If it is merely by discussing the Sturgeon inquiries that "we" are "enabling" the Tories to use those inquiries to attack devolution then presumably the theory is that the attacks would be disabled were "we" to stop discussing them. But that's not quite right, is it? Not unless the idea is that it that it is only "our" discussions that are doing the enabling rather than discussion in general of the Nicola Sturgeon affair. That hardly seems credible.
The case of Alex Salmond is an exemplary instance of a smear which simply disregarded all the rules.
The same series of events. Two different and contradictory accounts. How can both be true? For the most part the events themselves are not in dispute. Some details such as dates and times may be disputed. But mostly the events are a matter of public record and accepted by both sides. The argument is over whether the events involved the kind of orchestration that would amount to a conspiracy. Alex Salmond sees that level of orchestration. Nicola Sturgeon does not.
Peter A Bell 