PROFESSOR Ian Brown (Letters, March 31) is quite good at throwing his own dead cat around. He says the "core issue" of the Alex Salmond case was his conduct when, in fact, it was whether his conduct, however deplorable, and whatever flaws were revealed in his character, was criminal. A jury with women in the majority who were not asked to give their moral judgment on him, found him not guilty on all but one, and not proven in the other. That jury, unlike all other commentators who were not at the trial, were able to judge the accusations based on the evidence they gave and their cross-examination by the defence. That applies also to the complainers whose joint letter implies the jury was wrong, that is unless they stayed in court to hear the cross-examination of the others, which I doubt.
We all claim to respect and accept the rule of law. But the real test of that respect and acceptance is when it is applied with an outcome that many do not want, because of the reprehensible conduct or character of the person the law is being applied to. Considerable Police and Crown Office resources, over a long period, were given to seeking evidence and prosecution on 13 charges. All failed, despite at the preliminary hearings, as we learned later from the press, elements of the defence case concerning a conspiracy was declared inadmissable.
There is, of course, another arena in which Alex Salmond's conduct, where it was admitted by his defence, will be a core issue. That is within the SNP as a party, and the SNP Scottish Government embracing the civil service, special advisers, ministers, and MSPs. It will require answers to what was known, when it was known, who knew it, and what action was taken, or avoided, and for what purpose. As for Mr Salmond's claim of a political conspiracy, political or not, if evidence is produced of one, then prima facie there is a case for another police investigation and trial – this time not of Mr Salmond, whose camp I have never been in.
Jim Sillars, Edinburgh EH9.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel