Alex Salmond.

[Boo Khaki]

Yes, I think there's a wee bit of confusion in this thread about what the Judicial Review actually was, and the fact Salmond was already subject to a criminal investigation by the time it collapsed.

There's nothing about the SG throwing the towel in that would have suggested they were trying to cover for Eck, and nor would that have meant they wouldn't still have been able to conduct their own investigation into events using legal means. There is a question regarding how they would go about that while there was a concurrent criminal investigation on the go, but it doesn't mean they would have had to drop it completely, or indefinitely.

To be honest, I can help but agree with Eck when he suggests that the SG's haste to concoct some new policy on becoming aware of the complaints was driven by the need to be seen to be living up to expectations in the aftermath of #Metoo. There was a harassment policy in place, but I don't believe the fact it did not specifically refer to 'sexual' harassment is relevant, and I also suspect that despite it originally being intended to deal with sitting ministers, there was no real reason why the exact same policy couldn't have been retrospectively applied to former ministers. That would probably have caused a legal argument in itself, but it's wrong to think that there was absolutely nothing in place to begin with, and therefore, this explains the SG's apparent slapdash haste to cobble something together. It does not. The fact that LE and JMcK took the initial complaints and were then charged with formulating a policy to investigate them beggars belief.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

On 28/02/2021 at 19:59, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Tony Blair lied to the Commons about so-called Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and subsequently committed the UK to an international conflict, the fallout of which resonates to this day, in which hundreds of thousands lost their lives. He on the other hand survived.
I'd give Sturgeon the opportunity to give her account before you place her political head on a stake, no ?

You're asking me to grant her some kind of equivalence with Tony fuckin Blair?

Ok... now can we get her the f**k out of here before she does any more damage?

I hope, for her sake, she doesn't go ahead and 'give her account' under oath. She has in fact been giving 'her account' for months... and, as is clearer and clearer as the evidence comes out, it doesn't add up.

She's put her own political head on a stake. If she can somehow wangle it back off over the next couple of weeks, we're even more fucked than I thought we were.

On 28/02/2021 at 20:19, Day of the Lords said:

Did you forget that he's fucking spot on?
 

 

Thanks. How's that shiny shite coming?

 

On 28/02/2021 at 20:26, Bob Mahelp said:

When you say 'spot on', you mean 'so far ahead it makes me kinda embarrassed'?

Actually, and spot on, as well. 

There's a growing fanaticism about this from certain people which is bordering on unhealthy. Are Unionists actually so full of hate, desperation and fear ?

It seems so. 

 

I'm a member of the SNP.

The only people running on fanaticism, hate, desperation, and fear are the people who've rushed to Sturgeon's defence without knowing the first thing about what they're quacking about.

On 28/02/2021 at 23:08, Andre Drazen said:

Ghost of B A R P has had this all along. 

Why thanks; that's very kind of you.

Spoiler

Grow up, ya 'vile c**t'.

 

[lichtgilphead]

56 minutes ago, strichener said:

I meant that the SNP had the most members on the committee.  Poor wording on my part.

Never mind. At least you got a greenie from @Stormzyfor it 

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

2 hours ago, strichener said:

The committee is majority SNP.

I didn't mean bias as in the make up of the committee. Bias on the part of the Conservatives on that committee given they have basically passed judgement in advance of her giving evidence.

Of course the Conservatives are going to try to extract political capital out of this.  That isn't bias but taking your opportunity.  The FM herself basically used a public information address to call into question a court verdict.  Which is worse?

[strichener]

6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Never mind. At least you got a greenie from @Stormzyfor it 

Tbf there were two things in the post.  Rather presumptuous of you to think that was the part he/she agreed with. 

[Billy Jean King]

Is Swinney up tomorrow?

You both realise there is a motion of no confidence in Sturgeon ???

[MacDonald Jardine]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

 

You could guarantee that the Tories would have said there was a cover-up if they had dropped it.

Not at all. As another poster has said the way to deal with it was to acknowledge a procedural problem and start again.

I'm essence the line Swinney is now peddling us it was just a wee procedural hiccup.

The way to deal with it is not to blindly press ahead, hide documents then bail out at the last minute.

[strichener]

2 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Is Swinney up tomorrow?

You both realise there is a motion of no confidence in Sturgeon ???

No I didn't realise this existed.  Link?

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

No I didn't realise this existed.  Link?

Don't know whether VONC has been tabled yet, but headline on Reporting Scotland at 6:30 was that Tories intend to push for it tomorrow

[Deanburn Dave]

5 minutes ago, strichener said:

No I didn't realise this existed.  Link?

No confidence vote in Nicola Sturgeon to be submitted after Alex Salmond case legal advice published | Politics News | Sky News

[Deanburn Dave]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

Don't know whether VONC has been tabled yet, but headline on Reporting Scotland at 6:30 was that Tories intend to push for it tomorrow

Not tabled yet but multiple news feeds quote the tories as saying they will start the process.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

2 hours ago, strichener said:

I find it rather amusing that people are willing to be critical of the committee rather than those that have appeared before it (some on more than one occasion) and have suffered from amnesia in some instances and a complete lack of credibility in many instances.

I think it's only fair to be critical that a party represented on the committee has lodged a no confidence motion against someone the night BEFORE they appear in front of that committee. It's poor stuff.

Looked at the gov website and couldn't see any evidence of this the "night BEFORE" poor stuff from yourself.

12 minutes ago, Deanburn Dave said:

No confidence vote in Nicola Sturgeon to be submitted after Alex Salmond case legal advice published | Politics News | Sky News

Yeah but you can't lodge the motion with Sky.

9 minutes ago, Deanburn Dave said:

Not tabled yet but multiple news feeds quote the tories as saying they will start the process.

As they have with Swinney and yet haven't.  The first post quoted was the one that I had been replying to.  It appears that rhetoric is now poor stuff when it affects the FM but COVID briefings are perfectly acceptable for public attacks on someone two days BEFORE they appear before the committee.

[diegomarahenry]

Can't wait to hear Janey Godleys hilarious voiceover of Sturgeon at the inquiry........ 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Thanks. How's that shiny shite coming?

 

Absolutely rent-free 

I feel guilty, there's so much fuckin' space. 

[NotThePars]

1 hour ago, diegomarahenry said:

Can't wait to hear Janey Godleys hilarious voiceover of Sturgeon at the inquiry........ 

The fundamentalist wing need Godley to throw Sturgeon under the rocks or they won't get any traction with the wider public given she's the pied piper of the Scottish electorate these days.

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

The fundamentalist wing need Godley to throw Sturgeon under the rocks or they won't get any traction with the wider public given she's the pied piper of the Scottish electorate these days.

You saw my post in the next leader thread didn't you...

[NotThePars]

Just now, Stormzy said:

You saw my post in the next leader thread didn't you...

I consciously forgot but it must've been on my mind!

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Not at all. As another poster has said the way to deal with it was to acknowledge a procedural problem and start again.
I'm essence the line Swinney is now peddling us it was just a wee procedural hiccup.
The way to deal with it is not to blindly press ahead, hide documents then bail out at the last minute.

That's naive.

Even if they had called a halt earlier (and the evidence from the legal documents is not as clear cut as some are making out) and just started again the Tories would still have not been happy.

I can imagine there would have been accusations of cover up etc etc.

I still say this was a rock and a hard place of a decision.

[MacDonald Jardine]

9 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

That's naive.

Even if they had called a halt earlier (and the evidence from the legal documents is not as clear cut as some are making out) and just started again the Tories would still have not been happy.

I can imagine there would have been accusations of cover up etc etc.

I still say this was a rock and a hard place of a decision.

So it's better to give the Tories all this ammunition?

The legal advice is absolutely clear cut.

initially it was very positive. As the case developed there were potential problems with some aspects but still overall it was optimistic.

it then moved to probably losing on one point but still a shareable defence.

where the real change came was December when documents were produced.

that's when counsel advised the case was unstatable, based on what the documents eventually produced showed.

notwithstanding that a senior civil servants was willing to sign an affidavit attesting to the unstateable.

people seem confused about the options open to them.

The SG defended the judicial review to allow them to carry on with the clearly flaw ed investigation.

The other alternative was concede and immediately commission another investigation in line with the policy.

if the aim was to get to the truth of the complaints that's the way to do it.

we still don't have that and now never will.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

So it's better to give the Tories all this ammunition?
The legal advice is absolutely clear cut.
initially it was very positive. As the case developed there were potential problems with some aspects but still overall it was optimistic.
it then moved to probably losing on one point but still a shareable defence.
where the real change came was December when documents were produced.
that's when counsel advised the case was unstatable, based on what the documents eventually produced showed.
notwithstanding that a senior civil servants was willing to sign an affidavit attesting to the unstateable.
people seem confused about the options open to them.
The SG defended the judicial review to allow them to carry on with the clearly flaw ed investigation.
The other alternative was concede and immediately commission another investigation in line with the policy.
if the aim was to get to the truth of the complaints that's the way to do it.
we still don't have that and now never will.

More the point that whatever they had done the Tories would have exploited it.

The one thing in all of this is that still is not clear is how much Sturgeon knew.

It's all and fine saying that she should have known - but we are also potentially talking about individuals within the civil service etc trying to save their own skins - there is a gut feeling that at some points of this process (not the actual evidence) some individuals have been economical with the actualite.

One name in particular at the heart of this affair - not Sturgeon - has a lot more to say.