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 think it’s obvious that the devolution settlement did not anticipate the rise of nationalism in Scotland. Devolution was introduced by union parties and it shows. It is too tempting for someone or a party who driven by an idea of separating to attempt to control it all.

The perverse point of it all is that the actual problems we are discussing can only be resolved by the U.K. Government constitutionally, and the actual problems re politics and undue influence potentially on prosecutors and the civil service are totally Scottish issues - they are completely independent on this.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

I also hope James Hamilton has a safe place to be. I would not want to be doing his job.

Just going back to the claim that Salmond has not denied the charges - I’ve gone back to read reports on his defence because I think it’s really important to be accurate on this.

You can read a very factual report here and decide for yourselves: grousebeater.wordpress.com/2020/03/23/st-week-two/

It’s confusing as some of the women have more than one allegation but by my count he denies outright the allegations from woman A, woman C, woman G, woman J and woman K.

He denies the allegations of attempted rape from woman H and woman F.

He accepted that he had attempted to re-enact “Ae Fond Kiss” with woman B and that he “pinged the hair” of Woman D but argues these actions didn’t have a sexual motive.

So if a proportion of the public want independence they are happy to allow the Gov to do as they please assuming that they will eventually get what they want.
I can only imagine this is what has happened.

Jack McConnell was on PM last night at 11:26. He seemed pretty clear that things have not been governed well. He gave the example of Henry McCleish former First Minister, who did not break ministerial rules but resigned as he had diminished the office by not declaring the renting out of a tax payer funded office. Seems pretty minor compared to NS's issues.

Oh I totally agree that there are big differences in the wider system and unicameral parliaments are very vulnerable to abuse - I’ve said that myself upthread. I was just pointing out that an SNP Member chairing a scrutiny panel was not of itself an issue of democratic deficit.

For those interested in privilege issues by the way, my research has turned up the very interesting fact that quite bizarrely the scrutiny committee’s reports and transcripts are not privileged at all. Quite how this came to be is a mystery as if I were designing a parliament it would be a basic. So the proceedings of the Committee are privileged - Salmon was protected when he made the statement - but the published report is not. That might explain why the committee so readily redacted it when the thread of contempt of court was raised - the bigger issue would be how it was published in the first place as I find it hard to believe no lawyers were listening to his evidence and raised warning flags then.

@Dailyhandtowelwash

Oh I totally agree that there are big differences in the wider system and unicameral parliaments are very vulnerable to abuse - I’ve said that myself upthread. I was just pointing out that an SNP Member chairing a scrutiny panel was not of itself an issue of democratic deficit.

For those interested in privilege issues by the way, my research has turned up the very interesting fact that quite bizarrely the scrutiny committee’s reports and transcripts are not privileged at all. Quite how this came to be is a mystery as if I were designing a parliament it would be a basic. So the proceedings of the Committee are privileged - Salmon was protected when he made the statement - but the published report is not. That might explain why the committee so readily redacted it when the thread of contempt of court was raised - the bigger issue would be how it was published in the first place as I find it hard to believe no lawyers were listening to his evidence and raised warning flags then.

I do agree with you, and I found your comments about committee proceedings and privilege very interesting.

However having an SNP MSP head a Parliamentary committee into a case involving two other opposing SNP members, one the First Minister, one a former First Minister, is always going to be open to allegations of unconscious bias and conflict of interest. Its completely unacceptable no matter how good the enquiry or committee members are.

Comparing against the UK government system gives a false impression, because the UK constitutional settlement is so weak from the separation of powers perspective. Its only when you compare it with other European countries with proper, modern constitutions that you realise how bad it is.

I also agree about the weakness of the Scottish constitution overall.

I think the most direct comparison to this Committee's work is the Committee on Standards in Westminster. Its predecessor, the Committee for Standards and Privileges, was heavily criticised for its apparent weakness in dealing with Members - often weakening recommendations brought to it by the Commissioner for Standards. It's now been revamped by adding lay members in attempt to address quis custodiet ipsos custodes. From memory, that Committee was also chaired by an Opposition Member by convention (not sure about the Standing Orders - paging Jackie Weaver), but it seems that politicians do struggle to regulate their own Members.

I would say politics is a difficult and challenging area to regulate. My experience working in EU institutions is that all of the member states have their scandals, and few people get to the top in politics without holding their noses and looking at the other way (at the least). My personal preference for any Parliament, to minimise the issues we're discussing here would be PR, on a list system (which Scotland of course has) but with the bicameral system. Ideally too, the same person would not lead prosecutions for Government and advise Parliament, but we have the same set up in the UK and I think what's happening in Scotland might shine a spotlight more on that, given the misgivings about the current AG already live in the legal world.

Eck sticking the boot into Leslie Evans nice and early >..

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Speaking as someone who lives there, the real issue is that countries with smaller populations can become a bit one-dimensional in their political discourse, and minority groups can get squashed, entirely democratically. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's happening in Scotland

This is the narrative unionists in Scotland are wheeling out now when they make claims about Scotland being a 'single party state', 'dictatorship' etc etc, because the democratic will of the Scots people sees the SNP returned as overwhelmingly the largest party.

The irony of the fact that for decades Scotland has been 'dictated' to from Westminster by governments that are elected entirely on the whims of English voters seems utterly lost on them.

There's nothing wrong with the electoral system in Scotland. The pro-union parties just can't resolve their unelectability issues and unionists are throwing tantrums as a result.

The one that amuses me most is the accusation that Scotland is a 'single party state', when the governing, and single largest party in parliament doesn't even have an outright majority. Odd that there are no such protestations about a Westminster parliament where the governing party does have thumping majority off the back of about 34% of the vote.

That isn't what I meant. New Zealand, for example ;;en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index is one of the two least most corrupt countries in the world']] despite having a unicameral parliament (there was a Senate but it was abolished in the 1950s as it served no useful purpose).

The difficulty is that everyone knows each other, especially in the political confines of Wellington. They know each other's secrets. And more importantly, consensus forms very quickly. That can be a great advantage or disadvantage depending on whether the consensus is correct. But more relevantly there is a long line of politicians in NZ who have basically been stiffed when everyone suddenly turned on them. I have no liking for Salmond but this looks like the same thing.

As for the remainder of your post, this is no different from UKIP complaining about Brussels. If a country decides to be part of a bigger state, the majority of its voters cannot complain that it's governed by people with minority support in that same country. If you don't like it, you leave - and take the risks that come with this.

New Zealand is a real outlier because usually the combination of a unicameral parliament and no single document written constitution is a bit of a disaster in terms of corruption.

I don't think Scotland could ever achieve what a New Zealand, or Scandinavian low level of corruption and high levels of trust.

I remember when I was studying for my thesis abroad, and had to look into the EU led extension of Freedom of Information rights to environmental matters. Although it didn't come within the devolved powers, the UK Government listed the Scottish Government as a consultee and gave them the opportunity to respond. Unlike the UK Government, they opposed the extension and said on the grounds that it would create too much work for staff, there was no need for it and no-one outside Scotland would want to raise such requests anyway! It was both shocking and saddening. It was at that point that I realised it was wise not to believe the SNP rhetoric on wanting to join the EU. Or even the ECHR.

Reviving this thread because of David Davis' recent speech in Westminster. Text here:

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-03-16/debates/03E5E1D7-13F3-4AB3-85F2-214EA9179324/details#contribution-1B7411DD-9D70-4EE9-BB6B-0B7CA18B4A20

The tl:dr version is that:

• the SNP interfered with the police investigation into Salmond, in order to stiff him.
• a complaints procedure was tailored to get Salmond.
• the Scottish Government withheld information, probably committing a contempt of court, and possibly criminal offences.
• the Scottish Government withheld information from the public enquiry in order to cover this up.

If this is true, it's resignation territory for Sturgeon. It ought to be national news because it's potentially public maladministration by senior officials.