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

I think his argument was that it's difficult to argue the case for making a new but restrospective process when there was already a process there - there seemed to be a big crossover between retrospectivity and the former ministers thing which got a bit garbled. But I thought it was more that you could have fairly investigated under fairness at work as that was the policy which was in force at the time.

I also think the intervention point is being misinterpreted. She was not being asked to intervene to block the complaint but to address the inconsistencies between the policies which had the potential to be illegal. Under the Ministering Code she should have intervened if she was aware of illegality and his legal advice was that that's what the policy was.

but he was asked 'Do you think that, as a matter of principle, there should be a procedure'? surely any right thinking person, especially after everything that came to light through metoo would say 'of course there should be'. You say it could have been investigated under Fairness at Work. How come there were no instances of sexual harassment complaints under Fairness at Work? Do you think it could have been indicative of the previous culture in politics, generally, where there was this 'don't wash your dirty linen in public' attitude and where it was all kept indoors, but really, nothing was done. That's what many women, of all parties and political areas were saying they'd faced around that time, and surely had to change.

I'm sure you realise full well what the fallout would be right now if Sturgeon had intervened in any way whatsoever - it would be accusation of 'covering up for her pal' and 'she must go'.
As you admitted yourself in the other thread this question of 'legal advice' was where he got most flustered during the enquiry under questioning. It'll be interesting to hear more about this as the enquiry progresses.

Different legal advice.

Do we know that there were no sexual harassment claims under FaW? I thought it was a policy covering civil servants and ministers and I don't think that was covered. Might be wrong, or it might have been covered earlier.

But it's one thing to say "we don't think this policy is good enough, supports women enough, etc, so we're going to amend it or create a better one going forward". It's another to say "we're going to create a new policy which will replace the one which was in force when you were employed, and then judge you under the new one".

@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.

A statement was issued on their behalf by Rape Crisis Scotland. It was dismissed on , of all places, FWR on here. I was questioning the adulation Cherry gets there for being a feminist because she's gender critical, despite being Salmond's biggest fan and calling for his reinstatement in the party.

I'll admit MissBarbary that I wondered about the wisdom of the Rape Crisis statement. Between them, Sturgeon and a few other high profile folk plus some journalists they are straying awfully close to "the jury got it wrong" and I do wonder if that might do more harm than good. I noticed that the statement from the Faculty of Advocates had a line about maintaining confidence in the verdict of juries too.

But they are one of the people speaking for the women. It's hardly Salmond's place to.

@StatisticallyChallenged

I'll admit MissBarbary that I wondered about the wisdom of the Rape Crisis statement. Between them, Sturgeon and a few other high profile folk plus some journalists they are straying awfully close to "the jury got it wrong" and I do wonder if that might do more harm than good. I noticed that the statement from the Faculty of Advocates had a line about maintaining confidence in the verdict of juries too.

But they are one of the people speaking for the women. It's hardly Salmond's place to.

The FM's said no such thing.

the jury got it wrong"
definitely not been said by Sturgeon, or any journalist that i've read

Sturgeon's comments on the Wednesday briefing were straying into that territory. Not explicitly but into "no smoke without fire" territory.

I read or saw what she said (losing track now) and whilst it wasn't that explicit, anyone with half a brain would take from it what has been taken.

I'll try to find it.

@WaxOnFeckOff

I read or saw what she said (losing track now) and whilst it wasn't that explicit, anyone with half a brain would take from it what has been taken.

I'll try to find it.

I think it's this one right at the end. I agree with your assessment.

I'm about the last person ever to stand up for Salmond but even I thought "hey, wait a minute- you shouldn't be saying that".

www.pscp.tv/w/1mnxeaVRVQvxX?t=3509#

It's not even that it's about salmond, it's the first minister casting aspersions on the justice system of this country, something she should be upholding and we should all have confidence in.

I never knew that the Lord advocate had such a dual role, it's really not good.

It's not even that it's about salmond, it's the first minister casting aspersions on the justice system of this country, something she should be upholding and we should all have confidence in.

Absolutely. There is already a perception that verdicts are not final in Scotland because of the Not Proven option and the Double Jeopardy Exceptions. Add in a lack of an independent public prosecutor and a couple of extremely high profile messes (this plus the Rangers case).

Undermining the verdict of a trial by jury is absolutely the last thing the FM should be doing. Had she instead blandly referred journalists back to the closed criminal case she would have reinforced the Independence and Integrity of the Judiciary. That in turn would have strengthened her position that she has acted correctly standing apart from it at all times. Her comments did the very opposite.

The points on rewriting procedures and then seeking to apply them retrospectively is interesting. It is one reason why having too many explicit rules is not always a good idea. Once you specify in detail you narrow the scope and application of the rules. The rush to rewrite legislation often ends up creating unforeseen circumstances being unintentionally covered but it can also have the opposite effect. More generally it creates a morass of uncertainty as to correct application as in this case. This is why I don't agree with comments that there should be something akin to a tick list for issues like Ministerial Code breaches.

Irony is, as I understood AS, he was saying the original procedure in place could have been used to deal with the complaints in question at the time but wasn't. To the extent that he was suggesting some sort of mediation using it (as discussed at the infamous meeting that never happened) I suspect this was not pursued in the end because the subsequent regulations would have frustrated its legitimacy. We may find this out if the redactions are finally frustrated.

This.

The Lord Advocate is in an untenable position being both the Government's legal adviser and the decider of whether there is a legal case for prosecution, these two offices need to be separated as in England etc, how can the legal system properly hold the government to account ( whatever party IT IS) while at the same time advising government on legalities

Nicola Sturgeon promised to lead the most open and transparent government Scotland has seen ... don’t think that pledge is being fulfilled.
In the Times yesterday Lord Hope of Craighead , a former Supreme Court Judge was quoted that he found the developments “disturbing “
He said. “ What is strange is that the information is in the public domain...but.Salmond can’t refer to the details . At the background of it is a feeling of mistrust across the system which is very debilitating and should never happen in a well ordered society “

StarryEyeSurprise nice bit of what aboutery and deflection there. If you want to discuss alleged corruption in other governments , start a thread in the relevant sub- forum.

This whataboutery really infuriated me and it’s such a lazy response.

It’s like when I’m pulling m child up for some misdemeanour and they tell me little Jimmy was at it as well.

Right now I’m concerned about what’s happening in Scotland right now that’s the point of discussion.

1. Salmond says that NS / 'gang of 4' SNP bods were angling to have him imprisoned over the previous sexual assault charges he faced.

1. Redacted stuff is still out there to find if you look.

1. Any perceived threat to NS is ruthlessly put down.

I think Salmond is not as innocent as his trial found him but just my opinion (based on the fact he's been known to be NSIT for decades)
I think that NS / Murrel / other top SNP bods have behaved illegally.
None of them come out of this well. The names of the women who accused AS have been willingly leaked and leaked again (by NS). The First Minister has 'forgotten' critical meetings and then lied again & pressure has been put on SNP MSP's to toe the 'party line'.

More importantly than ALL that, I think this is exposing dangerous lack of division between Govt / the Law / the Civil service (in broad terms) in Scotland & how it is therefore open to abuse (by SNP atm)

To merely say 'it is as bad at Westmonster' is disingenuous. It IS in terms of devious ambitious egomaniacs yes, but not in terms of what they can get away with, structurally. And Scotland deserves better than Westminster anyway so should aim for a higher bar than that!

If you want to discuss alleged corruption in other governments , start a thread in the relevant sub- forum. why is it up to you what can and can't be discussed on the thread?
Even Alex Salmond made the point at the enquiry that breaching ministerial code is not always a resigning issue - pointed out to to one of the Tory enquiry members that they had 'several' instances of people who'd breached code and hadn't resigned.
so it's a perfectly reasonable and relevant point

@StarryEyeSurprise

This.

If you can't see the difference between publishing details of contracts three weeks late and (allegedly) seeking to get a political rival jailed on spurious grounds and then lying to the Scottish Parliament about it, you (and Mr Guru-Murthy) might like to work on developing a sense of proportion.

@happygolurkey

If you want to discuss alleged corruption in other governments , start a thread in the relevant sub- forum. why is it up to you what can and can't be discussed on the thread? Even Alex Salmond made the point at the enquiry that breaching ministerial code is not always a resigning issue - pointed out to to one of the Tory enquiry members that they had 'several' instances of people who'd breached code and hadn't resigned. so it's a perfectly reasonable and relevant point

How disingenuous- what's the point of having sub forums and threads if posters then discuss any topic they want.

Salmond's comment is also an irrelevant deflection.

seeking to get a political rival jailed on spurious grounds and then lying to the Scottish Parliament about it
except Salmond admitted on oath he had no proof whatsoever of this. And what proof do you have she deliberately lied to parliament?

Quite ridiculous MissBarbary. Noting the hypocrisy of those stating NS should resign is hardly a separate topic to the thread title .

MissBarbary this thread is titled Sturgeon V Salmond. It's largely focused on the current enquiry, a theme of which has been whether Sturgeon should resign if she has broken the ministerial code.
when asked at the enquiry if she should, Alex Salmond told Murdo Fraser: It is not the case that every minister who breaks the ministerial code resigns. Your party would have an example of that relatively recently.
that's word for word from the enquiry, straight out of Alex Salmond's mouth, so I struggle to see how it is a 'distraction' from the subject of the thread.

@happygolurkey

seeking to get a political rival jailed on spurious grounds and then lying to the Scottish Parliament about it except Salmond admitted on oath he had no proof whatsoever of this. And what proof do you have she deliberately lied to parliament?

If you read what I wrote (a) you would have seen that I prefixed the wording you quoted with the word "(allegedly)" and (b) you must be deliberately omitting that in order to serve your agenda.