Salmond v Sturgeon round 4. What next?

[Cismyfatarse]

New thread.

news.sky.com/story/scotlands-chief-law-officer-ordered-search-of-top-civil-servants-office-for-salmond-complaint-documents-12238092

I don't know if there is anything new here

@TheShadowyFeminist

I think that sort of coalition can work. The problem still remains on topics where they are all equally lobbied/captured on key areas.

The GRA/HCB I don't think would materially change, as there's very little between them (publicly at least) on supposedly being 100% in the thrall of the lobby groups.

There's a lot rotten in what we have now, but I'm stumped on how to change things for the better if I'm honest.

Lobbying & lobbyists have a disproportionate amount of influence & access to the levers of power. That's something I've certainly woken up to in the past few years.

This is definitely an issue. I do wonder if, certainly on GRA, the conservatives at least might not be quite as captured as others. They seem to be peddling backwards in Westminster and I'd be surprised if that isn't the case here too. The difference is that up here they aren't in power. They know that arguing against it with the current set up would be pointless and would just enable points to be scored against them with little upside.

I'm aware of a fair number of anti GRA Conservative MSPs.

@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum

news.sky.com/story/scotlands-chief-law-officer-ordered-search-of-top-civil-servants-office-for-salmond-complaint-documents-12238092

I don't know if there is anything new here

Is this the search warrant which the Lord Advocate was asked about - resulted in him refusing to commit to whether failing to comply with a search warrant could be an offence

Skulduggery at every turn.

"I do wonder if, certainly on GRA, the conservatives at least might not be quite as captured as others. "

Yes that's true. I do think it's often harder to determine how genuine the Tories are on this, as it's an obvious area for them to jump on to gain votes/support. They're not exactly known for their 'women friendly' qualities!

I've spoken to 4 MSPs in person on this, 1 SNP was awful, the other was good, Labour MSP was excellent (but is stepping down at the end of this parliament) and the Tory one was good. Not 100% aligned with my views on it (we clashes on 1 key point - being able to request a female only HCP) but we had a decent conversation.

Even though the Tories are trying to walk back on GRA reform, there's still some v loud Tories pushing this (Penny Mordaunt, Quentin Crisp, Caroline Noakes etc.).

@ShowmetheSnowdrops

Fantastic article. I wish/ hope this cuts through to the electorate.

Predictably and depressingly all the comments under it on Facebook are "But Toaaarrries", "But Wastemonster"

@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum

news.sky.com/story/scotlands-chief-law-officer-ordered-search-of-top-civil-servants-office-for-salmond-complaint-documents-12238092

I don't know if there is anything new here

👀👀👀

That's quite something. Reading between the lines, the LA suspected the PS of not being fully forthcoming with relevant information. Given that she didn't provide a signed precognition statement, I'm not surprised he wanted to ensure her office was thoroughly searched. However, it does still beg yet another Q - why was she able to still withhold details of her own contact with the 2 complainants even after this happened?

There was a specific accusation of bias against her, within Salmond's action. Her meeting with/speaking to the complainants even before her decision report was completed goes to the very heart of the accusations of bias on her part. Even in the face of a commission & diligence action, targeted on her office she still did not reveal this, not produce any document about this.

Salmond deployed 'scorched earth' on his case - Scotgov seemingly deployed a 'safe space' for the PS & other who screwed up, such that they could screw up an important legal case like this through extraordinary levels of incompetence & deliberately suppressing key information/documents.

"Is this the search warrant which the Lord Advocate was asked about - resulted in him refusing to commit to whether failing to comply with a search warrant could be an offence"

God, this just gets worse! He'd be a key witness in any prosecution case against her! Bloody hell! Can you imagine?

"Can you explain why you directed the PS office for specific scrutiny of her records, with regards to the C&D search?"

LA: 😶

"What was the reason the PS gave for not complying with the request for a signed precognition statement"

LA: erm...😶

Maybe she has more than one email address? I have 2 at work and a fire wall between each side of the system. I can email between them but obviously all emails are scanned so can't really be used for the nefarious purposes they'd want to weed out. For example, i can't send customer data between the 2 without it being flagged. I do use it to pass some types of files from one side to the other.

If I have only logged into one side of my system, it wouldn't be immediately obvious that the other side exists.

I'd need to check but I'm sure she claimed when asked about meeting with one complainant & phoning the other, it was solely in the capacity of 'duty of care' as an employer. That's not something that should be done via personal channels of communication. And even if she did use personal emails to arrange this, she still should disclose this, especially in the face of a commission & diligence search of her office!!!!

I think if she had more than one work email address, that's something that should have already been known. But I'm not 100% sure tbh. That seems like such a basic detail, I can't imagine they'd overlook something like that.

@TheShadowyFeminist

I think if she had more than one work email address, that's something that should have already been known. But I'm not 100% sure tbh. That seems like such a basic detail, I can't imagine they'd overlook something like that.

I'm not sure about anything anymore.

Me neither! 😂

It seems to be around doing a search for various terms in order to pull documents or looking at things in a date range but I'm never convinced when I do document searches for stuff in my own files. I often randomly find stuff in strange place after a document file search hasn't, and strange things like using a previous template might mean it stores as the original file date under created and the last amended date could bring it outwith their date search. Just thinking if you were typing up notes/minutes you might start with the document you used for a previous meeting rather than reformat a new one.

I could be wrong @theshadowyfeminist, I don't know if there's any more detail or maybe they've published the report on the Lord Advocate's testimony which would confirm

@WaxOnFeckOff

It seems to be around doing a search for various terms in order to pull documents or looking at things in a date range but I'm never convinced when I do document searches for stuff in my own files. I often randomly find stuff in strange place after a document file search hasn't, and strange things like using a previous template might mean it stores as the original file date under created and the last amended date could bring it outwith their date search. Just thinking if you were typing up notes/minutes you might start with the document you used for a previous meeting rather than reformat a new one.

The thing I find frustrating is they knew from fairly early on that Salmond was contesting the procedure. It's early June where he first tells Sturgeon about the JR petition but from memory his legal team were involved from the start and the SG were playing hardball so they knew that there was a reasonable chance this would end up in court.

At that point, at minimum, would you not make sure your files were organised, that you kept minutes of meetings, and so on? I certainly would. Yet it seems like highly paid civil servants made no effort whatsoever.

I'm in the middle of setting up my home office (been stuck in my kitchen between the fridge & the biscuit cupboard - not a good combo) with a new mahoosive desk that could easily take 3 good sized monitor displays. I think it'll take that to be able to go through all the evidence sessions to cross reference everything to see what comes out Statistically.

There's so much to wade through.

"At that point, at minimum, would you not make sure your files were organised, that you kept minutes of meetings, and so on? I certainly would. Yet it seems like highly paid civil servants made no effort whatsoever."

You would think, eh? I honestly think they thought they had him nailed to the point he'd be hampered by both the fact of the complainants making formal complaints & his own reluctance to take legal action initially. And also, that he seemed to think he could get somewhere in trying to appeal to sturgeon to intervene. I think the PS knew about the limitation deadline, and probably thought that was going to be some sort of Teflon effect for her.

I don't know, it's such a spectacular level of incompetence it's like they just thought they could 'wing it' and never have to account for their errors. It is truly bizarre.

This is a great summary from a post on the Telegraph of the events on Monday; Presumably by an Englishman. At least people throughout UK are finally getting the measure of the disaster unfolding in Scotland:
'The parliamentary committee were inept and allowed Sturgeon to ramble on with what Madeleine Grant calls "verbal diarrhoea" instead of telling her to stop talking and demanding specific answers to questions. The only member who had any guts or competence was Jackie Baillie. Sturgeon was allowed to rave about the character of Alec Salmond, to suggest that the events of which he was accused may still have happened although he was found not guilty (not "not proven", which was a possible verdict), and to giggle and say if she had upset her husband she might not have got her "tea" (evening meal). All this was deflection, obfuscation, designed to confuse and weary the members, on top of character assassination of Salmond her accuser. Why did not the chairperson demand that all the papers and texts relating to the matters of the inquiry be released? Sturgeon could authorize release. Instead, Sturgeon was allowed to say that she also was frustrated by not being able to release material evidence! The committee chair was SNP of course, and only marginlly more competent than her deputy chair. What a farce.'

Following you Wax Shadowy Statisically. with all your insight and explanations.

I agree. We get audited and as soon as we know they are coming, you go back through your records to make sure everything is where it should be. So when they confirm what they want, you can send it straight through.

Daisy too !

Oh jeez, don't give me credit with those folks, I'm equally in thrawl. I've just been on holiday all week so been able to pay a bit more attention than normal.

well on monday we'll all be engrossed with the royal drama instead of a political one.

@WaxOnFeckOff

I agree. We get audited and as soon as we know they are coming, you go back through your records to make sure everything is where it should be. So when they confirm what they want, you can send it straight through.

I used to do audit actually - I hadn't really thought about it in this context but it's probably why I'm quite so surprised at this as I know what I'd expect in terms of evidence, preservation of documents etc. An experienced civil servant would surely be used to being on the receiving end of something similar? I don't know what their internal audit processes are to be fair but I've audited things like new policy development and implementation as well as ensuring policies were being followed. Any half competent auditor would have looked at the half story of evidence and realised there was potentially important info missing so I cannot imagine why they thought it would get past two sets of highly experienced and well paid lawyers.