The Woman without a Shred of Decency and Honour, Angry bitter SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon accuses Labour MSP Jackie Baillie of being Alex Salmond's "chief spokesperson" by spreading misinformation, the truth is the SNP is rotten at the core, and it is “poisoning Scotland’s democratic institutions”, Sturgeon is willing to destroy everyone and everything including the SNP to escape responsibility, as Conservative Ruth Davidson says, "Is saving your own skin worth all the damage you’re doing?"

Dear All 

Former SNP Deputy Leader appears on TV in relation to the Alex Salmond scandal, at 83 years of age, Jim Sillars hasn't lost any of his mental capability. He is as sharp as a tack. I met him during the Brexit campaign at an event I organised in the Palace of Arts, he has a remarkable grasp of politics and is someone who is an engaging speaker. In my time, I have met some really engaging speakers, and Jim Sillars ranks up there will the likes of Gordon Brown and Alex Neil. They bring a style which educates and entertains you, they have the gift of craft of being able to interweave facts and personal experience. A good political talk should be like a good play, it should have pace, correct tempo and of course, a few funnies.

In an interview with the Scottish Sun, Jim Sillars said: 

“I for one, I’m a member of the party, I am not voting for them. I believe that there’s a fair degree of political corruption now loose inside the higher echelons of the SNP. And my conscience doesn’t allow me to vote for people I find highly dubious.”

If you have watching the news, other people have also sprung out the work to denounce what has been going on. The catch all phrase which best sums it up is #SNPCorruption. Jim Sillars is not alone, SNP MP's Kenny MacAskill and Angus MacNeil have also spoken out, only today, SNP MSP Alex Neil came right out and said that:

“If it was proven there was a conspiracy – everybody involved in the conspiracy I think would be getting their jotters.” 

You might say he was hedging his bets, but fact he has came out is as significant as others. You could if you were so minded use the term 'conspiracy', because it is a word in common usage which describes what happened to Alex Salmond. The Scottish Government led by Nicola Sturgeon deliberately tried to railroad him through and illegal process. And they knew they were trying to railroad him through an illegal process once it was told to them. There then followed a cover up after Salmond won his judicial review. From the attempt to stitch him up, that led to the criminal trial, because I suspect that the people involved panicked. This led to the 'hunt' for women to make allegations against Alex Salmond. The approach seem to be 'more the merrier' or to give it its legal name the moorov doctrine. The doctrine is based on multiple people who give evidence against an individual accused of a crime who don't have any connection. In the Salmond criminal trial, this method was used because the Crown Office thought that 'volume of evidence' would trump 'quality of evidence'. The Crown thought that so many charges would generate even a single conviction, thus those involved in the conspiracy against Alex Salmond would be safe, Alex Salmond would be destroyed and they would be off the hook, and their part covered up forever. 

But they didn't think this through, like the guy who keeps the hole, they just dug themselves in deeper. They didn't reckon on the jury, a jury most made up of women, who sat and listened to these women who occupied high positions in Scottish public life. The Crown Office failed to deliver for Nicola Sturgeon's SNP Government, the verdict she wanted. Since the Alex Salmond verdict, you may have noticed that: 

1/ The Crown Office hasn't gone back for a retrial, why is that?

2/ None of the 'alphabet women' have gone public, even although some people have worked out their identities and how close they are to Nicola Sturgeon.

3/ None of the 'alphabet women' have taken out a private prosecution.

4/ None of the 'alphabet women' have sued Alex Salmond.

5/ None of the  'alphabet women' have sued the Scottish Government. 

Does any of this make you sit and ponder? 

As Labour MSP Jackie Baillie said at First Minister's Questions (FMQs), the SNP is rotten at the core and “poisoning Scotland’s democratic institutions”. She is of course right, the SNP came up with a strategy which was to infiltrate and control power at all levels of public life either directly by joining groups or getting obedience. So, what do I men by all levels of public life? I mean they occupy seats in community councils, councils, NGOs, third sector charities, MSPs and Westminster. The SNP have formed a massive 'spad' army to watch the people in government departments, to watch and report disloyalty. I would say it's like Nazis Germany or Stalin's Russia, control by fear. Fear of loss, fear of losing their jobs by not being faithful to the regime run under Sturgeon. What the SNP are doing is simply to the work undertaken by Beria. Lavrentiy Beria is someone of historical interest during the second world war, his methods can be seen in how the SNP operate in Scotland, but Beria isn't a person who got away with his crimes. After a trial, he was shot through the forehead, regarded by Stalin as his 'Himmler', he was drunk on power and possibly mad. He was responsible for what was termed 'the purges'  in Russia, deemed later as an act of terrorism.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria   

Although Nicola Sturgeon and Co will never go as far as having anyone shot, there are many of the Scottish public and beyond who believe that Sturgeon wouldn't have any problem jailing an innocent man. In her recent party political broadcast on the BBC, which is a disgrace, she used the Covid 19 briefing to attack Alex Salmond again. Which brings us to Jim Sillars' letter to Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, and someone who doesn't have a future, Leslie Evans. And it appears she is someone who isn't bright enough to turn Queen's evidence and spill her guts. I am reminded of something said by Nicola Sturgeon's husband, Peter Murrell, wrote in a text: 

 “The more fronts he is having to firefight on the better for all complainers.”  

Now, it seems:

 “The more fronts Nicola Sturgeon is having to firefight on the better for all complainers, Alex Salmond, disgruntled SNP and indy members and the opposition party.” 

Here is the full Jim Sillars' letter and then I will get back to you at the bottom. 

"JIM SILLARS LODGES FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FIRST MINISTER 

25th. February 2021

Ms. Leslie Evans

Permanent Secretary

Scottish Government

St. Andrew’s House

Edinburgh EH1

Dear Ms. Evans, 

FIRST MINISTER IN BREACH OF THE MINISTERIAL CODE ON 24TH FEBRUARY 2021 

I wish to lodge a complaint of breaches  of the Ministerial Code by the First Minister on Wednesday 24th. February, 2021. The substance of the complaint, and the facts it is based upon, are set out below. 

As the complaint could be seen as being in the context of matters being examined by the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, to which you have given evidence, you may think it inappropriate for you to be the official dealing with this complaint. If that is so, then I request that the next person in seniority should take this as addressed to them.  I would like to be informed of who will deal with this complaint, should it not be you. 

In her daily press briefings on the pandemic, the First Minister has consistently refused to answer questions on issues other than Covid-19.  Yesterday, however, instead of refusing to respond to questions on matters irrelevant to the purpose of the press briefing on Covisd-19, she deliberately chose to do so. Not once, but five times.  It can be seen here: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/mOOOspr6/coronavirus-brefing-reaction-24022021. 

You will note “coronavirus briefing.”  The national broadcaster was in no doubt of the purpose of First Minister’s appearance. These briefings have all along had only one purpose. The timings show her response to questions which were asked as the briefing continued. I have had them  double-checked as to times: 

30.20 Question from James Matthew (SKY News)

First Minister spoke for 48 seconds on what can fairly be described as the Salmond issue.

32.57 Question from Peter Smith (ITV)

First Minister spoke for 5m 16secs on Salmond issue

52m 49scs Question from Simon Johnson (Daily Telegraph)

First Minister spoke for 1m 36scs on Salmond issue

1h. Question from  Michael Blackley (Daily Mail)

First Minister spoke for 52 seconds on Salmond issue

1h 02m “Question from Richard Percival (Daily Express)

First Minister spoke for 59 seconds on Salmond issue. 

In total, she spent over 9 minutes of a meeting called to inform the public, through the media, including BBC television,  of the government’s continuing action on the pandemic crisis, not to express her views on clearly  separate matters arising  from the Parliamentary Inquiry.  

Of course, the First Minister was not to know that the first question from James Matthew was not about Covid-19 and government policy in dealing with. But she did not, as on previous occasions, refuse to answer and re-state the purpose the briefing was convened for. Nor did she do that when the second question came from Peter Smith, and the others.  The only conclusion that can be drawn from her action from 30.20 on, points to it being no accident; a deliberate choice. 

When I state “the Salmond issue” above I mean what can be seen from the BBC iplayer – a sustained attack on Mr. Salmond on matters relevant to the Parliamentary Inquiry, but not remotely connected to a Covid briefing.  

The complaint is, therefore,  based on the attacks on Mr. Salmond in a forum that had been arranged by the Scottish Government  to inform the public on a subject, the pandemic, a matter of serious public concern, in which maximum publicity would be given to the words of the First Minister.  It is a gross breach of her duty to use that Government sponsored forum, for a public attack on Mr. Salmond in matters not related to the purpose of a briefing to which the media had been invited.  

I submit that it is a breach of the Ministerial Code to allow, and then use, a public health Covid briefing to launch an attack on Mr. Salmond in the context of matters arising from the Parliamentary Inquiry.  By her conduct as recorded by the BBC, she is in flagrant breach of the Clause 1 of the Code, and Clause 10 governing the conduct of Ministers and the Presentation  of Policy. 

It is not for me to question a decision by the First Minister to make a public attack on Mr. Salmond. But if she wished to do so, then she could have arranged a press conference on the subject, which would have been  the proper and legitimate forum in which to do so. Abusing the Government Covid briefing was neither proper or legitimate.  That is where  the Code has been breached. 

However, there are additional breaches of the Code which are quite extraordinary, unique in their gravity, and a matter of deep concern for all who understand the implications of what the First Minister said in those 9 minutes. 

During her attacks on Mr. Salmond she said: 

​“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 that the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen ​and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that”  

Unlike the First Minister, who did not attend Mr Salmond’s trial, the jury was there for every second. They saw Mr.  Salmond,  cross examined, precisely denying  that the alleged behaviour happened. The jury saw and heard prosecution witnesses under cross examination. The jury’s conclusion, with a majority of women on it, was to acquit Mr. Salmond.  If as the First Minister states the jury’s verdict means that the complaints they had before them in evidence did in fact happen, then the only logical conclusion you can draw from her words is that the jury was wrong in its verdict – 13 times.  

Those were weasel words employed by the First Minister, and any reasonable person would draw more than an inference from them that the jury was wrong. The First Clause of the Ministerial Code (1.1) states that “Scottish Ministers  are expected  to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds  the highest standards of propriety.” The First Minister’s comment on the trial verdict, breached those standards. 

I have been in public life for over 60 years, and in the course of it studied how heads of state and governments in the democracies have behaved in office. I cannot recall one single incident when the head of a government so egregiously questioned the verdict of a jury, or event thought it a proper and legitimate discharge of their duty to do so. 

It is vital to the health of a democracy that Government more than any other part of our society maintain a scrupulous distance between it and intervention, even post-trial intervention, in our criminal justice system. That is the standard reflected in Clause (1.1) of the Code. Clause 1.3 states, inter alia,  that Ministers “should uphold the administration of justice.”  The First Minister, knowingly, breached those parts of the Code with her comments on the trial.  

I submit that there is overwhelming evidence that on several counts the First Minister has engaged, deliberately, in grave breaches of the Ministerial Code.  

Jim  Sillars" 

Hi, glad you made it through, the key part for me is: 

​“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 that the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen ​and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that” 

Is Sturgeon actually saying that an attempted rape actually happened? To me, I am struggling to understand her warped mentality because there is no such thing as non criminal attempt rape. Rape is a criminal offence, attempted rape is a criminal offence, is Sturgeon saying that Alex Salmond is really guilty and that the jury just got it wrong? The jury got it wrong on all 13 charges? So, what were the charges because you need to understand them and then think over what Sturgeon has alleged. 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-court-case-charges-full-2441107  

Finally, Alex Salmond made a joke when asked about his meetings with David Cameron, he responded, 'he disnae call, he disnae write', it seems that there are plenty of people geared up to complain about Nicola Sturgeon and her dodgy corrupt government. You can understand why now the Nicola Sturgeon and SNP are shutting down political campaigning by opposition parties. Sturgeon doesn't want people on doorsteps talking about the corruption of her SNP government or the fact they tried to put an innocent man in prison. 

Ruth Davidson sums it up well when she said at FMQs: 

"Is saving your own skin worth all the damage you’re doing?" 

Apparently yes seems to be the answer, Sturgeon thinks she can ride out the storm, but she is mistaken, because its too late, people know what happened, people know the players, people know what they did, and that they did it while holding political office, and as part of Nicola Sturgeon's inner circle.

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University