Salmond v Sturgeon round 4. What next?

[Cismyfatarse]

New thread.

Agreed. If someone is good at their job of representing their constituency then whether they are divorced or made mistakes previously is not very relevant but they should not be trying to hide it either and don't lecture others. You'd expect people with life experiences to be able to empathise more readily.

We need all sorts of people in parliament. People who have overcome life problems, people who have direct experiences to share and not just folk elected and with a list of opinions they are allowed to have thrust upon them

Yes, it's the hypocrisy & moral lecturing that grates most. Sturgeon has tried to sell herself as a champion of women/victims of harassment. But it rings v hollow when it's only selectively deployed. Now, she's set herself & her party up for the sort of scrutiny that she likely will not welcome during an election campaign. If there's anything that's come from this whole shit show it's that Sturgeon has selective morals which she's happy to weaponise for political reasons. Let's not forget the silence over Joanna Cherry being relentlessly harassed from within her own party, with a member (rumoured to have links with a well known adversary in WM) being charged in relation to serious threats against her.

I think it's safe to say that Sturgeon's efforts to defend her & her government's handling of the Salmond complaints by painting herself as a #metoo 'heroine' rings particularly hollow when that curtain is pulled back only a fraction. Her inability to even comment on, never mind condemn, the vile misogyny coming from within her own party is not the actions of a 'feminist' political leader.

And let's not forget that she has failed vulnerable women at every turn all through her life it seems.

Good post @TheShadowyFeminist

I generally don't want to expect more from female leaders because why should they be whiter than white in comparison to men...but she's painted herself into a corner with the #MeToo stuff really. Put that together with the JC nonsense and the Hate Crime Bill and it is not a pretty picture.

Sturgeon's numbers do not add up! SNP's embarrassing blunder over ‘misleading' Covid data

Another headline being investigated

@TheShadowyFeminist has the name of the person charged with threatening JC been released yet? I wasn't following that closelt

I find her legal record very striking. Poor stuff and difficult to take her seriously in any way after that about the rights of women or advocating for those protections and rights.

I agree. I think a lot of the legal 'slight of hand' that's gone on with regards to GRA/women's rights/EA2010/HCB smacks of pushing the limits of acceptability/reasonable interpretations, with only legal challenge as the option to push back against it. There's no discussion, engagement, reasonable process to go through - just a brick wall & frustration.

The way Humza Yousaf has handled the HCB has been appalling. He's said he'd engage with anyone, and yet the only people he actually listens to are the very narrow group of funded gov orgs.

The definition of 'woman' in the GRPB bill was written by STA. They were given the task of coming up with a definition that they found acceptable.

The counsel acting to Scotgov in the JR FWS brought forward stated that TWAW for all purposes unless legislation excludes TWAW & they wrote that into a bill without any consultation or assessment of the merits, legality, acceptability etc.

There's likely plenty of other areas I'm not as familiar with where the same slight of hand has gone on, to the detriment of those most vulnerable, but can't think off the top of my head.

May I say that the HCB is a really good example of going off piste. There is a very very good service in Scottish Parliamentary Counsel who are completely fab and who draft legislation at the highest standards (personal experience) and believe me, the UK Government uses the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to do the same. Their expertise is unsurpassed in both England and Wales and Scotland.

If the SNP are cutting out Scottish Parliamentary Counsel then the legislation will be bad quality. And why?

Cos it's being written by lobbyists seems to be the answer. 🤨

This is partly why I think a second chamber would be helpful, to scrutinise legislation and sort the wheat from the chaff.

@TheShadowyFeminist

Cos it's being written by lobbyists seems to be the answer. 🤨

What has happened to the respect for Scottish Parliamentary Counsel? I don’t understand this appetite to apparently ignore excellent lawyers. It seems self defeating particularly as they are particular experts in Scottish law.

Are the SNP anti the legal profession in Scotland?

Second chamber is what I've been thinking too. Seeing how the HoL have stepped up & put the breaks on things over the past year or so has made me think that 2nd level of oversight is needed, especially given the issues that have come up in a number of SNP bills/legislation.

Slightly off topic, here's a thread on an audit of Scotgov's prepared-ness (is that a word?) for the Covid pandemic.

Link to twitter thread

NHS passes with flying colours, Scotgov as a whole, not so much.

The NHS planning seems to have really made a huge difference. But a failure to do something about social care's ability to cope is flagged.

If you have a look at the preparation for the GRA bill & the correspondence that goes on between the lawyers who worked on it, and the various lobbyists, you can see they don't have a good grasp on what's being said/asked & have effectively deferred to the 'expertise' of the lobbyists.

There's an exchange on the conflation of sex & gender & how there was a need for clarity of terms, and then it's pointed out that Press For Change/Stephen Whittle wanted that conflation/confusion when the GRA was written, to make it more difficult to discriminate against trans people on the basis of sex. I'll need to do some digging on that but it's not Scottish Parliamentary Counsel involved from memory.

Mean to quote you Alex for that reply

"I don’t understand this appetite to apparently ignore excellent lawyers."

Meant to quote you Lex

Sorry for typos!

@WouldBeGood

This is partly why I think a second chamber would be helpful, to scrutinise legislation and sort the wheat from the chaff.

Have to say that recent events including Brexit and that maternity bill amongst others have really changed my mind about the HoL. Wish we had a second chamber in Scotland to try and reign in some of the HCB and other lunacy.

I find myself depressed by the response; irrespective of whether Scotland is independent, I wouldn’t be satisfied with Scotland’s only and most experienced drafters having reduced or no influence.

This matters greatly- at every stage of the process of developing and writing legislation lawyers will be refining and checking the result is lawful.

If an outside party is doing that I would be worried - it means that process may not be happening and the checks and balances of developing legislation are not happening.

I know Parliament can scrutinise but the nuts and bolts of legislation unquestionably need an expert eye to ensure lawfulness because they know the legal landscape.

@Graffitiqueen - don’t be fooled by arguments against the Lords! They are and were enough to make Ministers and government lawyers quake. It was known they were tougher, less beholden to party politics and the standard of debate and expertise far higher than in the Commons, which was, as you might expect, pretty partisan.

One Scottish Lord described walking into the Lords with rubbish legislation as “walking into the valley of death”.

I've been banging on about some sort of 2nd chamber for years, if the shitshow topples, maybe some decent reform will happen.

Looks like the committee have been given some messages www.thenational.scot/news/19144636.crown-office-give-messages-msps-alex-salmond-says-shows-high-level-plot/

@WaxOnFeckOff

I've been banging on about some sort of 2nd chamber for years, if the shitshow topples, maybe some decent reform will happen.

I remember debating this at university back in 2002! I don't think there are good reasons not to have a level of oversight, although obviously it needs to be an elected chamber.

I actually harbour a wee love for the idea of a citizen's second chamber where they can sit for a year, salaried.

@GirlLovesWorld a bit of an Athenian idea. I quite like that too. Non-politicians!

@StatisticallyChallenged that’s really not looking great and it’s in the National.

Two things stood out for me in this latest revelation. Firstly:

"He added: “That includes, for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (chief executive), Ian McCann (compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (chief operating officer) of the SNP together with Liz Lloyd, the First Minister’s chief of staff.
“There are others who, for legal reasons, I am not allowed to name.”"

I assume he is not allowed to name them because they are among the complainants, which raises the question - were some of the complainants part of this effort to damage him??

Secondly:
"He said the Crown Office told Kenny MacAskill last July there were no messages from Murrell – who is married to the First Minister – pressuring the police to investigate him.

Murrell later admitted sending texts to colleagues which appeared to show him urging colleagues to go to the police."
Did the crown office lie about the existence of evidence?

@GirlLovesWorld that’s a great idea! And would really promote civic responsibility and positive involvement in politics.