To think that the Alex Salmond evidence story deserves to be given more importance by the U.K. news channels.

[Tamingofthehamster]

For a story all about corruption and overreaching power, which could potentially bring down the Scottish First Minister, why is it only ranking 20th in Sky News?

I am shocked that the names of the complainers somehow got into the public domain enabling some arsehole to publish this n Twitter, 6 months is too short.

Particularly harsh given that it’s fairly straightforward to figure out who the complainers are from the bbc reporting for instance the programme by journalist Dani Garrivelli.

@BlueThistles Alex in this household too, even more so after what he’s been through with all this.

@Selkiesarereal

I am shocked that the names of the complainers somehow got into the public domain enabling some arsehole to publish this n Twitter, 6 months is too short.

There's been so much focus on the Alex Salmond vs Nicola Sturgeon element the women have been completely forgotten by so many.

I did go and read the evidence and the background papers to what Alex Salmond said to Hamilton by way of evidence. It is absolutely electric - what is really says that NS manipulated a number of legal processes, unlawfully, placing pressure on government institutions to effectively smear him and consequence (possible criminal conviction, life in prison) do not bear thinking about if he is right. Personally I am imagine he is enraged by what happened.

It absolutely reeks because it goes so much wider than her. It suggests that the SG and the Crown Office aren't to be distinguished from the SNP leadership. The Lord Advocate effectively said "no comment" yesterday to a fairly supine Parliament who would at first blush just do what they were told by the Government.

Westminster has its faults. But it doesn't act on the orders of politicians or prosecution authorities - a big difference.

Westminster has its faults. But it doesn't act on the orders of politicians or prosecution authorities - a big difference.

I'm not sure what you're saying there? Westminster meaning government entirely works on the orders of politicians. Parliament has been used and abused quite a lot over recent years. Lawyers across the UK have expressed concern about the actions of Suella Braverman as Attorney General, politicising legal cases inappropriately. Ministers have attempted to interfere in court cases, mercifully so far unsuccessfully, but not for want of trying, and have suppressed key documents on no basis. Priti Patel was found to have bullied staff, a clear contravention of the Ministerial Code, but remains in office. Gavin Williamson is back in cabinet after leaking official secrets. Robert Jenrick has repeatedly breached planning laws, including decisions clearly in the interests of party donors, and remains in office. Our Prime Minister was recorded planning an paid attack on someone. They are just the first that come to mind.

I think we're generally in a very dangerous age politically in the UK, with behaviour going unchallenged that would have seen resignation in hours in the recent past. Please don't say that the UK Parliament does not have its challenges.

I don't mean Westminster in the sense the SNP talk about it. Westminster is considered to be Parliament, ie Westminster Parliament. And I haven't noticed it withdrawing evidence or redacting it on the basis that the Crown Prosecution Service said so, which is what has happened in Scotland or so it appears.

Politicians may act badly - it is when your institutions support that, or decide that they will not look that you have a problem. I don't have to agree with the Parliament in Westminster to see that actually, that degree of hand in glove stuff does not seem to be anything like a problem as appears in Scotland. The problems you mention were not unnoticed were they? That they were scrutinised and dealt with, and in some cases were unlawful. That's as it should be, with the PM getting his plans criticised and the judiciary deciding he's acting unlawfully. That is what should happen!

But this isn’t the Scottish Parliament at work, it’s the Scottish Government. So you can’t draw a comparison with the UK Parliament surely?

And yes, all those things have been noticed, and criticised, but there have been no consequences, so what do they care? Scotland doesn’t exist in a bubble - the creeping lack of accountability will play a factor across the border.

A cross-party committee is Parliament, not Government. Or by "at work", do you mean "being potentially dodgy"?

Being dodgy! The committee is trying to get answers, not concealing anything. The very charge Sturgeon is facing is misleading Parliament, the members of which are trying to find out the truth.

Yes it is revealing that the PP conflates Parliamentary action with government. They are not the same thing.

It’s a rum committee that seems to present evidence, then retract and then present redacted evidence because of the say so of prosecutors.

Parliament isn’t supposed to “oh yea” to the Government of the day. It’s their job to ask questions

It’s disappointing. But they were talking to Salmon in the first place to get to the truth. We don’t know what they were told the consequences of not redacting were. Committees in Westminster would also be loathe to go against legal advice in the main - although the bolshy ones would, others would do as they were advised. All UK select committees have a Government majority too, so there may well be pressure from them (through the whips or not) to toe the line.

Obviously the reports and evidence of a select committee have absolute privilege so would usually be confident in publishing, but sub judice is a major issue, so they would be wary if it was being cited.

You can read the evidence of Alex Salmond at the Spectator - it is really quite shocking. It is very very hard to see any reason for it not to be published, and clearly the Spectator are content to run the risks. And it is still up!

I think the SG must have got used to a fairly supine Scottish media to get away with this - Andrew Neil knows a good story when he sees one, I just don't know why a London based political magazine made the running on this either. Journalists in Scotland must know it is a dynamite story.

I would like to see Andrew Neil interview Nicola Sturgeon on this - I reckon she wouldn't last two minutes.

Given that it seems a fairly open secret in Scottish politics who the women are; and of course anyone who attended the trial would have seen for themselves, I was wondering why the inquiry committee couldn’t have held closed sessions for any evidence that might risk identification. They could ask the questions they needed to ask and then when it came to publishing their conclusions, make sure no-one was identified. Can wiser minds explain why that wouldn’t be possible?

Yes, the Andrew Neil article admits he’s surprised at the lack of challenge the Spectator had.

DH has told me over dinner that Scottish committees only have qualified privilege, which can be challenged in court, rather than the absolute privilege of a Westminster select committee (we have fun conversations). We had a good discussion of the ins and outs but a Scottish Committee would have reason to be more cautious of publishing, however concerned they might be about the legal case. Westminster committees have withdrawn evidence when an abuse of privilege has been pointed out to them in the past.

In the UK a Select Committee can take evidence in private and then publish redacted evidence - it’s routine. I don’t know enough about the Scottish system to say whether they can.

For my own pride I feel the need to say that the only part of that post informed by DH was the difference in privilege.

@LexMitior

Yes it is revealing that the PP conflates Parliamentary action with government. They are not the same thing.

Indicative of it being a non-independent review. The parliamentary committee reviewing the actions of the Scottish Government SNP members is led by an SNP MSP.

Thats a really bad system of government at work.

I think the SG must have got used to a fairly supine Scottish media to get away with this

Indeed.

All it takes is a tenacious couple of journalists though. This is the Scottish Watergate.

That’s really interesting about privilege, Daily. I’ve seen some hints about injunctions and superinjunctions - but it sounds like only a Westminster MP has the ability to ignore them if speaking in the chamber. I wonder if that was a deliberate decision when Holyrood was set up.

@Wildswim

I think the SG must have got used to a fairly supine Scottish media to get away with this

Indeed.

All it takes is a tenacious couple of journalists though. This is the Scottish Watergate.

The Scottish Government has given £3million to the Scottish press in the form of public service ads.

www.inpublishing.co.uk/articles/scottish-government-announces-3m-boost-for-newspapers-15435

Might make them less inclined to scrutinise what the politicians are up to.

@Happinessisawarmcervix

That’s really interesting about privilege, Daily. I’ve seen some hints about injunctions and superinjunctions - but it sounds like only a Westminster MP has the ability to ignore them if speaking in the chamber. I wonder if that was a deliberate decision when Holyrood was set up.

It’s because Scotland has a privilege law, so it can be challenged in the courts. Parliamentary privilege in Westminster is not statutory - it remains based in common law - which makes it harder to challenge. (Extremely simple version - obviously whole books have been written, and the 19th century Parliamentary Papers Act does enshrine the privilege of publications in statute.)

Indicative of it being a non-independent review. The parliamentary committee reviewing the actions of the Scottish Government SNP members is led by an SNP MSP.

Thats a really bad system of government at work.

How do you think this is different to Westminster? The parties share the Chairships of the Select Committees out between them - the only one always chaired by an opposition Member is the Public Accounts Committee. The others change by parliaments. Now the House directly elects the Chairs you end up with a more interesting selection than in the past, when the Whips picked, but some Members of the party of government will chair influential select committees. Usually they still conduct effective scrutiny, not least because the Members of the Committee are cross party (by ratio of the make up of the House so all currently have a majority of Conservatives), but also from professional pride. I expect there are some feeble reports published and inquiries held, but the fact that the Scottish Committee is chaired by an SNP Member says nothing about the system.

@Dailyhandtowelwash

Indicative of it being a non-independent review. The parliamentary committee reviewing the actions of the Scottish Government SNP members is led by an SNP MSP.

Thats a really bad system of government at work.

How do you think this is different to Westminster? The parties share the Chairships of the Select Committees out between them - the only one always chaired by an opposition Member is the Public Accounts Committee. The others change by parliaments. Now the House directly elects the Chairs you end up with a more interesting selection than in the past, when the Whips picked, but some Members of the party of government will chair influential select committees. Usually they still conduct effective scrutiny, not least because the Members of the Committee are cross party (by ratio of the make up of the House so all currently have a majority of Conservatives), but also from professional pride. I expect there are some feeble reports published and inquiries held, but the fact that the Scottish Committee is chaired by an SNP Member says nothing about the system.

The difference is that the UK legislature at Westminster is bicameral - it's law making powers are overseen by a second chamber (the slightly unsatisfactory House of Lords). While the UK settlement as a whole is a weak division of powers, it is still greater than that in Scotland.

So although the Salmond affair seems not to involve legislative issues, it dues involve the entire weaknesses within Scottish devolved government. This background for this issue was created by the issuing by the Snp dominated government of various ministerial codes, which appear to be Constitutional in nature but were not properly scrutinised by independent government bodies. The UK system has more checks and balances which do 9ffer 0rotection again abuse of power, even if only by unwritten convention, which checks and balances do not form part of the devolution settlement.