Sturgeon v Salmond - I'm confused!

[DublinGirl83]

I'm not in Scotland, a keen follower of UK gov politics, though less knowledgable about Scottish politics. I've been trying to follow this Salmond / Sturgeon thing closely, but I'm confused about a few details. Was wondering if any Scottish politics geeks could shed any light?

1. So far as I can tell, Salmond has made a number of specific accusations which have been redacted from the documents published online. I understand these docs were published but were subsequently taken down. Is anywhere publishing these details? They must have been out there is the general domain? BBC is not and it all sounds cryptic. Does anyone on here actually know what the issues are?

1. As a result of these details being blocked from public viewing by the state, Salmond therefore felt he couldn't give evidence as he would be unable to speak his version of events. Again, does anyone actually know what these details are?

1. Why would the Scottish gov and / or Sturgeon want to see him jailed? (As is his accusation). Surely his time had passed and he wasn't a threat?

1. What is the general consensus on here about who is telling the truth? And also, do we think he was guilty of the original sexual assault charges?

Thank you if you've read this far! X

@Blurberoo

The point is that these were malicious accusations, *@GirlLovesWorld*. In bringing these charges to the court the complainers themselves and the SG in pursuing this vendetta have done much harm to real victims of sexual assault.

I can't stand either Salmond or Sturgeon but you clearly don't understand how the criminal court works.

The decision to prosecute was made by the Crown- not women who accused him. We don't have any evidence that their complaints were malicious. Salmond was found not guilty because the Crown did not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

@UpToMyElbowsInDiapers

With names like “Sturgeon” and “Salmond” how could anyone possibly be surprised that something fishy could be going on?

Sorry... felt it had to be said. :p

And how very original of you. Goodness knows, that joke hasn't been cracked like ever before. Welcome to Scottish politics, you'll be saying "wee Jimmy Krankie" before you know it. :p

I went in circles with it all and I keep coming back to motive, NS nor the SG or the Justice service have any motive that I can see to want him out of the way. I have asked supporters of AS and they don't know either but still insist it's a conspiracy to topple him (I didn't see that he was up anywhere to be toppled from)

On the flip side, given NS's popularity during CV19, 22 consecutive polls showing a majority support for independence, election coming up in May, I can see why "others" would want to topple NS/SNP.

Did you hear Salmond's own take on motive @IridecentPearl?

I'm not sure motive is the key point - Salmond won a judicial review because he wasn't given what he was entitled to, to mount a defence. That should give anyone pause, regardless of what you think of the individual.

If I bungled my work so badly they lost that much money I'd be out.

Yes, I'm confused about which side we're "supposed" to be on.

I'm almost certain that some of the sexual harassment stuff is true, probably including assault. I think it was known that he was "one for the ladies" and that his behaviour could be a bit much, as people might have put it at the time.

However, there does seem to have been a very deliberate plan against him which is about more than "just" the sexual harassment.

Sums it up quite well.

Do we want to live in a country where if we are accused of a crime our defence is hampered? Where the first minister misuses victim protection as an excuse for her breaking the ministerial code?

The issue is not even this particular case, it's how far a govt will go to bend the constitution to get the outcome it wants.

@StarryEyeSurprise

Sums it up quite well.

So you don't think the legal system was misused?

I agree absolutely that's where his motivation comes from, but it surely is a problem that politicians have been able to excert such influence on the legal system?

They are both pretty awful individuals but after watching the whole thing yesterday I lean towards believing him.

It will be fascinating to see how she gets in next week. She's not used to such scrutiny and gets annoyed when questioned.

Unfortunately it probably won't matter as they are at 52% in the polls with a devoted cult like following. We are having elections in a few weeks and she gets to be in the TV every day and other parties can't campaign. So she will be fine no matter what the truth is.

@Notabove25

Yes, I'm confused about which side we're "supposed" to be on.

I'm almost certain that some of the sexual harassment stuff is true, probably including assault. I think it was known that he was "one for the ladies" and that his behaviour could be a bit much, as people might have put it at the time.

However, there does seem to have been a very deliberate plan against him which is about more than "just" the sexual harassment.

I don't think you have to be on either side. It's perfectly possible to think that he is probably guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour (whether it was criminal or not) but that the complaints policy and process was a catastrophic fuck up, and that's the attempts to hide it that have happened since are appalling.

Often the people who are on the receiving end of corrupt behaviour, miscarriages of justice, police brutality and so on (not saying AS was, just widening the scope of discussion) are not nice people. Sometime the motivation isn't "i don't like x so I'll make shit up" but "I believe x is guilty of whatever and I want to make sure they pay for it".

On the flip side, given NS's popularity during CV19, 22 consecutive polls showing a majority support for independence, election coming up in May, I can see why "others" would want to topple NS/SNP.

But this is SNP. If we take independence out if it, if this was just another political party, you would perhaps get the impression that they are rotten to the core.

Instead they have got an almost cult like following and there has been very little holding to account by MSP's , press etc for the last few years.

That should say SNP vs SNP.

exactly statistically that's what was disappointing about some of the media and ACH - the issue isn't whether he's guilty or not or was a tyrant or not, it's about checks and balances and a party that can't tell the difference between party business and government business.

It's also that the advocate is wearing two hats and is also a minister that's an issue, so again, no proper separation of the law and government. Tin pot regime right enough.

I don't think you have to be on either side. It's perfectly possible to think that he is probably guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour (whether it was criminal or not) but that the complaints policy and process was a catastrophic fuck up, and that's the attempts to hide it that have happened since are appalling

Often the people who are on the receiving end of corrupt behaviour, miscarriages of justice, police brutality and so on (not saying AS was, just widening the scope of discussion) are not nice people. Sometime the motivation isn't "i don't like x so I'll make shit up" but "I believe x is guilty of whatever and I want to make sure they pay for it".

That sums it up very well- everyone involved in this fiasco was at fault.

.

On the flip side, given NS's popularity during CV19, 22 consecutive polls showing a majority support for independence, election coming up in May, I can see why "others" would want to topple NS/SNP.

also UK wide poll showing Sturgeon as best performing party leader, and polls who she's most popular leader. and she was even hailed by Jennifer Aniston as a 'woman bringing change' recently.

it's bound to hurt. Some folk are seething.

@dementedma

I should state first that I despise Alex Salmond and I am an ardent feminist BUT...he was found innocent of all charges by a court. Therefore it must follow that at least some of the charges were false. Why then are these women not being charged with perjury or contempt of court? Personally I wouldn’t me remotely surprised if he’s as guilty as fuck, but that’s not the point. If he was found innocent, then the charges are false. No?

@dementedma - Salmond has admitted that some of his behaviour was ‘inappropriate’ - and given that he is unlikely to be being entirely honest, and is going to be downplaying the severity of what he did, it seems clear to me that his victims did have genuine complaints about him, but as a previous poster said, it couldn’t be proven to the standard needed for a criminal conviction.

I believe the women 100% - I am sure he assaulted them.

surely is a problem that politicians have been able to excert such influence on the legal system?

Alex Salmond resided over the introduction of this law he's now complaining about. it was mentioned at the enquiry yesterday that in the original bill for this 20/10 act the Lord Advocate did actually have discretion (in terms of lifting ban on documents) but by the time it got to statute that clause had disappeared! So it's partly Salmond's own doing that the documents couldn't be released to the committee! Now of course he's saying that's all wrong. It wasn't how it was 'intended' be used. Wasn't intended to be use in any way that inconvenienced Alex Salmond.

StarryEyeSurprise
that summary hits the nail on the head

I felt he was playing the victim. Trying to claim it's all about principles, when in fact it's all about him. The women affected are having this all dragged up again, but nobody's speaking up for them now.

@ICouldHaveCheckedFirst

I felt he was playing the victim. Trying to claim it's all about principles, when in fact it's all about him. The women affected are having this all dragged up again, but nobody's speaking up for them now.

But the inquiry isn't about him or the women - it's about how the complaints process went so badly wrong, how the judicial review was handled and so on. Not about whether the complaints were true or not.

Whether you think none, some or all of the women were truthful doesn't actually matter. Every accusation could be 100% true and the policy and handling would still be a botched mess.

@happygolurkey

StarryEyeSurprise that summary hits the nail on the head

It really doesn't.

that's a matter of perspective Statistically.

It's pretty clear Salmond's beef is that Sturgeon didn't 'stand by him' by intervening on his behalf.
Another worrying point is that at the review yesterday he was asked: 'Do you think that, as a matter of principle, there should be a procedure for investigating complaints of sexual harassment against former ministers in the Scottish Government?
Alex Salmond: I do not think that you can make that argument. Legally, I have been informed that you could perhaps try that argument (my italics) pre-2010 when there was no such policy, but it would be very difficult to make that argument and to make it legal or lawful.
(i copied and pasted that from the written account your helpfully put a link to).
So he doesn't think women should be able to make historic complaints against former ministers? I thought the wording of 'try that argument' very insightful in how he views complainants.
Think what i'm getting at is he's not really putting potential complainants interests at the heart of things is he? I always feel his focus seems to be more on what can legally be gotten away with.