Ding Ding Ding! Round 5 Salmond and Sturgeon

[Blurberoo]

New thread...

The Committee’s ability to scrutinise has also been significantly impacted by
delays in the provision of information. We set out firstly the difficulties in obtaining
information from the Scottish Government and, secondly, difficulties relating to the
former First Minister’s evidence. These difficulties cannot be overstated as they have seriously hindered our ability to fully scrutinise the work of the Scottish Government, which is at the heart of our remit.

There's a whole section on challenges with documentation

Yes I agree re the timing and the timing of the leak. And if I’m going to be extra paranoid, the timing of Craig Murray’s verdict. I see the Bridges for Indy Twitter account is back up, they had taken themselves off in case they said something regrettable! ‘#AlexSalmondsCrony 🍒 ( Bridges For Indy) (@bridgesforindy) Tweeted: I temporarily had to close my social media presence yesterday as if I hadn't the rage I felt last night would have led to me having both my Twitter and 3 Facebook accounts closed and possibly ended up with me being arrested. I accept that this morning Scotland is fucked for 5 yrs‘

Basically abdicates responsibility for ministerial code to Hamilton, but makes a few observations:

718. The Committee finds it hard to believe that the First Minister had no knowledge
     of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Salmond prior to November 2017. If she did have such knowledge, then she should have acted upon it. If she did have such knowledge, then she has misled the Committee.

719. The Committee notes that there are contradictions as to the purpose of the
     meeting on 29 March 2018 and what took place at that meeting. However, the First
     Minister’s failure to recollect this meeting in the weeks following her statement to
     Parliament on 8 January 2019 and her account of this meeting is at odds with that of Mr Salmond who asserts that Mr Aberdein told him that the First Minister was so informed on 29 March 2018. The Committee accepts that there may be differing recollections of this meeting and is not in a position to take a view on whether the
     former First Minister’s or the First Minister’s version of events is the more
     persuasive, although it notes that the former First Minister’s version has the benefit of being confirmed by others.

720. The Committee notes that there is a fundamental contradiction in the evidence
     in relation to whether, at the meeting on 2 April 2018, the First Minister did or did not
     agree to intervene. Taking account of the competing versions of events, the
     Committee believes that she did in fact leave Mr Salmond with the impression that she would, if necessary, intervene. This was confirmed by Duncan Hamilton who was also at the meeting. Her written evidence is therefore an inaccurate account of whathappened, and she has misled the Committee on this matter. This is a potential breach of the Ministerial Code under the terms of section 1.3 (c).4

721. The Committee notes the First Ministers explanation that it would have been inappropriate for her to have reported the meeting on 2 April 2018 to the Permanent Secretary given that a) it concerned the revelation of an investigation into complaints under the Scottish Government’s procedure, b) the First Minister had no role in that procedure and c) the First Minister took the view that to have intervened would potentially have prejudiced the investigation. However, the Committee is concerned that it took until 6 June 2018 (and several meetings and messages exchanged) for the First Minister to inform the Permanent Secretary of the fact of her meetings with Mr Salmond at the point that legal action was being contemplated. Given the sensitivities
     of the matter and the fact that it related to internal government complaints handling,
     the Committee believes that it was inappropriate for the First Minister to continue to meet and have discussions with the former First Minister on this topic. She should have made the Permanent Secretary aware of her state of knowledge of the complaints and the facts of the meetings at the earliest opportunity after 2 April at which point, she should have confirmed that she would cease to have any further contact with Mr Salmond on that subject.5

I don't think Leslie Evans is coming out well; criticised on a number of fronts. My own reading - she's coming across as a control freak who couldn't recognise a conflict of interest if it bit her on the nose.

It's really surprising what they thought was acceptable.

It’s absolutely astounding that LE is still in post! She must know some dark secrets

It's all very odd.

The FM treats the Scottish people like "Plebs" Keep them in the dark and feed them shit!!

Hopefully on the 6th May they rebel!!

@noego

The FM treats the Scottish people like "Plebs" Keep them in the dark and feed them shit!!

Hopefully on the 6th May they rebel!!

We call that mushroom management.

Some Evans extracts...

Re the policy
337. The Committee notes that the Permanent Secretary as Deciding Officer has two decision points under the procedure. The first is determining, following an initial investigation of the complaint, whether there is cause for concern and the second is, following the final investigation, whether the complaint is well-founded. The Committee does not believe it is appropriate for both decisions to rest with the Permanent Secretary as Deciding Officer. If the same person is making both decisions, the question that has to be asked is whether they can be sufficiently independent to judge whether a complaint is well founded given they have already determined there is cause for concern. The Committee believes there is a case to amend the procedure to allow for the first decision to be taken by a senior civil servant of Director General level to
ensure the person taking the final decision has not been previously involved in the
complaint. The Committee notes recommendation 6 of the Dunlop reviewcxxiv.

344. Ultimately it was the First Minister who signed off the procedure and it was the Permanent Secretary who had the responsibility to ensure its implementation was robust and to minimise the risk that the procedure itself could be challenged. Ultimately it was the prior involvement of the Investigating Officer which led to the Scottish Government conceding the judicial review but the Committee believes the degree of involvement of the Permanent Secretary and her actions as Deciding Officer also places a question mark over the process. The Committee is also concerned by the Permanent Secretary’s decision to make public comment when the investigation was concluded. This is explored in more detail later in the report

Re documentation for judicial review...
599. The Committee is conscious that the Permanent Secretary's office was identified
as coordinating the supply of information for the judicial review and that the Permanent Secretary was one of a few people who had been aware of the prior contact of the Investigating Officer. It must be questioned why the Permanent Secretary in her role and with her knowledge did not ensure that the relevant information was extracted and processed at a much earlier stage. This individual failing is as significant as the general corporate failing already described.

As an exercise of how far the SNP/Scotgov can push the limits on acceptable conduct, this entire process has highlighted that there's little to no constraints, consequences or censure that has any effect in ensuring good conduct at all times. There's basically no teeth & no accountability. Lots of finger wagging & little consequences for those who transgress.

It's very clear now that (In my opinion v similar to how trump operated - rarely took account of established practices that weren't enshrined in law) Scotgov operates on the basis it can do what it likes, doesn't listen to opposing views & has a very adversarial position on just about anything (puts opposition in the situation of having to engage expensive litigation rather than being open to discussion or consensus).

The HCB epitomises this IMO. Their conduct throughout the Salmond issues underlines how 'rogue' they've become. No oversight or accountability or consequences for poor or even potentially criminal conduct.

Andy Wightman’s take is very measured, offers nothing to conspiracy theorists, has criticism for pretty much everyone involved:
andywightman.scot/committee-on-the-scottish-government-handling-of-harassment-complaints

The Wings site has a thorough breakdown of reports . Unless you want to feel thoroughly depressed for rest of day I suggest you don’t read it.

The fact that Linda Evans is still in post is shocking

Interesting point about the initiation of the new procedure - they seem to give weight to the idea that it was partly about Alex Salmond.

mobile.twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1374297472084885504

@TheShadowyFeminist it’s very American in approach, eh? Almost as if they are getting advice from an American legal team.. very adversarial, sloppy shoulders, just ride it out, screw the ideas of valuing dignity or diplomacy!

I feel a bit better since yesterday after reading the committee report. I don’t think it gets to the bottom of everything by any means, but it could have been much more of a white wash.

It could definitely have been worse and more whitewash but it is all immensely frustrating.

I don't think these reports are really changing views either way tbh.

Can’t really argue with the Wings analysis either.

Agree Statistically I think unfortunately everyone will take what they want from these reports. I do hope more evidence comes to light still. The relationship with the crown office is still one of the most concerning parts.

This statement from the original complainants in the Committee report is sad. Will Rape Crisis Scotland comment on it? (Of course not)

Fraser Nelson writes that the FM has received as strong an exoneration as she could have hoped for. But, from the posts I have read, not in the view of most on this thread. Just so I don’t make any assumptions, is there anyone on this thread that wd have voted SNP prior to this matter? This is the first Scottish Parliament election where I will be voting SNP.

I think there's quite a few ex snp voters on the thread

Yeah I saw that blureboo

The police I think told Scottish government 4 times to refer the complainers to the appropriate agencies not to take it on themselves to decide to report for the complainers to the police

I believe there are people who have changed from being SNP voters over this on this thread.

Let's also be clear that whilst I was never and never will be a SNP voter, if this was Labour or the Tories or whoever, I wouldn't be voting for them either.

I’m an ex SNP voter and this is a significant part of that. I previously voted for independence etc.