Well what would you expect her to have done and what would any Law abiding citizen expect a future leader to do, she was a past Solicitor who held a LLB (Hons) and Diploma in Legal Practice and she was deputy First Minister, I would have hoped she wouldn’t turn a blind eye like she probably did. I honestly don’t think I can explain it any better QC, one can read into it whatever they like but it’s as plain as day for me.
Well it depends. You may think you are being plain, but I don't think you are. You aren't actually explaining to me what her duties are. She could have been a Nobel Prize winner for all I care, it doesn't follow she's under a duty to report certain things. She may be, though, and if she is, then what is the duty and how does it arise and in what circumstances? Being a law-abiding citizen and holding a university degree doesn't quite cut it for me. I assume her status as a solicitor is comparable to that of a solicitor in England & Wales, in that she is an officer of the court if still on the Roll, but that doesn't mean she has to report people under these circumstances.
There's also the prior question of what we're assuming Nicola Sturgeon should have known. I raised this before and you didn't answer. Is she supposed to have had concerns about his behaviour, or known of the concerns of others, or known of allegations, or what?
It's also in the nature of this sort of behaviour that it is open to interpretation. First, it's not been established in any neutral forum that Alex Salmond actually behaved in a criminal way, or even in a discriminatory or harassing way. He may have done certain unseemly and inappropriate things, like touching a woman's leg or making inappropriate remarks or whatever, but that's not necessarily in itself criminal or harassing, even when it is repeated with different people. It may seem obvious that it is, but it isn't.
He may have touched a woman, for instance, because he liked her and wanted sex with her. The state, even in Scotland, does not quite yet micro-regulate sexual relations, so he is free to do this. She is equally free to refuse and/or slap his face and/or pour beer over him and/or if she likes, complain - normal things that have happened since pubs and offices were first invented.
Did any of these women complain promptly? If someone did, then whether Nicola Sturgeon knows or not seems irrelevant. Since there was a complaint, the question of Nicola Sturgeon's cognisance is a nugatory point. If there was no complaint, how is that the responsibility of Nicola Sturgeon in particular to initiate one or remember incidents of behaviour that are open to interpretation? Wouldn't she be lying? And couldn't she then be accused of going after Alex Salmond?
If there is a statutory duty on an employer in these circumstances, then I should think it rests with the Devolved Civil Service, assuming these women were civil servants; or if they were SNP officials, then the complaints should have gone through whatever are the personnel channels of the SNP - normally paid officials working for the party chairman, which is how most political parties work in the UK. I doubt an elected SNP politician would deal with such matters, for a number of good reasons. Their role is political, not administrative. You're not seriously suggesting that complaints should have gone to one of Salmond's political colleagues?
I'm afraid I think both the allegations against Salmond and against Sturgeon appear to be exaggerated nonsense. I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon had it in for Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond is duly obliging us by demonstrating that he has it in for Nicola Sturgeon, risking his own liberty and reputation in the process when he should be thanking his lucky stars and keeping his mouth shut.