jakedee Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotland-is-now-a-failed-state-and-holyroods-inquiry-shows-the-first-minister-is-the-cause-brian-monteith-3149762?amp Is this right? I haven't been following this closely and hadn't realised that Scotland was even a state, never mind a failed one. It's explained in the last paragraph Brian Monteith is editor of ThinkScotland.org and served in the Scottish and European Parliaments for the Conservative and Brexit Parties respectively 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 The Scottish Government trying to redact it's legal advice from the CoS trial is very telling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 40 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: The rule is that legal advice isn't revealed, if it helps. It isn't a rule. There recipient of the advice can expressly waive privilege or it be implied through their actions. Hope this clarifies "the rule" for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 5 minutes ago, strichener said: It isn't a rule. There recipient of the advice can expressly waive privilege or it be implied through their actions. Hope this clarifies "the rule" for you. "In the case of government, only if it is confidential can that advice be given freely and frankly. And the risk is, if Ministers and government departments think that their legal problems will become public, the temptation might be that they will not ask for advice. There would be a chilling effect on those considering the legality of their actions – and ultimately the Rule of Law would not be observed in government with any rigour or consistency." https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-role-of-the-advocate-general-and-its-constitutional-context It's a rule. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT1867 Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 9 minutes ago, Detournement said: The Scottish Government trying to redact it's legal advice from the CoS trial is very telling. Will be interesting to see the date the SG were advised by their lawyers that they would lose the JR. If it's only a few days before the SG folded then it bebunks Salmond's theory that it was strung out in the hope that a guilty verdict at the criminal trial would kill off the JR. If there is a gap of weeks (or even months) then it backs up Salmond's claim. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: "In the case of government, only if it is confidential can that advice be given freely and frankly. And the risk is, if Ministers and government departments think that their legal problems will become public, the temptation might be that they will not ask for advice. There would be a chilling effect on those considering the legality of their actions – and ultimately the Rule of Law would not be observed in government with any rigour or consistency." https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-role-of-the-advocate-general-and-its-constitutional-context It's a rule. I've already explained to you why it isn't a rule that legal advice has to remain confidential. It is an established principle in Common Law and a right that can be and often is waived. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, strichener said: I've already explained to you why it isn't a rule that legal advice has to remain confidential. It is an established principle in Common Law and a right that can be and often is waived. Quantify "often". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 25 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Quantify "often". I think the UK government were forced to reveal their legal advice during the Brexit debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 The Scottish Government trying to redact it's legal advice from the CoS trial is very telling. The reporting of this on the news was quite explicit - only names or parts that would identify the complainants. They cannot redact dates, for example, which are a critical issue. The Greens are apparently satisfied with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said: Quantify "often". No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 42 minutes ago, strichener said: No. often /ˈɒf(ə)n,ˈɒft(ə)n/ adverb frequently; many times. "he often goes for long walks by himself" bullshit /ˈbʊlʃɪt/ VULGAR SLANG noun stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense. verb talk nonsense to (someone) in an attempt to deceive them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 14 hours ago, Baxter Parp said: Salmond inquiry: Why media's treatment of scandal shows 'double standards' https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19127266.salmond-inquiry-alastair-campbell-says-scandal-shows-double-standards/ Alastair Campbell says The people making the "Blair got away with the Iraq war so it would be unfair if Nicola didn't get away with one" (stupidest point I've ever seen on here) must not know how to feel about big Alastair and his words of hypocrisy. Wonder what he has to gain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 The legal advice shows that the Scottish Government were warned they could lose their judicial review against Alex Salmond two months before they did. Is that important? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diegomarahenry Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 22 minutes ago, Paco said: The legal advice shows that the Scottish Government were warned they could lose their judicial review against Alex Salmond two months before they did. Is that important? It backs up Salmonds claim that the SG were pursuing him at all costs and that it was personal I guess. More of a blow to the Government than a victory for Salmond, it cost the tax payer a fortune and fuels the cover up narrative. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo2143 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 27 minutes ago, Paco said: The legal advice shows that the Scottish Government were warned they could lose their judicial review against Alex Salmond two months before they did. Is that important? I would say that the legal advice shows that while reservations were noted in October 2018 it was only in late December it became absolutely clear that they should drop the case. I don't think it is as damaging as some claim. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 42 minutes ago, paolo2143 said: I would say that the legal advice shows that while reservations were noted in October 2018 it was only in late December it became absolutely clear that they should drop the case. I don't think it is as damaging as some claim. If anything, if there's any presentation of anything at lease semi-coherent there in terms of some argument for further pursuing the case, it completely vindicates them on that specific point. Of course the next claim will just be that they've embellished that and there's not really any way or the gov to disprove that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Did the thread title slightly change? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 hours ago, Paco said: The legal advice shows that the Scottish Government were warned they could lose their judicial review against Alex Salmond two months before they did. Is that important? I've not read this through yet but it doesn't feel like it's black and white. There's a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Let's say SG had dropped the case against Salmond because there was a strong likelihood they'd lose it. How would that have been viewed by the likes of the Tory contingent? I'm confident they'd have got slaughtered for not pursuing this. As it is, they're getting slaughtered for pursuing it. Maybe if folk in positions of influence were a bit less handsy, other people wouldn't have these decisions to make. As it is, "handsy" wasn't criminal behaviour. But, had that verdict gone the other way and the SG had dropped their action, all hell would have broken loose. It's easy for people like Adam Fucking Tompkins to be a total c**t after the fact. There goes one Grade A w****r. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Mahelp Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 10 minutes ago, HTG said: I've not read this through yet but it doesn't feel like it's black and white. There's a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Let's say SG had dropped the case against Salmond because there was a strong likelihood they'd lose it. How would that have been viewed by the likes of the Tory contingent? I'm confident they'd have got slaughtered for not pursuing this. As it is, they're getting slaughtered for pursuing it. Maybe if folk in positions of influence were a bit less handsy, other people wouldn't have these decisions to make. As it is, "handsy" wasn't criminal behaviour. But, had that verdict gone the other way and the SG had dropped their action, all hell would have broken loose. It's easy for people like Adam Fucking Tompkins to be a total c**t after the fact. There goes one Grade A w****r. I posted this earlier and was shot down for it. Once the SG were aware of allegations against Salmond, they would feel duty bound to pursue this. OK, in hindsight, they and the civil service made an arse of it, but can you actually imagine the hell that would have been raised if there was the slightest hint that the SNP were brushing allegations of rape against a senior figure under the carpet ??? They were warned that they 'could' lose the judicial review. Not that they 'would' lose it. That didn't give the SG leeway to drop everything and pretend that nothing had happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.