Alex Salmond Rape Charge.

[guest29835]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9389851/Nicola-Sturgeon-CLEARED-QC-breaching-ministerial-code.html

As predicted, Hamilton has cleared her, wouldn’t expect anything else when a former Employee is employed to look into any wrongdoing’s, it’s like employing a Mafia member to look into a Cartel.

Are you saying Hamilton has been an employee of Sturgeon?

[guest7363]

Are you saying Hamilton has been an employee of Sturgeon?

Yes QC, it was a forgone conclusion what the outcome would be.

He was an independent advisor to the Scottish Government, first appointed by Salmond and then re appointed in 2015 by Sturgeon.

Ministerial code

The scope of his investigation into Ms Sturgeon was much narrower than the parliamentary one and was conducted in private.

This probe is looking specifically at whether Ms Sturgeon lied to parliament, and if she broke the ministerial code by not reporting meetings she had with Mr Salmond when allegations were first emerging.

James Hamilton’s report is the first in a series of developments this week, which could decide the first minister’s future.

A separate Holyrood inquiry report is due to be published on Tuesday, which looks specifically at the mishandled complaints process, after a judicial review found it had been unlawful and tainted by apparent bias.

Finally, Ms Sturgeon will face a no-confidence vote being brought by the Conservatives against her on Wednesday in what looks to be a decisive week for the SNP leader ahead of May’s Holyrood election.

[guest29835]

Yes QC, it was a forgone conclusion what the outcome would be.

He was an independent advisor to the Scottish Government, first appointed by Salmond and then re appointed in 2015 by Sturgeon.

But he wasn't strictly an employee of Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP, rather it appears he was working for the Scottish Government, which is bureaucratically a branch of the UK civil service.

While I am certainly not a fan of Nicola Sturgeon, I am still not clear what this is all about.  Initially I thought that the implication was that she had leaned on the criminal justice system, but there was actually an inquiry by the Scottish government itself.

Could you spell out for me in plain terms what it is you are saying she is supposed to have done?  Forgetting about a meeting is not a breach of the ministerial code, and even if James Hamilton is wrong and she deliberately misled some people, that doesn't tell me what this is about at its core, which I'm not clear on. 

I am also surprised that Alex Salmond is saying that he was given assurances by Nicola Sturgeon that she would intervene.  That is a startling admission of wrong-doing by Alex Salmond, never mind Nicola Sturgeon.  I assume he means intervene in the internal investigation by the Scottish Government.  How can it be proper for Alex Salmond to make such demands?  Even in a private employer-employee situation, an employee accused of sexual harassment would not help his position should he approach the employer on that basis.  Unless it is a very small business or organisation, that sort of behaviour looks to me like an attempt to exert improper influence.  Even if Alex Salmond did not demand anything, as such, and it was Nicola Sturgeon who made the promise, it still wasn't right for Alex Salmond to do that.

On the other hand, why would Alex Salmond lie about this?  I'm just thoroughly confused by the whole thing.

[guest7363]

But he wasn't strictly an employee of Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP, rather it appears he was working for the Scottish Government, which is bureaucratically a branch of the UK civil service.

While I am certainly not a fan of Nicola Sturgeon, I am still not clear what this is all about.  Initially I thought that the implication was that she had leaned on the criminal justice system, but there was actually an inquiry by the Scottish government itself.

Could you spell out for me in plain terms what it is you are saying she is supposed to have done?  Forgetting about a meeting is not a breach of the ministerial code, and even if James Hamilton is wrong and she deliberately misled some people, that doesn't tell me what this is about at its core, which I'm not clear on. 

I am also surprised that Alex Salmond is saying that he was given assurances by Nicola Sturgeon that she would intervene.  That is a startling admission of wrong-doing by Alex Salmond, never mind Nicola Sturgeon.  I assume he means intervene in the internal investigation by the Scottish Government.  How can it be proper for Alex Salmond to make such demands?  Even in a private employer-employee situation, an employee accused of sexual harassment would not help his position should he approach the employer on that basis.  Unless it is a very small business or organisation, that sort of behaviour looks to me like an attempt to exert improper influence.  Even if Alex Salmond did not demand anything, as such, and it was Nicola Sturgeon who made the promise, it still wasn't right for Alex Salmond to do that.

On the other hand, why would Alex Salmond lie about this?  I'm just thoroughly confused by the whole thing.

Ok, the first part I will rephrase he was Appointed by Sturgeon?  How much influence she had in this appointment is anyone’s guess, but I would think she had a big say.

So, the difference between the Hamilton enquiry and the Committee one, the Committee have actually called and listened to witnesses over the affair where as Hamilton has just looked into it, Sturgeon referred herself to Hamilton for investigation, why she chose him is anyone’s guess when he was a Scottish Government advisor?

The Committee after  listening to evidence say this.
there was clear evidence she breached the ministerial code by offering to intervene in a Scottish government harassment inquiry on Salmond’s behalf.

A majority of MSPs on the committee were dubious about Sturgeon’s testimony that she did not know of any prior concerns about Salmond’s behaviour, and said there was clear evidence she did breach the ministerial code.

So, she offered to lean on, or intervene to help Salmond and obviously abusing her powers this to me justify’s why she should go, not because she didn’t, it’s what she thought she could and if you follow the trail, once she distanced herself from this she did the opposite, she was told there wasn’t a case yet she still went ahead.  Others including her husband ( who was accused by the Committee of giving false statements)  they then set out  to destroy Salmond and cover up for Sturgeon. There are messages to the Police ect, Murrell was also asked about texts he sent which showed him urging the police to be pressurised in the Salmond case. Salmond was acquitted of criminal charges after a trial last year.

You also have to ask yourself, Sturgeon who was Salmon's Deputy and claims that Salmond’s was her mentor, how much did she know about Salmond’s behaviour beforehand and kept quite?  Some of these charges date back to 2011.  A majority of MSPs on the committee were dubious about Sturgeon’s testimony that she did not know of any prior concerns about Salmond’s behaviour, and said there was clear evidence she did breach the ministerial code.

“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 has mislead the Committee.  I’m sure more will come out on Wednesday when Salmond will speak?

I agree both Salmond and Sturgeon are probably as bad as each other, but at the end of the day Salmond has been found not guilty of anything regarding sex offences and he probably feels or know’s that people who he thought of as friends, have stabbed him in the back and it could have led to a long imprisonment for him.

[guest29835]

...

So, she offered to lean on, or intervene to help Salmond and obviously abusing her powers this to me justify’s why she should go, not because she didn’t, it’s what she thought she could and if you follow the trail, once she distanced herself from this she did the opposite, she was told there wasn’t a case yet she still went ahead. 

...

Went ahead with what?

[guest7363]

Went ahead with what?

Sorry QC

Nicola Sturgen received legal advice that her Government would lose in court to Alex Salmond months before blowing £692,000 fighting his judicial review.

Scotland’s most senior lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC was asked for an opinion on the former first minister’s challenge to a sexual harassment probe in October 2018, the Sunday Mail understands.

Sources have confirmed his response was that the former SNP leader would be likely to win. But the Scottish Government rejected the advice on October 31 and forged ahead with the case – before conceding in January 2019 at a huge cost to taxpayers.

Labour has said Sturgeon’s decision not to end the legal fight after receiving the advice could represent a breach of the Ministerial Code, as she has a duty to uphold the administration of justice and comply with the law.

[Steve_uk]

Sorry QC

Nicola Sturgen received legal advice that her Government would lose in court to Alex Salmond months before blowing £692,000 fighting his judicial review.

Scotland’s most senior lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC was asked for an opinion on the former first minister’s challenge to a sexual harassment probe in October 2018, the Sunday Mail understands.

Sources have confirmed his response was that the former SNP leader would be likely to win. But the Scottish Government rejected the advice on October 31 and forged ahead with the case – before conceding in January 2019 at a huge cost to taxpayers.

Labour has said Sturgeon’s decision not to end the legal fight after receiving the advice could represent a breach of the Ministerial Code, as she has a duty to uphold the administration of justice and comply with the law.

But my understanding is that it was Leslie Evans who got the ball rolling, not Nicola Sturgeon. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/01/12/permanent-secretary-defends-decision-to-pursue-criminal-investigation-of-salmond/

[guest7363]

But my understanding is that it was Leslie Evans who got the ball rolling, not Nicola Sturgeon. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/01/12/permanent-secretary-defends-decision-to-pursue-criminal-investigation-of-salmond/

If you read it careful Steve, she says this, Ms Evans insisted that the decision to continue to defend the case despite evidence of prior contact was based on “composite advice” from inside and outwith the Scottish Government.  Asked three times by Scottish Labour’s Jackie Baillie when senior external counsel first advised that the government was unlikely to win the case, Ms Evans refused to say, citing legal privilege.

[guest7363]

If you read it careful Steve, she says this, Ms Evans insisted that the decision to continue to defend the case despite evidence of prior contact was based on “composite advice” from inside and outwith the Scottish Government.  Asked three times by Scottish Labour’s Jackie Baillie when senior external counsel first advised that the government was unlikely to win the case, Ms Evans refused to say, citing legal privilege.

Don't forget Ms Evans is talking about against the wishes of some women involved?  So some of the Women didn’t want to press charges, Scotland’s most senior civil servant has defended the decision to pass sexual harassment complaints about Alex Salmond to the Crown Office against the wishes of the women involved.  So it kinda backs up the case for Salmond don’t you think, that it was a witch-hunt orchestrated by the Scottish Government.

[guest29835]

Sorry QC

Nicola Sturgen received legal advice that her Government would lose in court to Alex Salmond months before blowing £692,000 fighting his judicial review.

Scotland’s most senior lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC was asked for an opinion on the former first minister’s challenge to a sexual harassment probe in October 2018, the Sunday Mail understands.

Sources have confirmed his response was that the former SNP leader would be likely to win. But the Scottish Government rejected the advice on October 31 and forged ahead with the case – before conceding in January 2019 at a huge cost to taxpayers.

Labour has said Sturgeon’s decision not to end the legal fight after receiving the advice could represent a breach of the Ministerial Code, as she has a duty to uphold the administration of justice and comply with the law.

But if the minister is the decision-maker, I don't see how it is a breach of the ministerial code.  Poor legal acumen is not an ethical infraction.  Even if she was guided more than anything else by a desire to get back at Alex Salmond, if she is the decision-maker then that is that.  It would only be an ethical infraction if either she interfered in a decision that was not hers to make, or it was her decision but she made it clear by her words or actions that it was purely a vendetta.

[guest7363]

But if the minister is the decision-maker, I don't see how it is a breach of the ministerial code.  Poor legal acumen is not an ethical infraction.  Even if she was guided more than anything else by a desire to get back at Alex Salmond, if she is the decision-maker then that is that.  It would only be an ethical infraction if either she interfered in a decision that was not hers to make, or it was her decision but she made it clear by her words or actions that it was purely a vendetta.

If your going against the legal advice you’ve been given you fall by your decision, don’t forget this information about the legal advice was drip fed after the FM gave her evidence to the Committee, Nicola Sturgen should have had these questions put to her, but it wasn’t possible because the papers were held back until she gave evidence. I still don’t think the truth and true picture is out.

[guest29835]

If your going against the legal advice you’ve been given you fall by your decision, don’t forget this information about the legal advice was drip fed after the FM gave her evidence to the Committee, Nicola Sturgen should have had these questions put to her, but it wasn’t possible because the papers were held back until she gave evidence. I still don’t think the truth and true picture is out.

Of course, this is true: if she went against expert advice, she is politically embarrassed; but it is not an ethical breach.  She is entitled to argue that it was her decision to make (assuming that is the case) and either:

(i) she doesn't regret it as the allegations were serious and the Scottish Government arguably had a statutory duty by default - in employment law, if nothing else - to pursue the investigation; or,

(ii). she does regret it and it happened because she felt strongly that such allegations against a senior politician, even if only having a thin basis, should be investigated thoroughly and exhaustively, and she now realises that she should have heeded the advice given, and she's very sorry.

Either way, what's the ethical breach?  As far as I can tell, there isn't one. 

Maybe Nicola Sturgeon misled people and engineered a slow drip of relevant disclosure, but there are four points that can be made in her defence:

1. It was an internal investigation by the Devolved Civil Service and/or the Scottish Government of essentially a personnel matter.  Why should there be public disclosure?

2. She was compromised because Alex Salmond, the accused party, was seeking her intervention in a complaint against him.  What was she supposed to say to him?  I am genuinely baffled by Alex Salmond's behaviour in this regard.  Did he really think that Nicola Sturgeon could be held to any promises in that situation?  And how does he think it helps his position if Nicola Sturgeon is lying about what she knew about his historic conduct?  Also, can we really blame Nicola Sturgeon for lying or misleading people in what at the time may have seemed a minor way?  It wasn't relevant to the criminal case and it seems to me to be a contradiction to accuse her of having it in for Alex Salmond while at the same time accusing her of denying all knowledge of his unseemly behaviour.  It's very confusing.  Why does it even matter?

3. She may have genuinely forgotten about meetings and/or had a habit of being lax about protocol in certain situations.  This is common at all levels of society.  I don't condone it, but these are hardly hanging offences.  It is human to cut corners and forget things.  We all do it, including busy and important people.

4. It is assumed that she must have been aware of Alex Salmond's pattern of behaviour prior to late 2017, but why?  Even if they were working in close proximity to each other (which isn't necessarily the case, even if she was officially his deputy), that doesn't mean she was cognisant of what was going on.  A lot of it is also about interpretation and personal bias.  For instance, she may have liked and got on well with Alex Salmond at this point and thus interpreted his actions in a more favourable way than was warranted.

I'm afraid this is one of those occasions when I find myself in the same camp as Steve, albeit it's a broad church as I don't agree with Steve about the viability of the criminal charges brought against Alex Salmond.

Of course, the essential rider is that if Nicola Sturgeon or anyone on her behalf actually leant on the criminal justice system to pursue a prosecution of Alex Salmond, despite the lacklustre outcome of the internal investigation, then we're in whole new territory and Nicola Sturgeon has some serious explaining to do.  But again, it appears there is no evidence for this.

[guest7363]

Of course, this is true: if she went against expert advice, she is politically embarrassed; but it is not an ethical breach.  She is entitled to argue that it was her decision to make (assuming that is the case) and either:

(i) she doesn't regret it as the allegations were serious and the Scottish Government arguably had a statutory duty by default - in employment law, if nothing else - to pursue the investigation; or,

(ii). she does regret it and it happened because she felt strongly that such allegations against a senior politician, even if only having a thin basis, should be investigated thoroughly and exhaustively, and she now realises that she should have heeded the advice given, and she's very sorry.

Either way, what's the ethical breach?  As far as I can tell, there isn't one.  I'm afraid this is one of those occasions when I find myself in the same camp as Steve, albeit it's a broad church as I don't agree with Steve about the viability of the criminal charges brought against Alex Salmond.

Maybe Nicola Sturgeon misled people and engineered a slow drip of relevant disclosure, but there are three points that can be made in her defence:

1. It was an internal investigation by the Devolved Civil Service and/or the Scottish Government of essentially a personnel matter.  Why should there be public disclosure?

2. She was compromised because Alex Salmond, the accused party, was seeking her intervention in a complaint against him.  What was she supposed to say to him?  I am genuinely baffled by Alex Salmond's behaviour in this regard.  Did he really think that Nicola Sturgeon could be held to any promises in that situation?  And how does he think it helps his position if Nicola Sturgeon is lying about what she knew about his historic conduct?  Also, can we really blame Nicola Sturgeon for lying or misleading people?  It wasn't relevant to the criminal case and it seems to me to be a contradiction to accuse her of having it in for Alex Salmond while at the same time accusing her of denying all knowledge of his unseemly behaviour.  It's very confusing.  Why does it even matter?

3. She may have genuinely forgotten about meetings and/or had a habit of being lax about protocol in certain situations.  This is common at all levels of society.  I don't condone it, but these are hardly hanging offences.  It is human to cut corners and forget things.  We all do it, including busy and important people.

4. It is assumed that she must have been aware of Alex Salmond's pattern of behaviour prior to late 2017, but why?  Even if they were working in close proximity to each other (which isn't necessarily the case, even if she was officially his deputy), that doesn't mean she was cognisant of what was going on.  A lot of it is also about interpretation and personal bias.  For instance, she may have liked and got on well with Alex Salmond at this point and thus interpreted his actions in a more favourable way than was warranted.

I'm afraid this is one of those occasions when I find myself in the same camp as Steve, albeit it's a broad church as I don't agree with Steve about the viability of the criminal charges brought against Alex Salmond.

Of course, the essential rider is that if Nicola Sturgeon or anyone on her behalf actually leant on the criminal justice system to pursue a prosecution of Alex Salmond, despite the lacklustre outcome of the internal investigation, then we're in whole new territory and Nicola Sturgeon has some serious explaining to do.  But again, it appears there is no evidence for this.

I think we’re missing one important thing though QC, the handling or mishandling of the case let down the woman who accused Salmon, it wouldn’t stand up because of what happened. There are Legal documents that have been held back, I don’t know what these are but Salmond might touch on these tomorrow?

[guest29835]

I think we’re missing one important thing though QC, the handling or mishandling of the case let down the woman who accused Salmon, it wouldn’t stand up because of what happened. There are Legal documents that have been held back, I don’t know what these are but Salmond might touch on these tomorrow?

Why would Alex Salmond seek to incriminate himself?  That doesn't make any sense.  None of this makes sense really.  Nobody seems to be clear what it is all about, and furthermore, what is actually being alleged in plain terms is not being spelled out.  It's all very odd.  On its face, both the criminal allegations against Salmond and now the allegations against Sturgeon just seem to be a huge fuss over trivialities.

I certainly have no time for Nicola Sturgeon.  Her politics are diametrically opposed to mine, I think she's quite barmy, and I would gladly see her gone.  If this brings her down, I won't shed a tear for her.  However, it seems to me that it's just a power struggle in the SNP and a self-destructive retaliative vendetta from Alex Salmond.  He secured his acquittal and would have been better-advised to stay quiet for a few years, I should think.

[guest7363]

Why would Alex Salmond seek to incriminate himself?  That doesn't make any sense.  None of this makes sense really.  Nobody seems to be clear what it is all about, and furthermore, what is actually being alleged in plain terms is not being spelled out.  It's all very odd.  On its face, both the criminal allegations against Salmond and now the allegations against Sturgeon just seem to be a huge fuss over trivialities.

I certainly have no time for Nicola Sturgeon.  Her politics are diametrically opposed to mine, I think she's quite barmy, and I would gladly see her gone.  If this brings her down, I won't shed a tear for her.  However, it seems to me that it's just a power struggle in the SNP and a self-destructive retaliative vendetta from Alex Salmond.  He secured his acquittal and would have been better-advised to stay quiet for a few years, I should think.

I don’t think Salmond is trying to incriminate himself QC, he has more evidence that he couldn’t produce because of legality, that probably shows there was a conspiracy against him?

On the one hand you’ve got the women accusers who were let down by the Government (Sturgeon and her cronies) by the way they sought to intervene for Salmond and then do a complete U turn when they realised this was their chance to put Salmond to bed, he was the one man who posed the biggest threat to Sturgeon and her leadership.  So the conspiracy was set up to add more fuel to the fire, irrespective of the women who had come forward it was get Salmond at all costs.  Now Salmond could have been guilty of some off these charges we will never know, but because Sturgeon and her cronies used the women accusers like human shields this then  ruined what could have been a fair trial by getting involved, Salmond won and he won against the Government as well.

He know has the upper ground and he wants to destroy what set out to to destroy him.  So he’s exposing the sleaze and inner corruption within the SNP leadership.  He’s exposing what the Leadership and Crown did to him and at the same time this shows that the women accusers were let down as well.  Salmond isn’t worried about that, because he’s been found not guilty in a court of Law, but in a subtle way he’s showing that the Scottish Government hadn’t the accusers best interest at heart, it’s showing the Scottish government lacks integrity and is unfit for purpose and all it was bothered about was to get Salmond at all costs for other reasons.