A whole lot of stolen goods with a high value amounting to hundreds of thousands of GBP are found by the Police in the house where you live with another. Many of those goods have been in your house for years and are on open display for all to see on a daily basis. You even wear some of the jewellery obtained by deceit while preening yourself for the television cameras.
You are arrested by the Police and questioned about those items. You make a 'no comment' reply to all questions the Police put to you despite the civic duty of good citizens everywhere to assist the Police in the investigation of crime. You offer the Police no explanation whatsoever as to why you are jointly in possession of stolen goods. And neither do you blame any other person for bringing the stolen items into your home despite having ample opportunity to do do. You simply clam up like a hardened professional criminal in the style of Al Capone.
If you are, truly, innocent with nothing criminally on your conscience, would not the decent and proper thing to do, as a minimum, be to explain to the Police how that stolen property came to be in your house in the first place and provide a full and detailed account thereof?
And what about a year or two back when you are recorded on video on a number of occasions trying to shut down all dissent over allegations of stolen money and denying that there had been any cooking of the books and that, financially, things had never been better? You are in full knowledge of the facts and, despite that knowledge, you do your usual bullying stuff and get very angry indeed about such allegations and handbagging everyone in sight - and, knowing your penchant for handbags, was it illicitly acquired by any chance?
You carry on regardless and wilfully disregard the truth and want everyone else to do likewise. You are pursuing a deliberately false narrative. You are covering up fraud and embezzlement when any and every honest citizen would report such circumstances to the criminal authorities as a matter of course.
Add together all of the foregoing and it leads to the very clear conclusion that you are well into tarry-fingered territory and that you have a case to answer. We disagree strongly with any other conclusion however eminent it may be as the evidence is there right before our eyes.
To us, as lay people, it appears a classic case where guilt or innocence should be determined in a Court of Law according to tried and tested Rules of Evidence. However, Scotland's Chief Prosecutor, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain (who, incidentally, you nominated as Lord Advocate), decides with a flourish of her pen not to prosecute. That failure to prosecute is, in our view, by far the worst aspect of the circumstances here and infinitely worse than all of the pilfering involved.
Welcome to Justice, Scottish Nationalist-Style.