Nicola Sturgeon thinks that Alex Salmond is a
fantasist living in an alternative reality. It was his behaviour towards women that led to
his going to court rather than a conspiracy orchestrated by her. She thinks
there is no evidence whatsoever that she did anything wrong. It is quite clear
that she believes that Salmond is a liar lucky to be acquitted as she
fundamentally believes the women who accused him of wrongdoing.
I didn’t intend to watch all of Alex Salmond’s
testimony before the Inquiry, but even though it started slowly, I found
something compelling about it and watched to the end. I had forgotten what an
impressive figure Alex Salmond could be. For six hours he answered every
question in detail. He was never flustered. He provided detailed answers and
provided logical arguments. He was moderate and far from vengeful. His
criticism of Sturgeon was measured and restrained. He was able to put everything
he said into a moral context that went beyond politics. He was massively
impressive, and I believed every word he said.
The Committee that questioned him was less than
impressive. Only Murdo Fraser and Jackie Baillie provided useful questions. The
SNP members were more interested in protecting Sturgeon than finding out the
truth. The others struggled to organise their own thoughts and sentences.
Ludicrously the Lib Dem Alex Cole-Hamilton appeared to be intent on coming to
the rescue of Sturgeon as if he couldn’t bear to see a fellow Remainer damaged.
Linda Fabiani the Convener allowed much waffle and tried to prevent some truth
from emerging but was fairer to Salmond than might have been expected.
Alex Salmond lives not far from me and I know him very
slightly. I have always found him to be agreeable on the rare occasions that we
have met by chance in a supermarket queue or on the street. I have always
disliked his politics, but I have never disliked the man. He has something of
the Rob Roy about him. A gambler. A rogue. But a human being too. I hear he has
a bit of temper, but he is not a man I fear. If Scotland had become
independent in 2014 and Salmond had emerged as its first leader, it would not
be like now. I campaigned against Salmond with everything I had in 2014, but
not because I feared him, not because I questioned his intentions or his
morality. I fear Nicola Sturgeon.
Sturgeon is a better politician than Salmond. She
campaigns to those who initially disagree with her and has won over more of the
Scottish electorate than Salmond ever did or perhaps could, but it is not for
this reason that I fear her. What worries me is that I see no limit to what she
is capable of doing. On the surface she has an appealing manner that can win
over a large TV audience who believe her to be capable and kind, but under this,
glimpses of the real Sturgeon sometimes emerge. When thwarted her anger is
without limit. This plus her unlimited ambition made her capable of trying to
send Salmond to jail. This scares me.
Alex Salmond like Jim Sillars is a basically decent
man. I disagree with Scottish independence, but under the leadership of either
we would not have to fear what we fear now under Sturgeon. Salmond and Sillars
would be decent, moral beings. It might turn out, as I believe, that
independence would be a mistake, but it wouldn’t be because of their intentions.
What I fear about Sturgeon is that her head has been turned by the adulation
she has received. She has begun to believe that anything is justified for the
cause of independence and her mission to deliver it. I believe that she is capable
of trying to put an innocent man in jail and if she is capable of doing this,
she is capable of doing anything. This I fear above everything else.
A new policy was designed by civil servants to
investigate former ministers, but the only one that it was designed to get was
Alex Salmond. We are supposed to believe that Sturgeon knew nothing about this
because it happened months before she was supposed to have found out about
allegations about Salmond’s behaviour. Can
you imagine an investigation into Salmond happening without Sturgeon’s consent?
Would a civil servant risk it without asking?
The allegations against Mr Salmond increase. There is
something of a recruitment drive. But they don’t want to go to the police. They
are forced to go despite their wishes. But somehow, we are supposed to believe
that there is no conspiracy against Mr Salmond. Perhaps it all happened by
chance.
There is a court case and nine witnesses testify that
Mr Salmond assaulted them, but the jury disbelieves them. It is unreasonable
for a jury to reject the testimony of nine women unless it finds they lack
credibility. The defence must have provided something that made the jury doubt
the testimony. One explanation is that the jury thought there was a conspiracy
against Mr Salmond.
I found Mr Salmond’s testimony to be convincing. He
was not a fantasist living in an alternative reality. He did not come across as
a liar. Or at least he came across as a human being who tells the occasional
lie as we all do.
I’ve seen through Sturgeon. When threatened as she has
lately been by Mr Salmond, she has shown herself to be willing to lash out. We
don’t know what happened in 2017 or 2018, but I am left to wonder whether
Sturgeon felt herself threatened by Salmond then too. Will no one rid me of this
turbulent Salmond, I can imagine her crying out in the presence of certain
people loyal to her. From there it escalated. Witnesses came forward. Alex
Salmond did this. They all gossiped together
the witnesses and those who encouraged them. It began to resemble the Crucible.
Witches were discovered in Bute House. A stake was readied. But Nicola Sturgeon
knew nothing, even though she knew everyone involved and even though the witch
was the man who had put her where she was. She had seen nothing when Salmond
was supposed to have been assaulting women, though she was in Bute House every
day. No whisper of gossip had reached her about the events or the
investigation. But this is the same Nicola Sturgeon who is so in control that
she and she alone appears on TV daily for the Covid briefing and who barely
allows a deputy to eclipse her spot in the limelight.
The Salmond trial was Hamlet without Ophelia. Where was
Sturgeon? It had nothing to do with her. But when Salmond was acquitted it
gradually got closer and the mood changed from cooperation with the Inquiry to
cover up. But why go to desperate lengths to prevent the Inquiry getting all
the evidence, if there is nothing to hide? If there were no conspiracy and if
Sturgeon were not involved in it, the Scottish Government and the civil servant
witnesses who appeared before it would have been candid and open about their
mistakes. But everyone connected with Sturgeon including the SNP MSPs on the Committee
fear the truth coming out. This is why portions of the evidence that has been
redacted are about Sturgeon. It is she who is being protected not the anonymity
of the trial witnesses.
As her popularity has increased with daily briefings
the evidence against Sturgeon has been building up. The greatest evidence of
all has been her apparent fight to prevent this evidence being evaluated by the
Committee. If you have nothing to hide Nicola Sturgeon, why are you hiding? It
is the act of hiding that is the evidence of the conspiracy.
Convincing as he is Mr Salmond is saying I will
convince you even more if you let me present all of the evidence. This is
neither the action of a liar nor a fantasist. It is the action of someone
convinced that he is in possession of the truth, willing and able to show it. This
no doubt is what convinced the jury too.
Sturgeon is hiding, not Salmond. It is this that
convinces me that it is she that is the liar. Liars must resign. Resign Sturgeon.
