FIRST MINISTER AND JIM SILLARS IN NEW LETTER EXCHANGE.

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:,

JIM SILLARS REPLIES.


28th. February

Rt.Hon. Nicola Sturgeon, MSP

First Minister

Scottish Government

St. Andrew’s House

Edinburgh EH1 3DG

Dear Nicola,

Confirmation of complaint of you breaching the Ministerial Code

I did not reply immediately to your letter to me, as I thought careful consideration should be given to what you had to say in insisting that you did not breach the Code. I think it would have been wiser for you to take more time to consider the substance of my letter. 

Of course I was aware that the Permanent Secretary, under normal circumstances, cannot refer the First Minister to an investigation, due to the anomaly in the Code that complaints about the First Minister can only be dealt with by the First Minister. I am also aware that both you and your predecessor overcame this problem by a   referral to an independent authority. The matters Mr. Hamilton is looking into at present, is the latest example of that practice. 

My reason for addressing my letter to the Permanent Secretary was that I assumed she would be able to give you advice, acting on the highest standards of the civil service, on whether or not you should again refer your conduct to Mr. Hamilton, or other independent person.  

As you can see from the heading of this letter, I am informing you that I wish my complaint to be considered, and as you disagree with me on that, may I request that you transfer the question of whether or not you breached the Ministerial Code to Mr. Hamilton or some other suitable independent person.  I think, given the gravity of the breaches I have detailed, it would not be construed as proper for you to be judge and jury. 

I now come to the reasons why I wish to confirm my complaint: 

I concur with your view of the Covid briefings as of great advantage to the public. You have been scrupulous in keeping them to that agenda, which is your Government’s agenda. When you chose to depart from that practice and respond to a non-Covid related question from James Matthew, to launch a political attack on Alex Salmond, you breached the Code as I set out in my original letter. 

Of course, I accept, as you say, that you did not know that Mr. Matthew would ask you a non-Covid related question; but you had the choice to inform him that it was not an appropriate one in the context of a public health briefing, or to take the bait.  The choice you made was yours, and yours alone.  

You are an experienced Minister, with many years of dealing with questions from journalists. You and others in your position never know what they might ask, just as you do not know the supplementary questions that will come from MSPs at FMQs.  Ministers have a variety of ways that enable them to avoid answering questions that are inappropriate, or asked in a context not germane to the agenda for which the meeting was called. It is not a criticism to say that you employ that approach each week at FMQs, and could have done so in reply to the first non-Covid related question from the SKY journalist. Again, I make the point that you chose not to do so. 

Your excuse, that if you ‘had refused to answer these questions I would have been criticised for avoiding scrutiny,’ is unconvincing. Who would have criticised you? Not the public looking in on the briefing, for whom public health information is their only reason for watching. I venture to suggest that a sharp reminder to Mr. Matthew of the purpose of the briefing would not have been criticised by the public, but approved.  It is true that journalists may have criticised you, but that goes with job and should not be something of such importance to you, that you chose to breach the Code in order to avoid their anticipated critical views.  Your reply gives me no reason to withdraw that part of my complaint. 

I now turn to your statement that ‘It is also entirely wrong of you to suggest that I was casting doubt on the outcome of the criminal trial.’ Actually, what your chosen words at the zbriefing were directed to was the “outcome,” which has, and has continued to have, a different meaning, since the trial, than the “verdict.”  The word “outcome” as well as encompassing the decision of the trial also encompasses comment upon it post-trial, allowing people to constantly invoke the fact that the complainers were women and claim, therefore, ipso facto, if they say something happened then it happened. That was the meaning you gave to the words you chose to use at the briefing. 

I am not alone in believing that your words draw the inference that the jury got it wrong. Several people were in touch with me. One comment is typical, from a woman, referring to your words:  “she” meaning you, “is saying he is guilty, it’s just the jury got it wrong.” 

In a rather more nuanced way, as one would expect, the statement issued by the Faculty of Advocates, expressing their concern about the reputation of the Scottish legal system,  included ‘and perhaps most importantly, the vital place of the verdict of impartial juries in criminal  proceedings.’ That they should feel it necessary to issue that statement on the day following your departure from the purpose of the  public health briefing, speaks volumes. I see no reason to withdraw my complaint that in choosing to speak as you did in relation to the criminal trial, you breached the Code.

I now refer to the final paragraph of your letter where it says: ‘Of course the most appropriate place for me to be questioned about these matters is in front of the Parliamentary Committee.’ I agree. But in choosing first to use the forum of a briefing on Covid public health matters, you breached the Code. 

I shall be grateful to have your assurance that you will refer my complaint to either Mr. Hamilton or some other person with the authority to investigate it. 

Yours sincerely

Jim Sillars

BEAT THE CENSORS (read what they prefer you didn’t)

Due to steps being taken by certain pro SNP WEBSITES that claim to be pro Indy but are just SNP FRONTS, to close down and block my articles I strongly recommend readers take out a free subscription to this website These are available on the Home and Blog pages link on the top right of this article. This will ensure that I will send you a link every time a new article is published. THIS WILL SECURE YOUR ACCESS TO ARTICLES THE THOUGHT POLICE WOULD PREFER YOU DID NOT SEE. 

61 thoughts on “FIRST MINISTER AND JIM SILLARS IN NEW LETTER EXCHANGE.”

  1. I suppose it was too much to expect Nicola Sturgeon to admit she had got it wrong. Unfortunately for her, there were many witnesses to her breach of conduct. It wasn’t contained within secretive WhatsApp messages.

    Liked by 12 people

  2. Well done Jim Sillars.

    It is dispiriting to see Ms Sturgeon is still sticking to the ‘conspiracy theory’ slur, but what else can she do?

    She has burned any bridges she might have had to decency and probity, and is well and truly stuck on the darks side.

    To say that she is a disappointment is an under-statement.

    She is, frankly, a disgrace.

    and given she appears devoid of moral capacity, it is most unlikely that she will do the decent thing.

    All we can do is maintain the standards that we believe were once the hallmark of our party and movement, and work for better times.

    Your work in this, Iain, is greatly appreciated.

    Liked by 14 people

    1. It was both right and smart that Alex Salmond neither called for Nicola Sturgeon to resign nor did he exonerate her.

      Sticking strictly to the known facts and what could be expected was the act of a good politician with good legal advice.

      Nicola Sturgeon on the other hand keeps digging herself deeper into trouble

      Liked by 7 people

  3. Sturgeon is downright lying now. Sick of her and her corrupt gang.

    After many months, years even, of choosing to say she will answers these questions in front of the Committee she decides to smear Salmond on live TV on two successive days just before his Committee attendance.

    She has been a disaster for Scottish independence. The biggest mistake Salmond made was resigning in 2014.

    Liked by 14 people

  4. Iain, I know there is a lot of redacting going on but Sillars address should you not redact it. There are too many nutters about.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Cheers Iain.

      Just to thank you for all you are doing. I know you could be sunning yourself in Florida instead of getting abuse from the “I’m with Nicola crowd”. Of course, I may be wrong and you are there now 😃 Uploading your articles from the side of your pool.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Well said and well done Jim.

    ” Ministers have a variety of ways that enable them to avoid answering questions that are inappropriate, or asked in a context not germane to the agenda for which the meeting was called. ”

    Aye, they do it all the time. On this particular occasion Ms Sturgeon chose not to do so. Makes one wonder why that would be?

    Liked by 9 people

  6. Very clever, Mr Sillars, I see now why your first letter was addressed to the Permanent Secretary – what a farce the system is eh?!

    NS doubling, trebling, down; claws firmly embedded, hanging on for dear life; oblivious to the harm she does; oblivious to being played. She has no clue about how her own government works, does she, of what the codes mean, and what she should have done on receiving the first letter – certainly not sending out that letter of denial – what a total bloody embarrassment she is.

    Liked by 7 people

  7. I don’t think a Civil Service willing to ignore a Police Search Warrant are the correct people now to advise the FM on the Code of Conduct.
    Once you have gained a reputation for ignoring a Criminal Law Investigation standard of the country to protect the FM then any claim of impartiality in the eyes of the public is lost forever.

    Everything the Civil Service once stood for was damaged yesterday. If this story has to be played to the final act then it must be in stages. The Permanent Secretary must resign immediately. The Attorney General must protect the standing of his office and the reputation of the Law as Fair and Just. The offices of AG and PS are very different from the roles of SNP officials.

    Two of the Great Pillars of society were proven to have failed the people of Scotland yesterday. I expect those two individuals to do the right thing. I expect their Peers in those organisations to “encourage” them to do the right thing PROMTLY.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Julia, I don’t think the pro-independence side should expect much if anything from what George Osborne referred to as ‘the arms’ of the British state in Scotland, i.e. crown and civil service; protecting the UK union is their primary purpose and they do so with apparent immunity. It is no coincidence that these are the principal state entities involved in the Salmond case, in addition to a compromised SNP hierarchy.

      “Two of the Great Pillars of (a colonial) society” that will aye undermine Scotland, until independence, which is ‘freedom from rule by another country’.

      Liked by 3 people

  8. Hoist by their own petard. Something about “the more fronts they’re having to firefight the better”. So she’s got the two inquiries, the salmond massive, the Sillars front,…. The more the better? Wonder how that feels? 😏

    Liked by 8 people

    1. What age do you retire from being a concerned Scottish citizen? Do you campaign for the SNP because if you do you are really awful at it. Do you know how many pensioner voters you have just insulted. Back to the nursery for you!

      Liked by 19 people

  11. It’ll be interesting so see if NS manages to take a leaf out of her mentors book at her Inquiry appearance. Will she conduct herself with dignity and resist the urge to continue the smears?
    I somehow have my doubts. The disappearing of Alex’s legacy to the SNP, speaks of an incredibly petty mindset.

    Liked by 12 people

  12. “I have never, and would never, call into question the jury’s findings, which I fully respect”

    How does that square with her statement that it didn’t mean that the incidents never happened?

    I’ve been trying to find the exact quote in the briefing where she said that. Is it in the one the BBC pulled?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Here’s the quote – put up by Wings:

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/judges-juries-and-horseshit/#more-127052

      “The behaviour complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, but that doesn’t mean the behaviour complained of didn’t happen and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that.”

      Mr Campbell proceeds to demonstrate the internal illogicality of that statement.

      Her protestations of not challenging the verdict are a barefaced lie. Telling barefaced lies are her supreme talent.

      Liked by 5 people

  13. As the First Minister of Scotland criticism comes with the job and it’s not something NS likes at all, it would appear, in her desperation to avoid it. However being criticised for doing the right, decent and honorable thing is something most of us can live with. Maybe she could try that.

    Liked by 7 people

  14. Did AS not intact touch on this yesterday? He was asked who would deal with any complaint about him when we was FM and he immediately responded that it would be passed on to his deputy to deal with. That raises the question then why did she respond to a complaint about herself? It is actually ludicrous that she should do so. Why did she not pass this to her deputy to investigate and respond?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I think that was the point of Jim Sillars letter – and why he sent it to Leslie Evans to ‘help advise’ her of the ‘right thing to do’ – Nicola Sturgeon has failed utterly and completely to ‘do the right thing’ in her eagerness to defend herself here.

      There are procedures for these things, and I suspect the proper response would have been ‘I’ve passed on your complaint to X and they have found nothing untoward, please find attached a copy of X’s report, it turns out I’m perfect and totally innocent, good day to you sir’. She couldn’t even fabricate going through proper channels – truly she’s lost the plot, and it shows Leslie Evans as incapable of giving good advice too, and incapable of carrying out,,, a procedure.

      Liked by 4 people

  15. I’m totally dumbstruck at her reply. Absolutely astounded. Does she think we don’t know the meaning of words?? She most certainly did call into question the verdicts. Just resign Nicola. You are the worst thing ever to happen to the cause.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. This movement is wounded – wounded, not remotely dead – and it’ll recover only when the Sturgeon era has passed.

    Genuine pro-indy folk want independence for this country and nothing else as it matters so dearly to us. I’ve fallen-out with and unfollowed a great many good people on Twitter, and they’ve returned their ire towards me, however, whoever the next leader of the movement is, be it new Party or established Party, they’ll unite behind it in the absence of their ‘saint’. If Salmond himself happens to be that leader, they’ll unite behind him because they know for an absolute certainty he’s 100% devoted to our cause – then I’ll make-up with those Twitter followers/following and we’ll work together once again. We are in the midst of a ‘blip’ that we’ll recover from – but not until Sturgeon and her gang have left the building.
    There’s nothing that’ll stop this momentum apart from a tainted and very corrupt First Minister – Sturgeon’s the one holding-back the movement, Sturgeon’s the one causing division, Sturgeon’s the one never delivering independence. Get rid of her and the movement will explode with vitality once more.

    This movement is robust, eternally hungry and in rude health, but it also craves leadership. Once that charismatic, passionate and capable leader is in place we’ll burgeon like never before – Westminster won’t know how to deal with it: come the moment, come the man, or woman.

    Thanks, Jim Sillars, for making the effort to advance Scottish independence.

    Liked by 10 people

  17. Iain, I have a great deal of respect for Jim, but in this case I think he is wrong.
    What the FM said, or at least this is how she is quoted in the Herald, was ““They [the eomen] came forward with complaints.
    “The behaviour they complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct, and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality.
    “But that doesn’t mean that the behaviour they claimed of [sic] didn’t happen, and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that.”
    I dont think that can be argued with. Behaviour can be inappropriate without it being criminal (I’m pretty sure we can all think of instances of that from our own lives, if not our own behaviour, without any issue of criminality). Salmond’s behaviour in that sense could be inappropriate but not criminal, particularly as “beyond reasonable doubt” is a high bar of proof set against the requirements of criminal law.
    I agree that the sort of statement coming from the other side – “well he got away with it” – is no more acceptable, verging very close to the kind of claim I have seen elsewhere that if a woman says she was raped, sexually molested etc than she was raped, sexually molested etc and there is nothing more to say. For the law to proceed down that road would be very dangerous. But to assert that because he found “not guilty” does not mean Alex Salmond did nothing – even Gordon Jackson summing up for him said “he could have been a better man”. But what it does mean is that he did nothing that was criminal.
    As for Sturgeon answering the question put by the journalist, I have to say I am surprised at Jim, who must have ambushed quite a few political enemies with “inappropriate” questions (in the sense of asking about Salmond during a Covid briefing). OK, she might have batted it away, but I am sure we can all imagine how that would have been reported. But I have no difficulty with how she answered the question

    Like

    1. It obviously didn’t happen as every charge was throw thrown out! Therefore she’s calling into question the juries verdicts. End of.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Did you read one word that I wrote? Or just reach for the keyboard. Let me make it simple for you.
        To be convicted in a jury trial, the prosecution have to show not only that something did happen, but that it satisfies the requirements of whatever criminal law you have offended against “beyond reasonable doubt”. Now that requirement is very hard – as it should be, as I can imagine only a few worse things than being banged up for something you didnt do.
        The things alleged “could” have happened, but EVEN IF THEY DID, the requirement is the same – beyond reasonable doubt did that behaviour satisfy the requirements of criminal law for a conviction/ guitly verdict to be brought in.
        Now Salmond was found not guilty, as we all know. That means, EVEN IF SOMETHING DID HAPPEN (or in the case that Iain has reminded me of, didnt), there is still the requirement to show “beyond reasonable doubt” that it offended the law under which you are charged.
        To make it very simple for you, I am NOT suggesting that something DID happen (and that Salmond “got away with it”. What I AM saying is that a Not Guilty verdict does not lead directly to the conclusion that NOTHING happened. Just that it wasnt criminal.
        Clear noo?

        Like

    2. Alasdair I don’t want to go through the trial but the incident, the most serious charge was a complete lie as the trial proved conclusively. She was not at the dinner, nor was she even in the building. End of

      Liked by 9 people

      2. Iain as witnesses comprehensively proved that she wasn’t even in the building why isn’t she being charged with perjury?

        Liked by 2 people

    4. I’m getting a wee bit sick of people going on about Alex Salmond ‘not being a saint’ ‘inappropriate behaviour’ ‘could have been a better man’ etc – those are PRIVATE behaviours – they are none of our, or Nicola Sturgeon’s, business. Private: between his wife and him, or whoever it directly affects. None of our business whatsoever – PRIVATE.

      He was acquitted of any criminal behaviour, that is, he is innocent, not criminal. That means, any sexual encounter that may or may not have happened was consensual. And therefore – PRIVATE.

      Nicola Sturgeon is insinuating the behaviour was criminal as alleged – she claims that just because a jury aquitted him, does not mean the events as alleged didn’t happen – therefore, she is claiming the jury was wrong and the alleged criminal actions happened. Because those were the original allegations – they were criminal ones. For them to have happened or not happen means it was criminal or not criminal. She is now saying she didn’t say she was questioning the jury, when she was, in public.

      You can’t say they happened, but were not criminal – because the allegation of what happened was criminal! The jury say none of it happened, and therefore was not criminal. Which means anything else that may or may not have happened was consensual – and. therefore. PRIVATE. None of our business.

      If you don’t believe the jury – well, there should be an appeal – but, that aside, fair enough, you think Alex Salmond is a criminal, so don’t try and pretend private encounters somehow justify saying the jury was wrong – they acquitted him of criminal behaviour. Those specific complaints that Nicola Sturgeon keeps alluding to were about criminal behaviour, not ‘unsaintly’ behaviour. Can’t have it both ways.

      ‘Let s/he who has not sinned, cast the first stone’

      Liked by 6 people

    5. I am fed up to my back teeth of people coming out with this nonsense regarding the verdicts. Please get it through your thick skulls that the jury had the choice of three verdicts, guilty (beyond reasonable doubt), not proven (if they are unsure) and not guilty(if they are sure beyond reasonable doubt). As they delivered not guilty in all but one charge they must have been sure they did not happen ie they were lies.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. ‘Not proven’ in Scots Law does not mean the jury wasn’t sure – it means the same as ‘Not guilty’

        “According to the Jury Manual, it is “thought to be good practice” for judges in criminal trials to “inform the jury specifically that ‘not proven’ is a verdict of acquittal and that the accused cannot be tried again for the same offence”.

        Liked by 2 people

    6. Iamsoccerdoc – I truly find a post like yours infuriating. You do not bother to get your facts correct before sounding off on the validity of a mans conduct and trial. You talk in generalities but are referring to a specific case but you do not seem to see anything amiss in doing so.

      Also there were multiple questions from multiple journalists about the Inquiry during a Covid briefing and Sturgeon chose to answer all of them by smearing Salmond some that came across as a mad rant. This is not someone making a mistake and then correcting themselves. This is someone choosing to answer them in very negative terms about Salmond. Sturgeons mask didn’t just slip a little it fell off completely for 9 mins as Sillars said. She then repeated the trick at FMQs but in a more dignified manner. I doubt you actually saw the Covid briefing in question.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. The way that you are arguing Iansoccerdoc is that you are guilty in part if after a trial you are found not guilty. In fact based upon what you have said I think anonymous complainers should have every right to trail you through the High Court. And when you are found not guilty ( as you might or might not be ) I will expect the stain of a sexual abuser – rapist to remain against you, to be played back to you, time after time in public.

    In fact with men like you ( I am assuming you are a man?) I would encourage everyone to come forward to cause you to firefight on as many fronts as possible. And if the Police cannot find any evidence they can come and tell me what they need, I will find it for them.

    There, if I have got it right, I agree with you iASD.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Not at all. All I am suggesting is that a not guilty verdict tells us only that the behaviour complained of was not criminal beyond reasonable doubt. What it does not tell us whether the behaviour in question even happened – that it did not happen (which might well be the case in the complaints brought by one of the women) is not ruled out by a not guilty verdict. Or ruled in.
      Your argument that I am content for anonymous complainers to drag anyone through the High Court is utterly wrong. If you look for my website, one of the questions I hope is put to the FM on Wednesday is ““how was this allowed to happen in such an incompetent manner?” The procedure they employed was, as we all know, laughable, and as a result the complaints, in my view, were not fully tested, not helped by the fact that the whole procedure seems to have taken place behind Salmond’s back and when he was informed he was denied access to evidence he needed to reply.
      There was though one thing you did get right. But then a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      Like

  19. Bella Caledonia (yes, I know) reproduces a front page in which Jim Sillars is quoted as being a ‘Lifelong SNP Supporter’

    Really? I thought he’d been elsewhere before he joined the SNP. He also saw fit to leave them afterwards. Let’s hope that this is down to shoddy journalism (a common phenomenon) and that we are not losing ‘the Jim Sillars of the old days’

    Like

  21. I watch with interest for the reply. She, in this holier than thou response, still can’t give up the chance to have a dig at Alex Salmond “And I look forward, at long last, to appearing before the Committee next week when I can lay out the facts of what happened rather than the spurious and unfounded conspiracies that others choose to misrepresent as the truth for their own ends.” This is inappropriate in the context of the letter and speaks volumes about her integrity. It is not rational behaviour and certainly not for a holder of such high office.

    Thank you Iain for your efforts. It is sad to see the state of free speech in Scotland today but it is heartening that yourself and other high profile bloggers have seen through the redactions to highlight the truth and not just the party line. Saor Alba

    Liked by 1 person

    1. When Alex speaks it is spurious and unfounded conspiracy theories!
      When she speaks it is the facts!

      I keep hearing Alex saying “I am only making claims on issues which I can back up with documentation”

      He made a credible witness and produced said documentation.

      He kept quite for nearly 3 years and presented in a calm professional manner.
      She has used every forum available ( including FMQs and Covid briefing) prior to attending the committee and produced not one scrap of evidence. ( she has blocked plenty)

      One has respected the role of the committee when presenting their evidence. One has used their access to the media to influence public opinion prior to attending the committee.

      One has respected the legal process throughout. The other has undermined it’s findings constantly.

      Liked by 4 people

  22. Pingback: Idol Judges, Juries Plus Horseshit | K News

  23. Thanks for posting these letters Iain. I cling to the hope that some how and some time soon there will be a reckoning.

    Should Fabiani be allowed to chair the session of the enquiry with NS? NS is after all her boss.

    I do not think this would be appropriate and that the Chairing should pass to the Deputy? What do you think of this idea?

    PS You wont remember me from Adam but I canvassed for you in the Stirling election in 1987 GE campaign when you went up against Michael Forsyth. The cause was struggling a bit at this time, but you bravely came over to our side and introduced me to Gaberlunzie!! So twice thanks!

    Liked by 4 people

  24. Thanks for posting this Iain.

    Wow that’s a mighty powerful point from Sillars, you enter very dangerous ground when you begin to question a jury’s verdicts, its even more preposterous when you then claim to be defending the integrity of the Crown office.

    Of course other folk, and RCS, in the political public eye that we know have also dropped innuendos, as to the jury’s verdict, without so much as a warning from Police Scotland.

    This type of nasty insinuation type comment whether it be from the Sturgeon or Leslie Evans or anyone or any spokesperson for a public or private body must be called out.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. Pingback: Wings Over Scotland | Judges, Juries And Horseshit – News of the world

  26. Perhaps it is societal guilt that causes us “tend to believe” women’s claims about assault however…..
    These women were badly represented and in some cases outed by their supposed champions (not their names but their complaints, which were handed to the prosecution services.)
    Who advised the women who said that AS touched her as they were passing on the stairs while out leafleting that that was a winnable sexual assault case?
    The nature of these collective claims give them gravitas whether they deserve it or not
    Those responsible should face malicious prosecution

    Liked by 3 people

  27. You have to admit, Nicola Sturgeon is one of the worst, most confused feminists that has ever walked the planet. She and her alhabet cut cabal set out to fit up an innocent man with MeToo-inspired fake sexual assault allegations, high on fake wannabe-American giddy oestrogenerated ‘believe women’ wave that came from that clearly-necessary-but-flawed movement. So she tries to get him sent down but it backfires.

    Then she doubles down by using Rape Crisis Scotland as a disgusting political mouthpiece to spit on Alex Salmond in public, when an organisation like that should be totally apolitical, government funding or not. The she goes after people like Mark Hirst, using the ‘we’re poor women scared by an innocent comment made by somebody we don’t like’ angle. Again, it doesn’t work. Craig Murray is currently getting attacked for supposedly printing information that could help identify the aphabet curs. Who are disgustingly allowed to keep attacking their intended victim with impunity from behind their cold-blooded shield of slanderous anonymity.

    So let’s see here, on the feminism front. Women who have been genuinely sexually assaulted can see:

    That any allegations they do not want can be taken to the police against their wishes.

    The organisation they would potentially choose to help them during a traumatic time will use them as political pawns, if need be, in very public, dubious cases. If they are Salmond supporters they will now despise this institution. Whatever their political affiliation, this will, tragically, undoubtedly put some women off from going for help. The Sturgeon cabal have only themselves to blame for this vile (stomach) turn of events, despite their haughty ironic sniffy bleatings to the contrary.

    The manager of Rape Crisis Forth Valley is a trans woman, who talks in the press about how to keep their job ‘fun.’

    Also:

    Women can see that Sturgeon, with her quixotic, self-damaging obsession with minority sexual rights, wants to let men into women’s changing spaces. This does not sit well with most women.

    Women can see that Sturgeon has used other women to try and fit up a man. Women who do not hate men do not like or appreciate this.

    Women can see the damage that has been doing to the political and legal systems of Scotland by a rogue First Minister, Scotland’s first ever woman in the position. They have been given the worst possible example of a trailblazer in the field.

    We all can see how disgustingly Joanna Cherry and Joan MacAlpine (especially Cherry) have been treated by a vindictive, vicious FM who lashes out in paranoia to destroy potential competitors for her job.

    Women can see that Ms. Sturgeon and her misandristic, sycophantic, sociopathic, careerist cult cohorts have no time or affection for men. Looking to the men in their own lives, their husbands and sons and extended family members, they recoil in revulsion, not seeing their own views reflected in the sociopathic, minority-pandering tunnel vision obsessions of the ‘gayest parliament in the world.’

    We can all see and hear the lies, more of them every day, and see what way Sturgeon and her cabal are heading. We can also see how much damage they have done to Scotland, and to the cause of independence.

    Like I said, one of the strangest feminists who has ever walked the planet. Couldn’t have been more damaging to women’s rights, and the career woman image in general, if she had tried.

    Tragic, just tragic, and utterly disgusting and disgraceful.

    Only in Scotland.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Talking about Sturgeon and the coterie doubling down has anyone noticed the recent flurry of puerile online selfie photographs with Sturgeon proclaiming that… ‘ I stand with Nicola ‘

      Yep, that’s the answer to a party in chaos, la la land useless selfies with a meaningless tag line.

      Indeed one local MP’s has done this. And this is despite him being made fully aware of the huge concerns within and across constituencies about things like collapsing member support, wide spread concerns about women fearing the loss of safe space, GRA and HCA being unpopular, the NEC continuing to implement policies not mandated by Conference, and many other issues.

      And this is the response. A banal online tag line Twitter feed ………. la, la, la, la.

      Isn’t it truly great when one thinks one has a God given right to paid sinecure delivering nothing, beholden to no one, save a mushroom public who will grant them a comfortable living. Somehow I don’t think so. The arrogance of thinking the wider public outside the bubble don’t know Jack will be the absolute undoing of any politician who thinks so. Labour found that out.

      Alex Salmond at the Enquiry on Friday shone like a beacon. By comparison the cult of Sturgeon, it’s inaction, it’s foul behaviours are all now clear for all to see. But change is coming. Make no mistake about that. And no amount of puerile selfies is going to stop it.

      The days of the comfortable careerists whose behaviours are foul is coming to an end. Salmon’s performance on Friday showed us exactly why and independence is coming. We are getting back on track.

      Liked by 3 people

  28. Oh and one last point if I may on Jim Sillars letter of the 28th.

    His initial letter as we all know was written to the Permanent Secretary. But as we all also it was responded to near immediately not by the Permanent Secretary, but by Nicola Sturgeon herself.

    Quite quite incredible, because aside of issues very carefully responded to by Jim, isn’t it truly incredible that the First Minister took it upon herself to react and respond in the way she did. Jim’s comment about it maybe having been wiser for her to have taken a little more time to consider the substance of his complaint is certainly no understatement.

    For me, Sturgeon’s response brings into sharp focus an individual fully prepared to abuse her position lashing out in total and utter disregard of statutory and constitutional obligations and mores. An individual utterly predisposed to being an autocratic law breaker as opposed to a law maker.

    Maladministration and abuse in power. And yes a liar too, or is it just a forgetful person when found out. First Minister Sturgeon wrote the book on it. And Jim Sillars has just exposed this again.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. iamsoccerdoc, your analysis falls at the first hurdle:

    “The behaviour they complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct, and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality.”

    The jury has no expertise and consequently no say on whether an act is criminal. The jury merely has to decide whether the act was committed by the accused. The determination of criminality of the alleged act is performed essentially by the police and supported by the prosecution service as a major factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Finally, having heard the prosecution case the judge may dismiss the defendant ifit is deemed there is no case to answer and a valid ground would be that nothing criminal has been presented.
    Juries concentrate solely on the facts not the law and therefore do not adjudicate on the criminality of the actions. A jury acquittal indicates that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant committed the crime.
    Therefore, while you in the privacy of your home may opine that the jury got it wrong in a particular case, it is heinous for the first minister to suggest that in public.
    There is little need to further go into the evidence produced by defence witnesses flatly contradicting some of the complainants accounts and logically the jury decided which witnesses were lying. Thus not guilt in at least some charges was because the jury believed that the alleged events did not take place.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Most men, and certainly most women too would I suspect agree that support and protections are needed when women proceed to make complaints about sexual abuse. The right to anonymity being one of these protections.

    However, when someone is acquitted of not one but thirteen charges now exposed to have been predicated on the most concerning of backgrounds where there is prima face evidence of malicious collusion to bring charges then most people, especially when a cloak of legal redaction is in place, become very concerned about the process of justice.

    Such behaviours are no good for anyone. Certainly not for the accused, and certainly not for the concept of providing support to women who need support and protection. That the evidence emerging, and bitterly fought to be kept secret, is exposing actions and intent most malign, and from people in the First Minister’s most intimate of circles, it is truly no wonder that this week the First Minister may finally be forced to stand down, along with many of those beside her.

    This to use the vernacular has been a dirty filthy business and an absolute stain on the reputation of Scotland, it’s First Minister and many of her closest circle of parliamentary colleagues, advisers, and senior party officials.

    But, and this is a good thing, hard as it may seem, but people’s eyes have been opened to the co-ordinated abuse of power and the absolute concomitant co-ordinated resistance to concealing it. But having had their eyes opened, and more is yet to be revealed, people will be more alert to ensuring that similar criminal behaviours do not ever occur again.

    Corruption at the heart and process of government can never under any circumstances be acceptable. This has been a long hard struggle.

    Liked by 4 people

  31. I think she might well be sailing close to the wind in answering complaints about her directly. Anyone in public life or business knows that you refer the complaint to a third party. Answering it yourself is patent nonsense. An individual cannot address a complaint about themselves objectively.

    Get her out of office asap. She is out of control.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.