning.
the other complaints he was found not guilty as the criminal standard of proof was not met.
You are aware that there were defence witnesses refuting the allegations? This wasn't all he said / she said stuff.
Salmond’s just pxxsed off at Sturgeon for not repaying the favour he did for her keeping her skeletons in the closet for the last 20 odd years. Unfortunately for him political and social attitudes have changed in that regard. There may well have been procedural faults during all this but ultimately it comes down to an old dinosaur’s ego and inability to move with the times.
I get the sense that the Convener and Deputy Convener do not like each other!
her skeletons in the closet for the last 20 odd years
What's this?
Scotroutes - do you think Salmonds admitted behaviour is acceptable?
there is no legal distinction between not proven and not guilty. As the judge will have explained to the jury they have the same outcome and legal meaning.
Except the standard text on Scottish criminal procedure states that juries should not be told anything about the meaning of "not proven" (as per Renton and Brown: Criminal Procedure according to the Law of Scotland, 6th edn (1996) para 18-79.41.) and mock jury trials examining this exact thing show that 70% of jurors thing that "not proven" should be the verdict given in cases where they think the accused is guilty but there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
"Not proven" may well be the same as "not guilty" in the legal sense but a from the jury's viewpoint a "not proven" verdict is likely to mean that 70% of them thought he was guilty.
Purely based on the amount of airtime that the BBC are devoting to this - every channel, every bulletin and appears they're being fed 'talking points' from 'Whitehall sources' to try and undermine the SNP. If only they applied the same amount of vigour to grilling Tory ministers, but 1.2 million dead, spiralling national debt, failed track and trace and stuffing public money into the pockets of your chums doesn't merit the same degree of scrutiny.
I have to say the openness with which Holyrood has approached this is a refreshing contrast to Westminster and I believe that ( hope that?) Holyrood comes out of this stronger.
there clearly are significant issues that this has highlighted. the blurred lines between SNP internal matters and Scottish government matters, the dual role of James Wolfe, the investigating officer having prior contact in breach of the procedure and the altogether too cosy relationships in the scottish establishment.
What’s this?
Closet should be enough of a clue.
Old Satan was on fine form during his questioning. Tore them up for arse paper.
I can't stick him but you cannot deny his talents. Slimy ****.
Deeply disappointing he’s not seeing the inside of a jail cell for his disgusting conduct.
What conduct that required jailing ?
Wee jimmy looks like she might crumble. She seemed to me to be a bit struggling to tie her stories together.
And to suggest she "had only an uneasy feeling" about possible allegations is utter bullshit. She knew every minutiae of what was being said and by whom. It would be stupid to believe otherwise.
I have no doubt she is going to show Salmond up
Might have to wait on that a bit longer.
1.2 million dead
really? in the UK?
swavis
Full Member100% this. It’s getting ridiculous now. Has slippery Salmond made a deal with the Tories/media or something? It absolutely stinks!
Nah, it just so happens that they have shared agendas. SNP BAAAAD means that Salmond GOOOOOD now. It doesn't have to be any more complex or any more conspiracey-ish than that. SNP have given them a bit of an opportunity and of course they're going to take it.
it's 0.125 million dead.
Closet should be enough of a clue.
Classy 🙄
Ah the joys, some definite Daily Mail devotees on here eh !
“Not proven” may well be the same as “not guilty” in the legal sense but a from the jury’s viewpoint a “not proven” verdict is likely to mean that 70% of them thought he was guilty.
No Scottish juries make decisions by simple majority so if 70% said guilty it should/would have been guilty.
The Jury Manual provides judges with suggested words to use, e.g.
"You must return a verdict on each charge separately. And, where there are more than one accused on a charge you must return a separate verdict on each accused on that charge.
"There are three verdicts you can return on any charge: Guilty, not guilty, or not proven.
"Not guilty and not proven are verdicts of acquittal and have the same effect. An accused acquitted of a charge cannot be prosecuted again on that charge, save in exceptional circumstances, and it makes no difference whether the acquittal verdict is not guilty or not
proven.
"It’s not necessary that your verdict is unanimous, it can be by a majority. But for any verdict of guilty, there must be at least eight of you, an absolute majority of your whole number (originally, not of those who remain) in favour of that."
The advice in Renton and Brown is (to my view) not that juries should be not be told anything about the meaning - but rather that judges should probably avoid falling into the trap of trying to draw a distinction between the two - exactly the same as anyone here should avoiding inferring that a person found not proven is more guilty than those found not guilty.
The nature of the jury room is such we will never why they reached that verdict or what message they may have been trying to convey with the different verdicts.
I don't think anyone, even Mr Salmond himself, has suggested that his behaviour at all times was proper. But actually that admitted behaviour applies to many of the charges not just the one he was found not proven on.
Closet should be enough of a clue.
Classy 🙄
To be fair. You were the one who asked
To be fair. You were the one who asked
He asked for someone to make a bigoted attempt at humour?
No humour was intended. Not that that will stop you and your slurs.
No humour was intended.
So you are saying the skeleton in Sturgeon's closet is that she is a lesbian?
I hate to tell you but being a lesbian isn't going to do as much damage to her political career as you might hope.
Anyway, what's the source of your information that she is a lesbian?
That rumour has been about forever. I'm not believing you haven't heard it.
And I would hope that if it was true it would make no difference to anyones career.
I actually hate homophobic attitudes.
See that wee comment "you might hope" That marks you out as a snidey small man.
Well, it looks like telling bigots where they can go gets you a warning now.
If the mods think it's acceptable to call travellers 'abnormal' and suggest that there is something shameful about being a lesbian then STW is not the place for me anymore.
It's all yours, brads.
I don’t think anyone, even Mr Salmond himself, has suggested that his behaviour at all times was proper.
Looks like we have a new leader in the 2021 Understatement of the Year trophy!
call travellers ‘abnormal’ and suggest that there is something shameful about being a lesbian
Niether of which was said or done by me, but carry on with making the narrative suit your agenda.
And another slur before you go. Well done, you must feel so small.
That rumour has been about forever. I’m not believing you haven’t heard it.
Sounds like classic Yoon nonsense, no doubt related to the fact she's never had children.
I've never once heard this "rumour" but thankfully I don't associate with the kind of people that believe it or spread it
brads
Full Member
I said they want no part in normal society and normal rules do not apply to them.
If that’s abnormal then so be it. I know plenty abnormal peopel who aren’t Gypsies.I wouldn’t want any of them as neighbours.
For context, amazing how you spout shite like that and then you are the victim.
I don't like or dislike Salmond or Sturgeon. But the problem is that they have been at the top of Scottish politics for a long time. Good or bad, I don't know. However if you stand long enough in the public eye, then eventually you become a target for everything. In Salmond's case his behaviour towards women is inexcusable today. But it is not criminal and this has been shown in a trial.
What is being examined here is the Scottish Government's role in the matter and why it cost the taxpayer a cool £500,000 in payments to Salmond plus the states own costs. Most people these day's see SNP and Scottish Government as one and the same. From the various testimonies it appears that some in the SNP and administration have the same problem.
Sturgeon has tried to point out that Salmond is an odious little toad (and he probably is) but that is not the point of this enquiry - as she knows. She is known for a her attention to detail and being able to absorb lots of information. So for her to claim that she forgot about meetings or that she was not sure if the were Government or SNP business is stretching her creditability.
The other problem is that for many people she is the SNP. She has had lots of very positive airtime with the main stream media for her handling of the pandemic. She is recognised by virtually all of the MSM as one of the leading politicians of her time across the UK. But that does not mean that the MSM should not dig into this in detail. As the leader of the SNP and Scottish Government and the most prominent supporter of an Independent Scotland, this enquiry is big news. And rightly it is getting the headlines. Across all of the media. Even in those titles that support her.
Sturgeon has had a fantastic run, but it is coming to an end. Just because she has been in power for so long. And like most leaders, leaving is unlikely to be at her choosing. It is normally death from a 1000 cuts. She may survive this. She will probably win the next Scottish election, but some of her credibility is draining away. And if the enquiry reports that she did mislead parliament then she is a dead weight.
sadmadalan
Full MemberSturgeon has had a fantastic run, but it is coming to an end.
doubt that very much tbh.
So do I , but she didn't come across all that great.
I suspect watching the old master at work got her worried before she even walked into the room.
Amazingly popular though and as of yet, Scotland has no meaningful opposition to oust her party and I doubt her party will oust her.
@eosamh77 & @brads - at some point Sturgeon will go, it may be in the next few days or in 10 years time. However the problem she has is that some of a credibility is starting to wear off. She appears weaker and others, inside and outside of the SNP, will start to challenge her. When Labour ran Scotland, no one could see the SNP in charge for an extended period.
The SNP at the moment in many peoples eyes appears to the Sturgeon party, especially since her husband is the chief exec. So her actions are amplified and have a greater impact on the SNP and eth Scottish Government. Both suffer for the fact that there are limited options beyond Sturgeon, there is no identified replacement for when she will go. And she is starting to alienate some of her front bench and force them out.
As an Englishman think she has done a great job in communication about the actions to manage the pandemic in Scotland and is a order of magnitude better than most of the shower in Westminster. She has done brilliantly to build on the work done by Salmond for an iScotland. But this 'squabble' between them over a technicality could finish all that. As an example Blair is hated for taking the UK into an illegal war, rather then celebrated for his part in the Good Friday agreement.
There’s a certain type of Englander that gets his or her Fanny full of sand when it comes to Sturgeon. And I love her for it. 😀
I actually hate homophobic attitudes
Interesting phraseology
I thought she came over very well. The actual presentation of facts was good, and more credible than the few highlights shown on news bulletins. Much more so than Salmond, and more articulate and objective than some of the Inquiry representatives’ approach
The inquiry representatives came across as useless. Like people that had been asked to stand in at the last minute.
sadmadalan,
I've been saying similarly about a succession plan for Sturgeon for some time. The reality is none of the opposition has a credible alternative first minister either! IMO this debacle will be her undoing, but I sincerely hope she doesn't go now - and leave John Swinney to muddle through until after May. I'm not sure who on the front bench you think is alienated - could they just be distancing so that if she has to go they can take the reins without having been too close?
If she was forced out (which I think could only happen if the greens were willing to support a motion of no confidence), who do you think would become leader? Realistically that person is going to the be first minister in June - albeit if it goes really badly possibly with a significant minority government.
Er that's rubbish re no obvious successor, if I was Queen of Scotland and could name the next leader how about Kate Forbes?
Or did you mean no obvious male successor? The misogyny is strong in this thread, I would start a "where is the Nicola Sturgeon thread" thread as it seems wrong and ironic that we are discussing her in Salmond's thread. But I have to go to work!
I'd agree with the Kate Forbes recommendation if she was a wee bit older, but maybe it would be a good idea regardless.
I believe that Angus Robertson is the annointed one, though that would need to be after the My election.
I can’t see why someone’s sexuality is apparently a “skeleton in the closet”
WGAF
My impressions of meeting them both is that you would have liked Salmond to organise your stag and NS to organise your wedding. I have always kind of felt the same when it came to running the country.
you would have liked Salmond to organise your stag
I can't imagine anything worse
NS is definitely damaged now and I think she will survive this but unless there's a successful indy referendum she only has one more term as leader at the most.
unless there’s a successful indy referendum she only has one more term as leader at the most
I’d have thought that was true even without the current goings on. I’d agree with Kate Forbes as potential future leader material, but think she’d really need several more years learning her craft as a politician before she steps up.
I did wonder if wee Alec fancied his chances of another go - is he that that detached from reality to think he’d succeed with Indyref 2 after failing first time round?
sadmadalan
Full Member
@eosamh77 & @brads – at some point Sturgeon will go, it may be in the next few days or in 10 years time.
😆