Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[Rhiannon]

But it is incorrect to imply that this is nothing to do with his defence - in other words clearing his name. Salmond clearly thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the judicial review is critical for him clearing his name. How do I know this - because he has told us on his crowdfunding page.

So you believe what he's written? It looks like spin, nothing more.

[Nearly Sane]

But it is incorrect to imply that this is nothing to do with his defence - in other words clearing his name. Salmond clearly thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the judicial review is critical for him clearing his name. How do I know this - because he has told us on his crowdfunding page.

Yes, and he's wrong. It has nothing to do with any legal defence in any criminal case. It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money. As Andrew Tickell in the link I provided makes clear, it can do nothing to clear his name.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you believe what he's written? It looks like spin, nothing more.

I believe that he will only use the money for the judicial review costs - having stated that clearly he'd be in really hot water if he did otherwise. I also think that his reason for triggering the judicial review is that, if successful, it will result in his name being clearer. Not directly, because the judicial review cannot do that, but indirectly as a judicial review can determine that a process was unfair and request that the process is changed, and/or, prior outcomes of cases conducted under that process should be reviewed or re-examined.

Indeed, in 'moral' victory terms, simply having the process declared unfair provides him with that moral victory - a kind of, 'sure they found my guilty but the process was unfair than there is no a legal judgement to confirm that the process was unfair'.

What is interesting in his statement on the crowdfunding page is that it is all about himself. Often people trigger a judicial review to benefit others in the future who otherwise would be subject to an unfair process - no suggestion that to be the motivation for Salmond.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, and he's wrong. It has nothing to do with any legal defence in any criminal case. It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money. As Andrew Tickell in the link I provided makes clear, it can do nothing to clear his name.

Then why does he specifically state that it is 'necessary to clear my name'.

[Nearly Sane]

Then why does he specifically state that it is 'necessary to clear my name'.

  To repeat ;It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money'. It's also an attempt to make the judicial review which might agree that the process was technically flawed, can then be spun as a 'clearing of his name' when it isn't anything of the sort. That Salmond is playing politics and misrepresenting the law, doesn't make him correct.


The judicial review also has nothing to do with independence but he wraps that in to the crowdfund statement as well,

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But it is incorrect to imply that this is nothing to do with his defence - in other words clearing his name. Salmond clearly thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the judicial review is critical for him clearing his name. How do I know this - because he has told us on his crowdfunding page.

I read it as him saying that if the judicial review results in an investigation process that is fair, he is confident that he will be able to clear his name, as a fair process will, in his opinion, give him the opportunity and tools to clear his name by allowing him to have all the information he needs about the allegations to successfully defend himself.

Of course that’s his opinion- it may be that after what is deemed to be a fair disciplinary investigation or criminal investigation  (separate processes from the judicial review) the findings of those investigations will be that there is enough to justify holding a disciplinary hearing and/or a criminal prosecution against Salmond. But he may still be able to successfully defend himself against these or he may not.

[ProfessorDavey]

The judicial review also has nothing to do with independence but he wraps that in to the crowdfund statement as well,

He never claims that the judicial review has anything to do with independence. He does, however, state unequivocally, that the judicial review is key to clearing his name. And I'd agree for the reasons stated in a previous post.

Don't forget that he is an incredibly powerful, establishment figure in Scotland - much of this is about welding that 'soft' power to his advantage.

[Nearly Sane]

He never claims that the judicial review has anything to do with independence. He does, however, state unequivocally, that the judicial review is key to clearing his name. And I'd agree for the reasons stated in a previous post.

Don't forget that he is an incredibly powerful, establishment figure in Scotland - much of this is about welding that 'soft' power to his advantage.

The crowd funding statement finished with

 'It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'


That's wrapping up what is good for him with what is good for independence.


That you agree with him when he and you are factually wrong is of no consequence. The legal details are laid out in the Tickell column.


I have no idea why you are telling me not to forget something that I I have been making clear.

[Rhiannon]

And the odds of there being a fair trial, should it come it it, after this are what, exactly?

[jeremyp]

it can do nothing to clear his name.

Alec Salmond believes it can. He wants the judicial review because, at the moment, he is being denied access to the evidence against him. Without knowing the evidence, he cannot defend himself except in the broadest terms.

[ProfessorDavey]

The crowd funding statement finished with

 'It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'

Nice bit of selected quoting - which you regularly accuse other of.

His statement is top and tailed by paragraphs about him and his career etc, that have absolutely nothing to do with the case and the judicial review - including the first paragraph and also the last one, which you fail to quote in full, but I will.

'Finally, I will continue to serve the independence movement in whatever role and whatever capacity I can. It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'

All he is saying is that regardless of the judicial review etc he will still campaign for independence. Rather than implying the the judicial review is linked to, or necessary for, him being able to campaign for independence, he is making the opposite point - that he wont be distracted from that campaign despite the judicial review.

[Nearly Sane]

Nice bit of selected quoting - which you regularly accuse other of.

His statement is top and tailed by paragraphs about him and his career etc, that have absolutely nothing to do with the case and the judicial review - including the first paragraph and also the last one, which you fail to quote in full, but I will.

'Finally, I will continue to serve the independence movement in whatever role and whatever capacity I can. It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'

All he is saying is that regardless of the judicial review etc he will still campaign for independence. Rather than implying the the judicial review is linked to, or necessary for, him being able to campaign for independence, he is making the opposite point - that he wont be distracted from that campaign despite the judicial review.

It's quoting the relevant bit in the statement which wraps it up in it. It makes clear tat his 'intention now' i.e. the action he is taking is about independence. It precisely makes the opposite point to your claim.

[ProfessorDavey]

Alec Salmond believes it can. He wants the judicial review because, at the moment, he is being denied access to the evidence against him. Without knowing the evidence, he cannot defend himself except in the broadest terms.

Indeed, and the judicial review can also declare the decision 'irrational' or could 'reduce the decision' meaning they send it back to the government to revisit. Now neither of these requires the government to change its decision, but if a judicial review has ruled as such there is extremely strong pressure on the original decision makers to amend their decision.

[Nearly Sane]

Alec Salmond believes it can. He wants the judicial review because, at the moment, he is being denied access to the evidence against him. Without knowing the evidence, he cannot defend himself except in the broadest terms.

That's his case in part for the judicial review but at this stage we don't know the truth. That he thinks it can clear his name doesn't make him right, and that he may have reasons for portraying it that way even if he thinks it's incorrect needs to be understood. Agani I'll take the Tickell column as a better statement of the law than Salmond's attempt at crowdfunding

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed, and the judicial review can also declare the decision 'irrational' or could 'reduce the decision' meaning they send it back to the government to revisit. Now neither of these requires the government to change its decision, but if a judicial review has ruled as such there is extremely strong pressure on the original decision makers to amend their decision.

Which does nothing with the facts of either case, as Tickell makes clear.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's quoting the relevant bit in the statement which wraps it up in it. It makes clear tat his 'intention now' i.e. the action he is taking is about independence. It precisely makes the opposite point to your claim.

No it isn't, because you fail to include the part which tells us what the 'cause' you are referring to is. In the final paragraph the 'cause' is independence, not justice via the judicial review.

No-where does he claim that success in the judicial review is important for the cause of independence - he does, however in the final paragraph make clear that despite being in a legal quagmire and in dispute with his own party, an independence supporting SNP government and his own cherry-picked successor as first minister that he will still campaign for independence. So it is 'despite' not 'because of'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which does nothing with the facts of either case, as Tickell makes clear.

The outcome of any judicial process is a combination of facts and procedure, leading to a decision. If the judicial review rules that either the procedure was flawed or the decision irrational and refers back to the Scottish ~Government, that would provide strong pressure for the decision to be reviewed (indeed it might have to be by law) and changed, regardless of the facts of the case. Judicial review is all about procedure, and a new process using the same facts but amended procedure can easily come to a different conclusion.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't, because you fail to include the part which tells us what the 'cause' you are referring to is. In the final paragraph the 'cause' is independence, not justice via the judicial review.

No-where does he claim that success in the judicial review is important for the cause of independence - he does, however in the final paragraph make clear that despite being in a legal quagmire and in dispute with his own party, an independence supporting SNP government and his own cherry-picked successor as first minister that he will still campaign for independence. So it is 'despite' not 'because of'.

And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence. That covers the actoin that he is taking. Also if you want to look at some of the comments on the crowdfunding page, and indeed his support across social media, you will see that many see the judicial review as part of the fight for independence, and I would suggest that Salmpnd, being as ever a canny operator when needed, is using this exactly to his advantage with that statement - as you say, much of this is about using that 'soft' power to his advantage which is precisely why he makes this to do with independence

[Rhiannon]

And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence. That covers the actoin that he is taking. Also if you want to look at some of the comments on the crowdfunding page, and indeed his support across social media, you will see that many see the judicial review as part of the fight for independence, and I would suggest that Salmpnd, being as ever a canny operator when needed, is using this exactly to his advantage with that statement - as you say, much of this is about using that 'soft' power to his advantage which is precisely why he makes this to do with independence

Yes, this is what I'm seeing too. Comments about donating to 'show Westminster', calls for the 'hounding' of the two complainants...

[Nearly Sane]

The outcome of any judicial process is a combination of facts and procedure, leading to a decision. If the judicial review rules that either the procedure was flawed or the decision irrational and refers back to the Scottish ~Government, that would provide strong pressure for the decision to be reviewed (indeed it might have to be by law) and changed, regardless of the facts of the case. Judicial review is all about procedure, and a new process using the same facts but amended procedure can easily come to a different conclusion.

And yet, in terms of the legal position, there is nothing in that review that takes a position on the decision being different. Again, I'll take Tickell's statement on the law as more definitive than yours.

[Anchorman]

Yes, this is what I'm seeing too. Comments about donating to 'show Westminster', calls for the 'hounding' of the two complainants...

Yep. Though it's a fair few years since I met  'Eck, I know that he can skew everything round to the fight for indepencence if he has a mind to it.
I'm not sure divorcing him from the SNP will shut him up...far from it; he's now a loose cannon with no restraints, for better or worse.

[ProfessorDavey]

And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence.

I agree

That covers the actoin that he is taking.

I disagree - his current action has nothing whatsoever to do with serving the cause of independence. Indeed taking the Scottish Government (who support independence) to court is likely to distract them from the cause of independence. That is the point he is making - that this SNP on SNP spat wont distract him from continuing to pursue the cause of independence.

In what way could it possibly be argued that him talking the SNP Government to court over its disciplinary procedures is somehow advancing the cause of independence.

[Rhiannon]

I agree
I disagree - his current action has nothing whatsoever to do with serving the cause of independence. Indeed taking the Scottish Government (who support independence) to court is likely to distract them from the cause of independence. That is the point he is making - that this SNP on SNP spat wont distract him from continuing to pursue the cause of independence.

In what way could it possibly be argued that him talking the SNP Government to court over its disciplinary procedures is somehow advancing the cause of independence.

Because many of his supporters see him and the cause as inextricably linked. Any blow to Salmond can only be orchestrated by Westminster. That it is his own party in government who devised the harassment rules is less relevant to them than the cult of the man. We see it with Corbyn (for better or worse), Trump, Obama, even Blair back in the day.

Salmond has very deftly made this about politics and not sexual harassment. That's clever.

[jeremyp]

That's his case in part for the judicial review but at this stage we don't know the truth.

Well he's said that he thinks he should be able to see the evidence. In the absence of any mind reading ability, it seems reasonable to assume that it is (at least part of) his reasons for asking for a judicial review.

That he thinks it can clear his name doesn't make him right, and that he may have reasons for portraying it that way even if he thinks it's incorrect needs to be understood. Agani I'll take the Tickell column as a better statement of the law than Salmond's attempt at crowdfunding

This is not about the law though, it's about the fairness or otherwise of the Scottish government's complaint process. As your Mr Tickell says:

If he wins permission to bring the case, the court will have to ask itself three key questions about the Scottish Government process. Firstly: has the civil service followed its own rules and procedures? Has it operated within its powers or strayed beyond them? Secondly, is the decision irrational? Is it so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it? Lastly, we come to the likely nub of this case: fairness. Did the rules afford Mr Salmond a fair hearing?

[my italics]

So step 1 is to get the court to rule that the complaints process is unfair. Step 2 would then be to make them release the evidence against Mr Salmond to Mr Salmond so he can defend himself.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet, in terms of the legal position, there is nothing in that review that takes a position on the decision being different. Again, I'll take Tickell's statement on the law as more definitive than yours.

Do you have any legal background NS?

If you are subject to a judicial review as a organisation and that review determines that:

1. Your procedures were not followed, or
2. Your decision was irrational, or
3. Your process was unfair

And they refer your decision back to you for review, sure you can say 'yup, we've reviewed it and we agree with the original decision', but you'd have to be a pretty tough cookie to do so. You will certainly have to review your original procedure and likely with independent people different to those who made the original decision. Under those circumstances it is likely, and indeed, extremely common in review process of this type (there are many) that when sent back for review a different decision is taken.