Jump to content

Sturgeon v Salmond


Yngwie

Recommended Posts

Any thoughts on the FM’s session today?

I watched part of it and thought she came across well, and kept her cool. There was logic in the thought processes she outlined, at least in the bits I saw.

Time will tell what the Committee comes up with.

I am sure politics will play a part. There are 4 SNP members, 2 Conservative (I was extremely unimpressed by the Tory vice convenor!), 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem and 1 Independent who used to be a Green, so it probably comes down to the Independent. 

Edited by Robert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Robert said:

Any thoughts on the FM’s session today?

I watched part of it and thought she came across well, and kept her cool. There was logic in the thought processes she outlined, at least in the bits I saw.

She’s a consummate politician and performer, so that was always going to be the case. But does anyone think she told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? She clearly didn’t. Forgetful? No chance. She is impeccable with detail.....when it suits. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

In answer to your last question, given that the pro-SNP/Indy majority on the committee had previously blocked evidence against the SG and the only challenging questions seemed to come from the opposition representatives, the eventual outcome will probably be critical enough to not be seen as a sham, but not critical enough to be fatal.

Personally, I think the gross failings on this affair by the SG, for which Sturgeon is ultimately responsible, are enough to be a resigning matter even before you get into the realms of breaches of the ministerial code and any possible conspiracy by her inner circle to destroy Salmond.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Last night’s “leak”, the publication of the Committee Report at 0800 on Tuesday and with the report expected from James Hamilton QC next week too regarding whether the FM broke the Ministerial Code, the next week or so is going to be interesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robert said:

Last night’s “leak”, the publication of the Committee Report at 0800 on Tuesday and with the report expected from James Hamilton QC next week too regarding whether the FM broke the Ministerial Code, the next week or so is going to be interesting.

 

Last night's 'news' was no great surprise. This very political committee was always going to divide on party lines. Although, somewhat ironically, the leaking of some selective sorts of the report is a clear breach of the code governing the conduct of MSPs.

The crucial report will be that of James Hamilton who is non political, expert in forensic analysis of evidence, completely independent and, living and working in the Republic of Ireland, with no likely political affiliation in Scotland even undisclosed. He also has access to all of the evidence, even that that the criminal trial judge directed should not be made available to the political enquiry partly out of fear of just the sort of leak that occurred yesterday.

I await that conclusion of that report with very great interest and woll reserve anything else I have to say until then.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taken some time to read and digest the very comprehensive report from James Hamilton running, as it does, to some 61 pages.

What is surprising and very striking is just how completely he exonerates the First Minister from any wrong doing concluding that 'there is no evidence whatsoever that the First Minister acted inappropriately and did not breach the ministerial code'

I doubt that many people expected the report to be so thoroughly conclusive in that regard.

There is no doubt that the Scottish Conservatives will pursue their motion of no confidence tomorrow and there is equally no doubt that it will fail with the Greens already saying, in the light of this finding  that there is no merit to it, in my view, Labour and the Lib Dems would be well advised to follow suit as most fair minded people would now see that as pursuing a vendetta for narrow political ends.

I also expect Alec Salmond to convene a press conference either tomorrow or on Wednesday to try to throw a few more stones at the windows and to continue to do so between now and the election, and possibly beyond, but to increasingly little effect.

We must not lose sight of the fact that there was a serious flaw in the way a procedure was carried out meaning that women who had made complaints about the conduct of the former First Minister were badly let down by the system and that still needs to be addressed although the separate report by Laura Dunlop QC which has quietly slipped under the radar amidst all the politically charged heat and light goes some way to addressing that for the future.

So, where does all that leave Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP and the wider independence movement ?

As I predicted in an earlier post, all slightly damaged but not nearly as badly as the Unionists had hoped and probably expected.

Support for both the SNP and independence has dropped by 3 or 4 percentage points but, in each case, from historical highs and today's very significant development means it is unlikely to drop further between now and the election and may indeed recover at least some of the lost ground with the SNP all but certain to be, by far the largest party in the next parliament with probably a 50/50 chance of an absolute majority and the near certainly of a majority of independence supporting MSPs

The SNP will have lost some support from amongst members, even as evidenced from this thread, very long standing members who have been loyal and very active in the past but my sense is that they are relatively small in numbers and certainly fewer in number than the near 13,000 new members who have joined since the First Minister gave her evidence to the committee who's own report, once it is published tomorrow, will have very little impact having been leaked in advance.

A very interesting six weeks or so in prospect between now and 6th May.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Douglas Ross and Ruth Davidson will have won many friends with their incessant politicising of the issue, coming across as more focussed on it than the pandemic. The most likely cause of the leak was surely one of their Committee members (and whoever it was should be held to account) and they have been outshone by the new Labour leader in comments about the situation.

Today’s timing was interesting with the full Committee report following tomorrow, but James Hamilton is impartial and without the political bias of the 5-4 Committee vote.

I have not had a chance to read the report, but from what I’ve seen on the news, I agree with Kingsmills.

A lot more will happen between now and 6 May in the soap opera that is Scottish politics!!

Edited by Robert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was interested to listen to the linesman on the radio this morning explaining why the Conservatives were pursing their motion of no confidence in the First Minister and explaining that the finding by a majority of 5/4 divided on political lines, that the First Minister, in the course of 8 hours of evidence, gave an account of a meeting that was 'not fully accurate and potentially misleading' was so serious that nothing less that the rolling of a (First) ministerial head would do.

I couldn't help wondering where that standard of accountability left a Home Secretary who was unequivocally found to have breached the ministerial code on a number of occasions and a Prime Minister and government, in which DR was at the time a junior minister, who the highest court in the land unanimously found had misled, not just parliament, but the monarch who had to sanction it, for the true and illegitimate reason for the protracted prorogation of the Westminster Parliament.

Edited by Kingsmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest, when Sturgeon was giving her evidence under oath did you conclude that she was telling the truth regarding the meetings at which she informed about Salmond?

“I was told the shocking revelations at a meeting, then a few days later I was told them again, and this time I was so shocked that it made me forgot that I already knew”.

Obviously, and perhaps somewhat conveniently for her, it is impossible to prove whether she genuinely forgot or whether she was lying her way out of a hole she had dug. Only she knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Out of interest, when Sturgeon was giving her evidence under oath did you conclude that she was telling the truth regarding the meetings at which she informed about Salmond?

“I was told the shocking revelations at a meeting, then a few days later I was told them again, and this time I was so shocked that it made me forgot that I already knew”.

Obviously, and perhaps somewhat conveniently for her, it is impossible to prove whether she genuinely forgot or whether she was lying her way out of a hole she had dug. Only she knows.

I don't know whether or not she was telling the whole truth about that. As you say, only she knows that.

That said, I can think of no obvious motive for her to claim that the first she knew was on 2nd April or 3 days before. 

Edited by Kingsmills
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw an interview with the independent (ex Green) MSP who was clear that Sturgeon did not knowingly mislead Parliament and as a result it was not a resignation issue.

I think the Tories have shot themselves in the foot with the leak and their recent actions, which will only strengthen the likelihood of the SNP winning an outright majority at the election, with all that entails.

Labour have been able to take the moral high ground as a result by awaiting the report before speaking out and abstaining today in the no confidence vote.

The election will be interesting and the outcome may well hang on whether Labour are able to come across credibly and win back some of the voters they have lost to the SNP.

Edited by Robert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both reports were the whitewashes I expected, though the committee one did, albeit without the support of the SNP members (though  I didn't expect the four turkeys with no backbones to vote for Christmas anyway) find she did mislead them, but without the courage to say whether it was deliberate or inadvertent.... (though I struggle to see how so many redactions of information on submitted evidence, and acts of non-co-operation in providing evidence could be inadvertent.) . The report did however, in clauses 731-734,  say that it did not have enough powers to hold the SG to account and  recommended the establishment of a commission to review the relationship between the executive and the legislature and make recommendations for change. Luckily the SNP lost their ex-green swing vote, or the report wouldn't even have contained the word mislead, and certainly not the clauses complaining about SG reluctance to co-operate. I won't, however, hold my breath waiting for either independence or a commission to make the oversight committees less weak.  .  

But, as usual with this SNP Government, nobody is to blame for anything...so no highly paid heads roll.  Job done as planned!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Oddquine said:

Both reports were the whitewashes I expected, though the committee one did, albeit without the support of the SNP members (though  I didn't expect the four turkeys with no backbones to vote for Christmas anyway) find she did mislead them, but without the courage to say whether it was deliberate or inadvertent.... (though I struggle to see how so many redactions of information on submitted evidence, and acts of non-co-operation in providing evidence could be inadvertent.) . The report did however, in clauses 731-734,  say that it did not have enough powers to hold the SG to account and  recommended the establishment of a commission to review the relationship between the executive and the legislature and make recommendations for change. Luckily the SNP lost their ex-green swing vote, or the report wouldn't even have contained the word mislead, and certainly not the clauses complaining about SG reluctance to co-operate. I won't, however, hold my breath waiting for either independence or a commission to make the oversight committees less weak.  .  

But, as usual with this SNP Government, nobody is to blame for anything...so no highly paid heads roll.  Job done as planned!

Clearly, someone is to blame. The whole benighted affair was overseen by Leslie Evens, the Permanent Secretary and Scotland's most senior civil servant on a salary much greater than that of many including the First Minister and why she remains in post remains a mystery to many.

However, to say that both reports were a whitewash does a great disservice to James Hamilton who is a highly respected lawyer of great integrity, somewhat ironically appointed to the role by Alec Salmond when he was First Minister due to his high level of integrity and complete neutrality when it comes to Scottish politics.

He took over over two years to compile a very comprehensive and detailed report including interviewing both AS and NS at length. I appreciate that you are somewhat bitter at the terms of the report but to impugn Mr Hamilton as you seek to do is disgraceful anf wholly unjustified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

Clearly, someone is to blame. The whole benighted affair was overseen by Leslie Evens, the Permanent Secretary and Scotland's most senior civil servant on a salary much greater than that of many including the First Minister and why she remains in post remains a mystery to many.

However, to say that both reports were a whitewash does a great disservice to James Hamilton who is a highly respected lawyer of great integrity, somewhat ironically appointed to the role by Alec Salmond when he was First Minister due to his high level of integrity and complete neutrality when it comes to Scottish politics.

He took over over two years to compile a very comprehensive and detailed report including interviewing both AS and NS at length. I appreciate that you are somewhat bitter at the terms of the report but to impugn Mr Hamilton as you seek to do is disgraceful anf wholly unjustified.

And despite the committee report, Leslie Evans has Nicola's full confidence and will not be resigning. Quelle surprise!

My problem with Hamilton's report is the level of redactions which make it difficult, if not impossible, to come to any definite conclusion as to his thinking and it all boils down, on his remit regarding misleading Parliament over the 29th March-18th April meetings, to the he said/she said part of the evidence,  particularly that from Aberdein that we are not allowed to see anywhere. As Hamilton comments in clause 6.11. I find it very hard to know what to make of this story about the birthday party. Mr Aberdein’s account to me was very convincing. Equally the First Minister seemed both convinced by and convincing in her account. It may be that [Redacted ] It may simply have been [Redacted ] However, this is speculation and it would probably not be right to place too much significance on the matter.

I'd have thought more of Hamilton if he had qualified his decision as "on the balance of probabilities" as opposed to a definite "nothing to see here" report. That wouldn't have diminished the gloating on FB by the pro-Sturgeonites, but may have made those of us who don't think Nicola walks on water feel less  let down at the whole debacle...and less worried as to what independence, with the SNP probably in charge initially (if they ever get round to doing anything but talk about getting independence just before elections) is going to mean if they can't even be honest and transparent when devolved,  even knowing that Westminster/the MSM will pounce on anything that shows them in a bad light.

 

 

Edited by Oddquine
Spellies mostly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Alec Salmond is to take court action against her. Will learn more on the news shortly.

Having listened to the news, the action is against the Scottish Government, taking the two reports into account.

He is also complaining to the Police about the original leak.

He accepts both reports and says it is “time to move on”.

 

Edited by Robert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the government to court seems to be a funny way of "moving on".

As someone who has admitted that some of his behaviour was "unacceptable", he does seem to be making a meal of this.   I know I would want justice for myself, but I would also be conscious of what started everything off. 

Whilst the women involved tend to be forgotten.

Odd that he should endanger his life's work - the SNP and the prospect of independence.  Perhaps he simply can'r accept that anyone else could be the first FM of an independent Scotland.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert said:

Apparently Alec Salmond is to take court action against her. Will learn more on the news shortly.

Having listened to the news, the action is against the Scottish Government, taking the two reports into account.

He is also complaining to the Police about the original leak.

He accepts both reports and says it is “time to move on”.

 

Maybe if Nicola Sturgeon and the Alphabet Women had done the same, and accepted the trial jury's verdict, instead of trashing the judge, jury and/or Alex Salmond at every opportunity the whole thing might not have been as divisive as it has become.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Taking the government to court seems to be a funny way of "moving on".

As someone who has admitted that some of his behaviour was "unacceptable", he does seem to be making a meal of this.   I know I would want justice for myself, but I would also be conscious of what started everything off. 

Whilst the women involved tend to be forgotten.

Odd that he should endanger his life's work - the SNP and the prospect of independence.  Perhaps he simply can'r accept that anyone else could be the first FM of an independent Scotland.

 I can't blame him, tbh, and at least he is not playing tit for tat and specifically targetting Nicola Sturgeon, which in his place, I would have done, given her public comments about his actions, despite the verdict of the court.

Unacceptable behaviour is not necessarily criminal behaviour...and certainly wasn't in the 20th century despite FB abounding with grown women "metoo"ing because they got their bra straps pinged in school. This whole PC stuff has gone from the reasonably sensible to the absolutely insanely ridiculous, culminating in the GRA which redefines biology and the Hate Crime bill which airbrushes women out of protection from hate crime in much the same way as Alex Salmond was airbrushed out of SNP history.

If the women involved have been forgotten, it hasn't been for want of them reminding us about their plight.

Nicola has already endangered his life's work...I suspect a lot of women won't be voting SNP in May, I know I won't be, after 52 years of voting for them, and I also suspect if she had put the GRA and Hate Crime propositions in her manifesto last time round, she  wouldn't have managed a majority even with Green help and we would have been spared all this angst.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not withstanding AS's assertion that he is 'moving on', I predict that at some point during the election campaign he will make at least one further statement designed to undermine the SNP and his successor as party leader and First Minister. This will be particularly the case if his perception is that the campaign appears to be going well from her point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

Not withstanding AS's assertion that he is 'moving on', I predict that at some point during the election campaign he will make at least one further statement designed to undermine the SNP and his successor as party leader and First Minister. This will be particularly the case if his perception is that the campaign appears to be going well from her point of view.

Convince me that  "going well from her point of view"  doesn't mean coming up with more excuses to  put independence off again and again and again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2021 at 6:35 AM, Kingsmills said:

Not withstanding AS's assertion that he is 'moving on', I predict that at some point during the election campaign he will make at least one further statement designed to undermine the SNP and his successor as party leader and First Minister. This will be particularly the case if his perception is that the campaign appears to be going well from her point of view.

Well, you were right!  He has launched an new party, to split the indy vote and destroy the SNP's chances of an overall majority and a mandate for a referendum. 

Sorry, that should have said "to build a super-majority for independence in the next Scottish parliament"  :crazy:

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He’ll certainly get a lot of 2nd preference votes from SNP supporters. If the SNP don’t get an overall majority, I think on a personal level Sturgeon would rather form a coalition with the Tories than get into bed (so to speak) with Salmond. Can you imagine them working together in the same cabinet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The egoist Alec Salmond launches the Alec Salmond party with it's chief spokesperson Alec Salmond.

Comforting to have at least this element of predictability in a world that has become so strange and unpredictable in the last year or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

He’ll certainly get a lot of 2nd preference votes from SNP supporters. If the SNP don’t get an overall majority, I think on a personal level Sturgeon would rather form a coalition with the Tories than get into bed (so to speak) with Salmond. Can you imagine them working together in the same cabinet?

Assuming the SNP constituency vote is as the polls currently predict, they are unlikely to have more than one or two MSPs from the regional lists anyway.

Assuming this party, which was actually registered with the Electoral Commission back in January, and has effectively been taken over by AS, gains any sort of traction, the party which may be the most likely to lose out are the Greens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like they hope a lot of SNP voters will vote for them in the list vote. Could be interesting at the first FMQs after the election with Salmond asking questions of Sturgeon!

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy