Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Scotsnet

Welcome to Scotsnet - discuss all aspects of life in Scotland, including relocating, schools and local areas.

Salmond v Sturgeon Round 2.

996 replies

Cismyfatarse · 28/02/2021 18:29

As the conversation is interesting and the thread is nearly full. Does it matter if Sturgeon is guilty - do you know or care? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/4153007-Does-it-matter-if-Sturgeon-is-guilty-do-you-know-or-care

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Graffitiqueen · 02/03/2021 19:26

Ooft!! twitter.com/danvevers/status/1366813408662806528?s=21

Mrstwiddle · 02/03/2021 19:28

Wow, just wow!

Mrstwiddle · 02/03/2021 19:29

Liar, liar, pants on fire! springs to mind where NS is concerned, so glad the truth is finally coming out.

StatisticallyChallenged · 02/03/2021 19:31

I said earlier - maybe in previous thread - that I thought AS had maybe seen or at least been told about the October legal advice. That certainly seems likely having seen it

this one is also interesting We're on 1st December here and they're again being advised to concede. What's interesting is they are saying they know their advise will not be welcome - to me (and having read some of the other docs) I get a sense there was probably a lot of in between discussion with much pushback from the SG about conceding.

"Since then there has been substantial further development of the pleadings, accompanied by disclosure of a volume of information about, among other things, the discussions that took place with Complainers A and B prior to them making formal complaints. The disclosure of information was necessary, as can be seen from Lord Pentland’s comments at the Procedural Hearing on 6 November 2018 regarding his expectations as to candour on the part of the respondents (although by then, of course, the need for candour had already been expressly recognised at consultation).

4 New grounds of challenge have been introduced by the petitioner based on the Investigating Officer’s (”IO”) prior contact with the complainers. In our view these are now the petitioner’s strongest grounds of challenge. Moreover, and with regret, we are now jointly of the view that those grounds are more likely than not to succeed. At the outset, we recognise the dismay that this advice will cause. However, we feel it necessary to tender this advice, and the reasons for it, given the views which we have, independently at first and now of consensus, taken in this regard.

further on

some case law preceeds this bit, then
"Nevertheless we think it is inevitable that the Court will accept that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the Procedure would be followed. The respondents have of course, with regard to other aspects of the petitioner’s challenges, relied on the precise terms of the Procedure. We cannot disavow the terms of paragraph 10. "

Graffitiqueen · 02/03/2021 19:32

I wonder how Patrick Harvie is feeling right now?!

LexMitior · 02/03/2021 19:36

Wow

GintyMcGinty · 02/03/2021 19:37

wonder how Patrick Harvie is feeling right now?!

I'm sure he is looking forward to securing another £100K for cycle lanes by continuing to prop her up.

StormzyinaTCup · 02/03/2021 19:41

Gosh, as someone from the other side of the border (so by admission somewhat ignorant/naive to the comings and going’s in SG) I have been reading this thread and the previous one and all links - it’s fascinating but I’m definitely at brain saturation point now!!

In light of this afternoon/evenings evidence, do any posters think NS may resign before tomorrow’s appearance to avoid having to try and defend what looks like the indefensible?

StatisticallyChallenged · 02/03/2021 19:41

And another - mid December at this point

www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/correspondence/2021/02/legal-advice-related-to-the-parliamentary-inquiry-into-the-scottish-governments-handling-of-harassment-complaints-sghhc/documents/19-december-2018/19-december-2018/govscot%3Adocument/OCT-%2BLA07%2B-LPP-%2B5-%2BFINAL-%2BCommittee%2Bcopy.pdf?forceDownload=true

This strikes me as being uncharacteristically blunt for a senior lawyer. My take - and it is just that - Mr Dunlop is piiiisssseeeddd at this point

StatisticallyChallenged · 02/03/2021 19:42

@StormzyinaTCup

Gosh, as someone from the other side of the border (so by admission somewhat ignorant/naive to the comings and going’s in SG) I have been reading this thread and the previous one and all links - it’s fascinating but I’m definitely at brain saturation point now!!

In light of this afternoon/evenings evidence, do any posters think NS may resign before tomorrow’s appearance to avoid having to try and defend what looks like the indefensible?

Personally I doubt it. She's got (metaphorical) big balls!
Coquohvan · 02/03/2021 19:43

Dean Lockhart MSP
@DeanLockhartMSP
·
8h
Lord Advocate is clearly conflicted in his dual role. I had to rewind the evidence to confirm what I have just heard. He could not answer whether failure to obey the terms of a search warrant could ever be a criminal offence. The Lord Advocate. Let that sink in.

Agog 👆

LexMitior · 02/03/2021 19:43

the Procedural Hearing on 6 November 2018 regarding his expectations as to candour on the part of the respondents (although by then, of course, the need for candour had already been expressly recognised at consultation).

read - you have failed largely to comply with duty of candour as required of a government in judicial review, which means you should disclose relevant documents

StatisticallyChallenged · 02/03/2021 19:45

@Coquohvan

Dean Lockhart MSP *@DeanLockhartMSP* · 8h Lord Advocate is clearly conflicted in his dual role. I had to rewind the evidence to confirm what I have just heard. He could not answer whether failure to obey the terms of a search warrant could ever be a criminal offence. The Lord Advocate. Let that sink in.

Agog 👆

I picked up on that too. A proper "did I just hear that" moment
GintyMcGinty · 02/03/2021 19:45

In light of this afternoon/evenings evidence, do any posters think NS may resign before tomorrow’s appearance to avoid having to try and defend what looks like the indefensible?

Extremely unlikely.

SNP MSPs are out in force on Twitter defending her.
Patrick Harvey (Greens) is saying calls for resignation are premature.

They are at 52% in the polls.

Unless her own MSPs or the Greens take her out she is untouchable

StormzyinaTCup · 02/03/2021 19:46

Personally I doubt it. She's got (metaphorical) big balls!

Well, I’ll give her some credit then if she turns up tomorrow, not just for having (metaphorical) big balls but said balls being made of steel!!

LexMitior · 02/03/2021 19:49

Nevertheless we think it is inevitable that the Court will accept that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the Procedure would be followed. The respondents have of course, with regard to other aspects of the petitioner’s challenges, relied on the precise terms of the Procedure. We cannot disavow the terms of paragraph 10

read - Alex Salmond had an direct expectation that he would treated in line with the policy that applied at the time. This the general public law principle and that retrospective policy making with legal implications as to criminal proceedings is to those who have had a respectable legal education, actually so obvious that we are almost struggling with the right words to convey our amazement, and we are using very direct language to tell you that.

Kisses, your well educated public law Scottish experts.

ShowmetheSnowdrops · 02/03/2021 19:49

Catching up on all of this.
Think I’m in a state of shock.

What will unfold tomorrow?
Minor sideshow of Rishi’s Budget tomorrow too.

WouldBeGood · 02/03/2021 19:49

No credit from me for defending a wholly despicable position.

I’m angry now. These people have been ruling us and preaching at us all year, whilst paying no attention whatsoever to the law themselves

IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021 · 02/03/2021 19:51

Twitter is wild tonight. All of this is just beyond my imagination. How can our LA not know what is and what isn't a crime?

Y0uCann0tBeSer10us · 02/03/2021 19:52

Astonished by the revelations tonight - they basically prove that she has lied on several occasions as well as used extremely poor judgement (at best) wrt the legal advice. In normal circumstances (when politicians were expected to have integrity) she'd be a goner for sure, but, as usual, it all hangs on the greens. I'll reckon they'll be closely monitoring the reaction to this and her appearance tomorrow, then weighing up whether they should prop her up and brazen it out for 'Indy' or whether she's too toxic.

anon444877 · 02/03/2021 19:53

I can't see NS resigning - we may get one or two other sacrifices.

You've got to wonder what the earlier legal advice was like haven't you?

WouldBeGood · 02/03/2021 19:55

Surely she will have to resign?

qate · 02/03/2021 19:55

Good grief. Speaking with my lawyer hat on, those documents are astonishing.

WaxOnFeckOff · 02/03/2021 19:55

It's just so bad on so many fronts. I'm struggling to keep my brain round it all to be honest but those links and documents Shock

Thank you to the posters keeping us up to date with all this information and for your patient explanations.

I feel I should redact something on this Grin

I've had to redact documents before but that usually means going through paper documents with a black marker and then photocopying them so you can't see through the marker. Ah the olden days...

WouldBeGood · 02/03/2021 19:56

I’ve never seen Counsel’s opinion like that

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.