Salmond v Sturgeon Round 3 — Comment along with Sturgeon

[PolkadotsAndMoonbeams]

Previous thread here.

AF Neil:
"Sturgeon’ reason for not reporting April 2 Salmond meeting is not credible. Implies she can decide to report or not. But ministerial code gives no such discretion."

Goes to my earlier comment about tacit acceptance of Breach of Ministerial Code.

Daily Mail do have a concise list of breaches under consideration for anyone who wants to google. This not about AS nor the JR and criminal case per se but about whether NS and others fulfilled their responsibilities both in deed and in reporting back to Parliament under
direct Question.

It's about the truth and transparency of the Executive. If no-one is clear about what the process is and who is making decisions and being held accountable then it is somewhat irrelevant whether the rules are being made up arbitrarily and retrospectively. The flawed application of the rules as confirmed in the JR and the criminal case only serve to reinforce the need for transparency and accountability. It is patently obvious that, even if well intentioned, there has been the exact opposite of transparency and accountability.

My interpretation of applying the law retrospectively was that it was brought in specifically to target AS? Is that not what he is alleging?

@IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021

It bothers me. We have a police force to deal with historical cases.

It bothers me too.

this was never about 'catching' a previous FM who behaved badly (he's been widely known for it for YEARS). This is about shutting up 'pretenders to the FM throne' and then manipulating public bodies in Scotland to suit the ends of the current SNP crew. Oh, and lying to committees. Again and again. No respect for Scottish people and their representatives there that I can see.

I agree with @daisyfraser here:
'
Can they not see what Yousaf is doing to their human rights? What Swinney tried to do to their human rights with Named Person? What Sturgeon tried to do to her political opponent? To destroy him. Put him in prison for the rest of his life because he was inconvenient.
And yet they seem to think this will apply to 'others' and not to them'

I well remember the contempt Swinney showed the Supreme Court's ruling on the Named Person legislation. The SNP just carried on regardless. It's dangerous to hold the law in contempt, for all of us.

@Lordamighty

My interpretation of applying the law retrospectively was that it was brought in specifically to target AS? Is that not what he is alleging?

He did, but he does have an ego bigger than the moon. The policy changes also coincided with the metoo movement. I think the SG were more concerned with being seen to do the right thing. Salmond was of no political consequences so why would they bother going after him unless forced to?

@52andblue. I agree the extent of the hate crime bill is extremely worrying. I think the named person came from a well intentioned but misguided place. The SNP are the only UK party in power how have proactively worked to help the life chances of looked after children and I think this fed in to this policy.

The flaws in the construction and application of the complaints process were already accepted in the JR which the SG conceded. This Committee is investigating why these flaws happened and who was responsible and more specifically as advised by Hamilton whether Breaches of the Ministerial Code occurred. Had SG been fully transparent with Parliament there would have been no need for the Committee.

I think that the issue as to why this policy was done and how is fascinating but we will never find out.

However, it may contextualise thinking here to note that policies usually take months if not years to be agreed and drafted. And particular care is taken about retrospective effect so that human rights are not abused inadvertently or by design.

I find it very odd what we do know. It seems totally at odds with what should happen when a serious public policy issue arises.

I've said upthread I'm not convinced that the motivation from the very outset was "get Salmond out and keep him out". I don't think the evidence necessarily supports that motivation at that point

That doesn't mean the policy developed was correct, that the way it was developed was correct, or that the way it was used was correct. It also doesn't mean that the process didn't become extremely adversarial. I can imagine that getting a repeated stream of complaints about the policy would wind people up the wrong way, perhaps?

What went after is a different matter.

The speed of development is noticeable to me. It was very quick, especially when they had decided not to augment the existing policy but create a new one.

Where is the corruption? She has broken the ministerial code and misled parliament umpteen times over this affair. She took unlawful action that cost the tax payer almost £1 million and seems to have had no benefit to claimants or anyone else. Today's performance did not clarify any of those breaches. Many words, no evidence. The real evidence flooded in yesterday. - followitn the threat of a vote of no confidence in the DFM. Former First Minister, Henry McLeish was forced to resign for unlawful actions that cost around £50k. Why should NS not be held to the same standard?

This is in response to @StarryEyeSurprise Not sure why it didn't quote.

It "feels" like the flaw in the thinking was that it was just an HR matter. HR Departments are notorious for redrafting staff procedures without thinking things through. I still think everyone assumed AS would take fright at the complaints and agree to go quietly and when he pushed back a chain of events unfolded they all lost control of.

NS repeated assertions that she thought he was about to resign and then quickly realised he wasn't and ended up in a midden (paraphrasing) seem to corroborate this reading.

Perhaps that (him not resigning) was part of the motivation in deciding to publish? Hard to tell, Sturgeon I think said she wasn't involved in the decision although A) I may have made a mistake and b) I find that hard to believe tbh.

Whilst Margaret Mitchell seemed to be doing quite well earlier (she was asking good questions) WTF was that lengthy ramble at the end?!

"It "feels" like the flaw in the thinking was that it was just an HR matter."

I agree with this. The IO was a very senior HR civil servant & would have been expected to have the professional knowledge & experience to know what 'no prior contact' meant both in theory & practice. And there was clearly inadequate oversight at a minimum.

But it's the decisions made once that was known to be a major issue that are the significant concern over Sturgeon, Evans, Murrell etc.

Nothing said today explains things to the satisfaction of many, but I fully expect sturgeon to think she can brazen her way through the furore.

The ministerial code investigation is probably where she's most weak & then there's the VONC to threat too. I've no idea what the final outcome will be, but I don't think she's fit to continue as FM based on both her evasive & unconvincing answers, her own decisions/actions throughout & her blind faith in the civil service in particular. Evans should have been sacked. No question in my mind that she shouldn't be employed - instead, she got a pay rise & extended contract.

Mitchell at the end was embarrassing & the response from Sturgeon was equally as phoney. Both grand standing & a bit pointless.

@StatisticallyChallenged

Whilst Margaret Mitchell seemed to be doing quite well earlier (she was asking good questions) WTF was that lengthy ramble at the end?!

She rambled the whole way through! Thought she came across as very very strange.

@StatisticallyChallenged

Perhaps that (him not resigning) was part of the motivation in deciding to publish? Hard to tell, Sturgeon I think said she wasn't involved in the decision although A) I may have made a mistake and b) I find that hard to believe tbh.

But would you set up a retrospective policy to target one person. Wait until that person is informed of complaints made against them and then invite them to your home?

She fairly hinted that there may be sackings. I'd expect that one or two will probably get pushed. I think she'll try to cling on, the Tories will table the VONC. The SNP lead will be dented a bit in the election. Given the make up of this committee I don't think their report will amount to much. More important is the report from James Hamilton into the Ministerial Code.

@StatisticallyChallenged
Apologies I answered a question you didn't ask, it's been a long day. 😄

& quite repetitive

it did get very repetitive when she had to explained over and over and over again that she could hardly comment on what was said during an exchange she wasn't even a part of.
plus Margaret Mitchell's rambling ranting 'question' at the end

other than that - I can imagine sturgeon loyalists think she did well.
yes

[quote Amortentia]@StatisticallyChallenged
Apologies I answered a question you didn't ask, it's been a long day. 😄[/quote]
Didn't ask and pretty much entirely the opposite to what I've been saying! I am not convinced that any conspiracy which may exist goes that far back.

Incompetence and ineptitude on the other hand...

@sessell

Where is the corruption? She has broken the ministerial code and misled parliament umpteen times over this affair. She took unlawful action that cost the tax payer almost £1 million and seems to have had no benefit to claimants or anyone else. Today's performance did not clarify any of those breaches. Many words, no evidence. The real evidence flooded in yesterday. - followitn the threat of a vote of no confidence in the DFM. Former First Minister, Henry McLeish was forced to resign for unlawful actions that cost around £50k. Why should NS not be held to the same standard?

She didn't take part in the complaints process though, did she? She signed off on a policy.

During the process, f ups were made. Not by the FM.

Ruth great on SNPTV saying strange how Sturgeon seemed to lose her powers of recollection throughout.
Spot on - seems a bit of a handicap for a political leader