Letters: Sturgeon’s credibility is crumbling before our eyes

If the behaviour of Mr Salmond was causing embarrassment in the corridors of Holyrood power, then that might explain the story doing the rounds that it was advisable for women not to be on their own in his residence in the late evening. However, there does not seem to be any official corroboration of that story as yet.

There is, on the other hand, abroad the belief that the former First Minister was someone who threw his weight about and felt untouchable

Now he is in the position of crossing swords with his former protegée and that could prove to be the undoing of both, with the fallout doing serious harm to the SNP’s’ electoral prospects next year, if the party falls into disarray as a result of this inquiry.

Ms Sturgeon may well try to excuse the discrepancy about when she first heard about the inquiry into Mr Salmond’s conduct by resorting to the time-honoured lawyerly trick of falling upon semantics to excuse herself.

If Mr Salmond has decided that revenge is a dish best served cold, then those in his sights will be in for an uncomfortable time, though you must wonder whether in his thirst for revenge he has factored in that he could pull the whole temple of the SNP project down to satisfy his bruised and battered ego.

Until the whole truth is put on the table and has come to judgment, only then will we find out the true extent of the damage done to the party and to Ms Sturgeon’s integrity, both of which are currently crumbling before our eyes.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

HOW often have we heard Nicola Sturgeon use the words “open and transparent”? How often have I written letters to the newspapers asking when she would start walking the walk rather than just talking the talk? Too many times to mention.

And yet here we go again. The First Minister tell us that she did not know about the Alex Salmond allegations until he informed her himself in April 2018, yet yesterday under oath Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary told the inquiry she informed Ms Sturgeon about allegations in November 2017.

Can Ms Sturgeon distinguish between the truth and lies? Does she actually not know she’s doing it or does she think she will get away with it?

Either way, don’t claim to be open and transparent when you keep getting caught out being deceptive.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

ANYONE who may be influenced by the attempts of some to imply that the jury got it wrong in the criminal trial of Alex Salmond should consider something given scant attention (deliberately or otherwise) by those frustrated by the verdict – the unique position of the jury.

The women giving evidence against Alex Salmond were shielded from public view. Journalists attending could not see them. In a trial, hearing is not the same thing as hearing and seeing. The jury could hear and see them under cross-examination when the defence sought to test their credibility. It was from that unique position that the jury (according to one legal observer I spoke to, one of the most assiduous seen in a court), with a majority of women on it, decided 13 times that Mr Salmond should be acquitted.

There is an aspect of the trial proceedings that is troubling, and raises the question that while the trial itself was fair, was it the fairest Mr Salmond was entitled to? The result of two preliminary hearings prohibited his defence from advancing, in the trial, evidence of a conspiracy, forcing his defence counsel to go as near as he dare on those grounds, by using the euphemism “it stinks”. I am, of course, not aware of whether the jury agreed that the case against him stank, nor am I aware of whether the jury accepted Mr Salmond’s own evidence when he described the allegations against him by certain women from within the nationalist movement as “fabrications”. But the jury obviously believed part or whole of the defence case, and/or disbelieved part or whole of the prosecution witnesses, to reach its verdict. It is a matter for regret, and shame on some, that attempts to re-trial Alex Salmond continue.

Jim Sillars, Edinburgh EH9.

HAVING watched BBC2’s recent offering, The Trial of Alex Salmond, and read Alison Rowat’s subsequent review (“Verdict on TV account of Salmond trial? Guilty of unfairness”, The Herald, August 18) her analysis exposes the programme’s many weaknesses.

In the absence of a silver bullet, the production took aim with a scattergun, original facts and fresh revelations in short supply, preferring comment / opinion / speculation from senior BBC journalists seemingly hunting as a pack.

The editorial brief appeared a crude attempt to recreate the trial / outcome programme commissioners had wished for; if accurate, that’s shameful, deceitful and duplicitous, BBC News yet again peddling a heavily distorted Scottish perspective.

Overpopulated with a blizzard of talking heads, many with a distinctly tangential connection with the case, some with axes to grind, quantity took precedence over quality.

Meanwhile, several BBC journalists, led by the hitherto irreproachable Kirsty Wark, whose husband, Alan Clements is a director of the loss-making Two Rivers production company – less than two years old yet commissioned to make this potentially important film – appeared to dispense with any semblance of balance, fairness, transparency or editorial integrity.

BBC News Scotland Editor Sarah Smith even ventured during what was quite probably a licence-fee funded mid-trial lunch that Mr Salmond was “a really diminished figure,” 100% personal observation / interpretation, based on what information, source or qualified knowledge?

Sadly, the programme represented a genre no longer entirely unexpected from the national broadcaster we are all obligated to pay for; in fact, such unsubtle content has become the corporation’s stock-in-trade in Scotland, seemingly in step with London’s increasingly worried power brokers and not what now appears to be a majority of its Scottish financiers.

For Ms Wark, that her plaintive cry from the media scrum as the former first minister ended his pre-prepared statement, “Alex Salmond, Alex Salmond, Kirsty Wark, BBC,” went ignored and unanswered, was telling; neither name now carries the weight and respect they once might have and programmes like this simply accelerate that downward trend.

Mike Wilson, Longniddry.

I AM rather surprised that Peter Russell (Letters, August 19) considers Kenny MacAskill’s allegations of “conspiracy” during The Trial of Alex Salmond should be “investigated as a matter of urgency by the Crown authorities, and if they are found to be of substance, the alleged perpetrators must be charged and put on trial accordingly”. Conspiracy, as I am sure Mr Russell is well aware, would only come to the attention of the Crown authorities if the conspiracy’s purpose was unlawful (for example, to assault or rob the intended victim). Political plotting (a term not quite as headline-grabbing as conspiracy) is pretty much core to almost any political party. As, I believe, a long-time member of the Labour Party, I would be surprised if Mr Russell was not familiar (even if not personally involved) in such machinations.

The charges against Alex Salmond were though a first-class opportunity for the Unionist parties to seek to make political capital against not just Mr Salmond, but the First Minister too, the SNP and indeed the entire independence movement. However, as Isobel Lindsay points out in her excellent letter (August 19), “the problem was that the script got messed up in the middle of the project. The pesky jury, which had a majority of women, had undermined their plan by daring to find Mr Salmond not guilty.”

Hence we can expect any opportunity to rescue some political capital from this major disappointment for the Unionist faction will be taken, though not from anything to do with appropriate and respectable behaviour, but from pure political expedience and opportunism, which like “conspiracy” is core to the political trade.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

CLEARLY Iain Gunn (Letters, August 18) has been totally duped by Nicola Sturgeon’s foolish, theoretical concept for the success of an independent Scotland. As Ms Sturgeon stated in September 2016, “the answer“ he states astonishingly, “is not to be found in balance sheets or economic statistics.” “The grievance lies”......”Scotland has voted decisively against Brexit”– Scotland’s future based on “grievance”?

In addition to being morally indefensible in stating that independence is more important than anything else in Scotland, Mr Gunn and his separatist friends completely refuse to accept the democratic will of “the people of Scotland”. “The people of Scotland” democratically and decisively voted in 2014 to remain part of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom subsequently voted to leave the European Union, including approximately one-third of SNP voters. Mr Gunn wants an independent Scotland to break all ties with Westminster then hand it all over to be governed by Brussels – a strange, confused concept of “independence” to me.

Douglas Cowe, Newmachar.

REV Dr Robert Anderson suggests (Letters, August 18) that Nicola Sturgeon should limit the press conferences to one per week.

With the large drop in the number of people attending churches in Scotland, I would have thought that the reverend gentleman would have understood more than anyone that delivering your message only once a week has a poor success rate.

Duncan Stirling, Cardross.

I WOULD like to know the cost incurred by the BBC in producing the daily Nicola Sturgeon Show. No doubt my new licence fee, due shortly, will be used to assist payment of this daily bore. Thanks for nothing.

Alastair Ross, Killearn.

Read more: Salmond Inquiry: Leslie Evans reported to UK civil service over 'refusal' to answer key question