Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 10
Discussion
t outgoing...Murdo Fraser giving it a square go now regarding the meetings of 29th March versus 2nd April.
Sturgeon blustering as usual on the responses, obfuscating on who said what, where, when, who?
Clerks to check exact details from Mr Salmond's transcripts. I'll give her this, she plays a mean game in deflection.
There was a 3rd person in the room on 29th March, from whom the committee could 'take evidence'.
Turns out the meeting on 2nd April was considered to be a 'party personal' matter. It turned out to be government matter, but Sturgeon decided that telling anyone in government about it would have undermined the process of confidentiality (eh?). Therefore, Murrell had based his judgement of the meeting on Sturgeon's own written evidence, and assumed the reason for the meeting.
Sturgeon proceeds to tie herself up in knots.
She is basing her entire defence on the fact that those who corroborate Mr Salmond's statement regarding the meetings, were not directly involved in the meetings, and still stands by the assertion that there is zero evidence against her. Duncan Hamilton & Kevin Pringle's contemporaneous statements are apparently based on supposition and assertion, and therefore should be dismissed.
The phrases for today have been, thus far -
I will not sit here and...
I have no recollection of...
To the best of my recollection/memory...
That was not my decision...
I'm struggling to remember...
I cannot speak for...
It's been a while since I practised law, but...
I can only speak from my own experience...
Sturgeon blustering as usual on the responses, obfuscating on who said what, where, when, who?
Clerks to check exact details from Mr Salmond's transcripts. I'll give her this, she plays a mean game in deflection.
There was a 3rd person in the room on 29th March, from whom the committee could 'take evidence'.
Turns out the meeting on 2nd April was considered to be a 'party personal' matter. It turned out to be government matter, but Sturgeon decided that telling anyone in government about it would have undermined the process of confidentiality (eh?). Therefore, Murrell had based his judgement of the meeting on Sturgeon's own written evidence, and assumed the reason for the meeting.
Sturgeon proceeds to tie herself up in knots.
She is basing her entire defence on the fact that those who corroborate Mr Salmond's statement regarding the meetings, were not directly involved in the meetings, and still stands by the assertion that there is zero evidence against her. Duncan Hamilton & Kevin Pringle's contemporaneous statements are apparently based on supposition and assertion, and therefore should be dismissed.
The phrases for today have been, thus far -
I will not sit here and...
I have no recollection of...
To the best of my recollection/memory...
- Nervous laugh*
That was not my decision...
I'm struggling to remember...
I cannot speak for...
It's been a while since I practised law, but...
I can only speak from my own experience...
- Blink blink blink blink*
Wings is not holding back -
"We’re only two-thirds of the way through Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence to the Fabiani inquiry, and there’s probably not much point in expressing our opinion on it because you could almost certainly have guessed what it was going to be. The First Minister has been disingenuous, evasive, defensive and at times outright dishonest.
But although we were expecting all of that, this truly shocked us:
That’s the First Minister flatly stating, under oath, that even now she doesn’t know who all the complainers are. And readers can make their own minds up about how credible a claim that is. But I can tell you this:
I know who they all are.
Craig Murray knows who they all are.
Every journalist who covered the trial knows who they all are.
(And we can reasonably assume their editors also know who they all are.)
In fact pretty much everyone who’s in any way connected to Scottish politics knows the identity of every single one of these women. If you’re willing to believe that we all do but Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t, well, fair enough. But also, I’m a Nigerian prince and I’d like to pass several million pounds through your bank account.*
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-biggest-lie-ever...
"We’re only two-thirds of the way through Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence to the Fabiani inquiry, and there’s probably not much point in expressing our opinion on it because you could almost certainly have guessed what it was going to be. The First Minister has been disingenuous, evasive, defensive and at times outright dishonest.
But although we were expecting all of that, this truly shocked us:
That’s the First Minister flatly stating, under oath, that even now she doesn’t know who all the complainers are. And readers can make their own minds up about how credible a claim that is. But I can tell you this:
I know who they all are.
Craig Murray knows who they all are.
Every journalist who covered the trial knows who they all are.
(And we can reasonably assume their editors also know who they all are.)
In fact pretty much everyone who’s in any way connected to Scottish politics knows the identity of every single one of these women. If you’re willing to believe that we all do but Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t, well, fair enough. But also, I’m a Nigerian prince and I’d like to pass several million pounds through your bank account.*
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-biggest-lie-ever...
Jackie Baillie. Were you aware of prior meetings before 29th March?
NS - There are legal precedents that prevent me answering that.
JB - There are no legal precedents that prevent you answering if you were aware of these meetings.
NS - I was not aware, not to the best of my knowledge, no.
Burn. NS is slipping into the snappy, angry voice territory. She's getting riled about this line of questioning.
NS - I have not seen Geoff Aberdein's account.
JB - It was given under oath in court.
NS - I was not in the court.
JB - It was widely reported in the media...
NS - I saw media reports that were purported to be his submission, it may not have been his submission, therefore I have not seen it directly.
More waffle before the Convenor shut it down. An amazing exchange.
JB - 2nd April meeting, why would you have said in advance that you were meeting with Mr Salmond to clear his name, if you didn't know what he was needing to clear his name of?
NS - That's an amazing leap of logic there.
JB - were you there as First Minister or party leader?
NS - I was at that time Alec's friend, and wanted to meet on a party/personal basis. Had I intervened I would have done so as First Minister.
JB - why did you not report it to the Civil Service?
NS - My decisions were not based on the classification of the meeting. I think if I had reported it, I would have risked the impartiality of the process.
JB - There are no exemptions to the Ministerial Code.
NS - There are legal precedents that prevent me answering that.
JB - There are no legal precedents that prevent you answering if you were aware of these meetings.
NS - I was not aware, not to the best of my knowledge, no.
Burn. NS is slipping into the snappy, angry voice territory. She's getting riled about this line of questioning.
NS - I have not seen Geoff Aberdein's account.
JB - It was given under oath in court.
NS - I was not in the court.
JB - It was widely reported in the media...
NS - I saw media reports that were purported to be his submission, it may not have been his submission, therefore I have not seen it directly.
More waffle before the Convenor shut it down. An amazing exchange.
JB - 2nd April meeting, why would you have said in advance that you were meeting with Mr Salmond to clear his name, if you didn't know what he was needing to clear his name of?
NS - That's an amazing leap of logic there.
JB - were you there as First Minister or party leader?
NS - I was at that time Alec's friend, and wanted to meet on a party/personal basis. Had I intervened I would have done so as First Minister.
JB - why did you not report it to the Civil Service?
NS - My decisions were not based on the classification of the meeting. I think if I had reported it, I would have risked the impartiality of the process.
JB - There are no exemptions to the Ministerial Code.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff