Salmond v Sturgeon round 4. What next?

[Cismyfatarse]

New thread.

I'm 2nd line of defence so have insight from both sides, I review business and first line but I'm subject to review from 3rd line.

You'd have thought civil service would be subject to both review and audit. That said, teams carrying out this work are usually small and be everywhere all the time.

Can't be everywhere that should say.

@fandabbydoozy

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

Funnily enough the parallels between these situations struck me - obviously the nature of the harassment is different but otherwise; historical (albeit less distant) accusations against someone who is no longer on the scene, a messy situation, potential benefits for those investigating...

The Buckingham Palace statement was interesting though, as a contrast, and highlights some of what we were saying on previous threads. This snippet from BBC

"Accordingly, our HR team will look into the circumstances outlined in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the Household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learned.

"The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace.""

Note:

• they have a policy, they're not writing a new one for the investigation
• they want to see if lessons can be learned i.e. how can they stop this happening again

What will be interesting to see is what gets publicised at the end, and whether the royals themselves are covered by the current policy (I believe this was questioned in one of the emails). It's also a bit different as the allegations hit the press first although who knows what encouraged that

Slight digression but...

Yes stats, it's almost like it isn't a witch hunt and they genuinely want to see if something has gone wrong and fix it instead....

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/most-scots-would-back-remaining-in-uk-new-poll-suggests

This does suggest that this matter is having an impact on the perception of Scots about both Sturgeon and Salmond - Salmond comes out worse, though I suspect that is not too surprising because while he has some excellent constitutional and legal points to make, personally his conduct is something they do not like.

Another interesting poll - most Scots don’t believe Sturgeon to have been honest www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-dont-trust-nicola-sturgeon-over-alex-salmond-claims-poll-suggests-v7s3t62l9

I suspect Salmond knows that any serious political return is snookered - at most maybe he could get a list seat if he stood as an independent or with ISP or similar. But he's never going to be a serious political force again.

As a result - as Dunlop said, scorched earth. He has nothing to really lose at this point and he's successfully made a lot of noise. Wonder what else he has up his sleeve

[quote ATieLikeRichardGere]Another interesting poll - most Scots don’t believe Sturgeon to have been honest www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-dont-trust-nicola-sturgeon-over-alex-salmond-claims-poll-suggests-v7s3t62l9[/quote]
Cross posted with this. Ouch

Also, this claim I believe is a new one and sounds extraordinary - Aberdein asked to alter his account mobile.twitter.com/SundayTimesSco/status/1368358680157126658

There is a policy on conduct for my work.

[quote ATieLikeRichardGere]Another interesting poll - most Scots don’t believe Sturgeon to have been honest www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-dont-trust-nicola-sturgeon-over-alex-salmond-claims-poll-suggests-v7s3t62l9[/quote]
Archive copy of the article here
archive.vn/BbYNO

Thank you!

Aberdein, who helped to broker talks between Salmond and Sturgeon, alleges the government official asked him to change his story, as he prepared to make a press statement in January 2019 — warning him that not doing so could damage the official’s career.

FFS.

If that’s true.. it’s getting to the point where I don’t even know what to say. What a sorry mess.

I feel like that @ATieLikeRichardGere.

I bet GA wishes he'd never got involved.

The wheels are coming off the bus.

The latest polls make me hopeful

I don't believe Salmond could (or should) come back either. For all his skills, the stink of all of this on him would make it impossible for him to ever escape scrutiny over it. Reading back over Evans' initial evidence session, she makes reference to numerous complaints received once they publicised their review of sexual harassment policy on 2nd November, and while there could just be lots of complaints in general, she was suggesting there were other complaints beyond the 2 who proceeded to make their formal. But it's worded such that you can't really be sure (but no doubt that this would be made 'heavy weather' of, to keep up the smear on Salmond.

The Aberdein stuff is more worrying, particularly in respect of the current set up. I think for a group of people very 'high' on their own moral superiority over Salmond, attempts to 'cover up' FM's (& those around her) failings does not give them any elevated moral standing IMO.

The wording of this 'threat' against Aberdein was hinted at a short while ago, but my reading of it then was that it referenced a current government or party rep threatened with negative consequences for their career. I might have misread that at the time, so not sure if this is the same issue, or if it's now 2 people threatened with similar consequences.

[correcting an error I made myself - I think I mentioned Quentin Crisp as a Tory with a pro-GRA agenda earlier 😬 Having read some questionable comments he's said, I realise I meant Crisping Blunt. Not at all a huge difference in names! 😳].

I bet GA wishes he'd never got involved.

Most likely. But then, he wasn't to realise how key points in this would hinge on his recollection of others involved in this. His recent statement suggests he still considered those he's worked for friends/has respect for them & was quite generous in his statement. He most be getting more & more pissed off though. I certainly would.

A bits from todays Times showing the effect this is having. Gives a bit of an insight into how folks perceived the evidence.

@WaxOnFeckOff

I'm 2nd line of defence so have insight from both sides, I review business and first line but I'm subject to review from 3rd line.

You'd have thought civil service would be subject to both review and audit. That said, teams carrying out this work are usually small and be everywhere all the time.

Majority of civil service departments aren't audited on a regular basis. Only if there is a JR or an internal investigation which are pretty rare. It would be unusual for the private office or policy sections of civil service to be audited.

Majority of civil service departments aren't audited on a regular basis. Only if there is a JR or an internal investigation which are pretty rare.
It would be unusual for the private office or policy sections of civil service to be audited.

You'd have thought there would be regular GDPR reviews as this is regulatory as well as general InfoSec and System and control reviews. So presume what audits there are are financials based.

One again private business being held to a higher standard than civil service. It's not good is it?

And i would say if they have internal rules and regulations, they are pointless if they aren't monitored. Even stuff such as clear desk policies must exist?

Is there some sort of leeway on certain government functions to manipulate oversight to prevent information falling under the FOI legislation? I vaguely remember a big fuss about Michael Gove some years ago, using personal email to conduct government business & he was using this as a way to avoid any scrutiny of what he was doing. Strikes me as though the methods being employed by Sturgeon's government seems very similar. I've heard rumours of her & her staff using post it notes which are then instantly destroyed so no records of discussions are kept.

That is pretty poor isn't it? All the policies and procedures in the world are pretty pointless if there is little to no checking.

I do wonder, if this is the difficulty they have producing info for a court case/parliamentary committee, how dreadful their FOI request responses are