Hold The SNP Relish, SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon delivers a completely lacklustre performance at the Alex Salmond Inquiry, stuttering, falling to answer questions properly, repeatedly saying, 'I can't recall', it remind me of sitting on a jury watching someone trying to escape justice, the cherry on the cake however was her apparently unfounded allegation that Alex Salmond told her that he used a Scottish Government’s account on Flickr to find a complainer, this sounded like a manufactured answer to cover for a government employee very close to her, who is now subject of an official complaint

Dear All 

Did you watch SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon give her 'story' at the Salmond Inquiry? If you did you would have realised that the boast that Nicola Sturgeon 'relished' the chance to give evidence was palatable drivel. Her 'evidence' if it could be called that could best be summed up as: 

"I don't agree with that characterisation."

"I don't recall."

"That is not my recollection." 

She wasn't in my opinion there to give evidence, she was there, so she could say she appeared there. 

I would like to take you back to what Sturgeon did say, when asked about the Geoff Aberdein meeting on the 29th March, she said she forgot about it. That's her story, apparently being told that her mentor and friend being accused of sexual misconduct simply slipped her mind. 

I don't believe that! 

Another thing which I don't believe which you should focus in on is when Nicola Sturgeon said that Alex Salmond worked out the identity of one of the civil servants who accused him of sexual misconduct by trawling social media. 

Why is Nicola Sturgeon making this claim now? 

Well, the timing is rather suspicious because it has been revealed by Geoff Aberdein, Salmond's former Chief of Staff that he was given the name of an accuser at a meeting. Aberdein then convey this information to other people, including Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton QC. So, here we have Nicola Sturgeon whose memory is apparently so bad that she can't remember an explosive meeting about sexual misconduct of her alleged friend and mentor of 30 years, but suddenly her memory dramatically improves to save someone very close to her. Sturgeon said Alex Salmond knew the identity of one of the two women who raised a formal complaint against him by checking the Scottish Government’s account on the image-sharing website Flickr, where official photographs are uploaded. 

To me, that sounds entirely un-plausible. Why un-plausible? You have to look at Sturgeon's track record, this is a woman who has a history of claiming to know nothing about nothing, whether it be in government or as the local MSP in Glasgow Southside. We are to be expected all of a sudden, to swallow a new narrative that she is morphed into Ellery Queen, ace detective? 

So, here is a few questions. 

1/ How did Alex Salmond know the date, time and place of the alleged incident?

2/ How did Alex Salmond know to look at the Scottish Government’s account on Flickr?

3/ Are we to believe that Geoff Aberdein is a liar?

4/ Are we to believe that Kevin Pringle, former SNP Comms guy is a liar?

5/ Are we to believe that Duncan Hamilton QC, former SNP MSP is a liar?

6/ Are we to believe that Geoff Aberdein lied to Pringle and Hamilton, his close friends? 

Either Sturgeon's close pal told Aberdein or she didn't. If that is the case, then is Sturgeon really saying that Salmond, Aberdein, Pringle and Hamilton are involved in a separate conspiracy to bring down a Scottish Government official? To me this smacks of something which rings rather hollow, it seems like a manufactured answer which is beyond Sturgeon's mental capacity. 

So, this begs the question, if she didn't think this up, who did? 

Like in any good mystery, you have to pick your way through the tsunami of information, and what you are looking for, is stepping stones to the truth. In the case of Sturgeon's answer to explain away how Alex Salmond knew the identity of a complainer, it flags up and strongly suggests that he wasn't originally told. After all if he had been told previously, why would he have to look at a Scottish Government’s account on Flickr? Also if he was going to find out later on in the official complaint, why bother? Do you see how Nicola Sturgeon's answer walked backwards doesn't gel? 

Today's session by Nicola Sturgeon was as expected, we were to be told nothing by an extremely defensive individual. I expect that she probably thought her 'story' session was a success. But it wasn't really, this was billed as Sturgeon having her say, this was supposed to be her relishing to take part, to explain away every concern why there wasn't a conspiracy against Alex Salmond. To cast doubt back onto Salmond, but in the end, the doubts never left Sturgeon and her secret cabal. If Sturgeon thought she had save herself, and her pal who allegedly gave Geoff Aberdein the name of a complainer, she thought wrong. And it seems that any hope of a victory celebration will be short lived. Alex Salmond has lodged a formal complaint about an official who is alleged to have disclosed the name of a woman who made claims against him. 

Time for a quote from Sturgeon's husband, Peter Murrell; 

"TBH [to be honest] the more fronts he is having to firefight on the better for all complainers." 

It seems that now the more fronts Nicola Sturgeon is having to firefight on the better for Salmond. Of course using the same tactics used against you isn't uncommon, and in a sense it has a delicious irony to it. A spokesman for Alex Salmond said; 

"Mr Salmond has lodged a formal complaint with the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government under the civil service code, on the conduct of the official who is alleged to have breached civil service rules, by disclosing the name of a complainant in the Scottish Government process." 

This is a bit like add straws onto the back of a camel until it breaks, I would suggest that Nicola Sturgeon's pal, or to given her a generic title, Scottish Government employee will rune the day she allegedly opened her mouth. As to the Sturgeon pre-defence, well that doesn't explain away to anyone satisfaction Aberdein's testimony on oath. Nor does it explain away the testimony of Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton QC. Sturgeon's answer just doesn't sound credible in any fashion. If that is the best she and presumably her Team can come up with, it also explodes another myth of the alleged 'smartness' of Sturgeon. For years the media played along with the myth that Sturgeon was somehow more canny a politician, but the truth is she isn't smart and she is no leader. 

So, if you are still with me on this, let's remember what Sturgeon's actual words were: 

“Alex Salmond was open with me about the identity of one complainant, because he knew. He knew about the identity of one complainant because he knew about the incident, because he had apologised to the person concerned. I can’t recall if the name of the other complainant was shared openly on April 2. He also knew the identity of that complainant because I remember him talking about how he had gone through the Scottish Government Flickr account to find out who had been with him on particular days. He knew the identity of both complainants, in one respect because he knew about the incident and in the other respect through his own investigations.” 

I wasn't there, I would put a bet on what Sturgeon said above wasn't said in the presence of Geoff Aberdein, Duncan Hamilton QC and Sturgeon's Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd at Nicola Sturgeon's home on the 2nd April 2018. Sturgeon is inviting people to either believe her or Salmond, because she already knows she doesn't have evidence to back up her allegation. I would also bet that there was no contemporaneous evidence to support Nicola Sturgeon's version. Stay tuned however to someone or small group who may suddenly appear to testify if they were allegedly told about what Salmond allegedly said. Maybe either Sturgeon or Lloyd told someone in passing and then everyone forgot about that, and after today's hearing, they will come forward, as if by a miracle. Do you know the problem with lying is? The problem is that liars have to keep changing their story because evidence emerges that either disproves the lie or cast serious doubt on it. How many Scottish Government officials and others backing Sturgeon have had to correct false testimony? 

In the Salmond case, the issue of Woman H was flagged, she made a claim of being a victim of attempted rape by Salmond. On the night in question, no witness remembers see her at Bute House on the day, there is no log of her entering the building and no CCTV of being in the building. This leads some people to believe that a charge of perjury should be made against her by the Crown Office. The Crown Office being corrupt has done nothing about this, and as we have seen by the appearance of the Lord Advocate at the Salmond Inquiry, this guy needs sacked. 

Contrast Nicola Sturgeon's evidence and Alex Salmond's evidence and their appearances side by side, who do you think appears credible? I have seen no one from Sturgeon's cabal who even looks remotely credible in answers or appearance. And as far as I am aware, no one from Salmond's side seems remotely un-credible, far from it. Team Salmond and Salmond himself seem totally at easy and poised in what they state as evidence and how they conduct themselves. People who tell the truth, don't have to change their story, like a river, the truth flows free and fast, can the analogy be applied to Nicola Sturgeon stuttering her way through that session answering the questions at the Salmond Inquiry? 

I think not!

Finally, Nicola Sturgeon said:

“I had no motive, intention, desire to get Alex Salmond.”

In police investigations, they look for three things, means, motive and opportunity.

1/ Sturgeon had the means, the Scottish Government.

2/ She could it be argued had the motive, Salmond was a threat to her leadership, if she goes down, so does every one of her team in status.

3/ She had the opportunity, she ultimately controlled the levers of powers which worked illegally against Alex Salmond, and as we know, evidence of meetings was destroyed by Leslie Evans.

Why don't you make your own mind up, and ask yourself, if you were on a jury would find against her?

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University