Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[ProfessorDavey]

He could reapply to the party at any time here. The application to join a party is not part of the legal process.

I agree - I don't think his ability to reapply to join the party is subject to the legal process. However if he remains under investigation of found guilty then they might refuse to accept him back into the party. Actually I suspect one of the reasons he resigned may have been that had he not he might have been suspended anyhow, and this way resulted in less embarrassment to the SNP.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

He is seeking Judicial Review of the complaints procedure used by the Scottish Government to investigate and determine whether there is a case to answer and the outcome of that investigation, being that there is a case to answer and that the matter should be referred to the police and made public.

There was an internal process in the Scottish Government with the investigation outcome providing to Nicola Sturgeon on 22nd Aug - the Judicial Review is on that investigation and he is, do doubt hoping, that the Judicial Review quashes the outcome of that investigation requiring it to be rerun, and potentially requiring changes to the procedure used if that is the verdict of the Judicial Review.

So if I understand you correctly, the decision that you are referring to is the decision by the Permanent Secretary to make public  the fact that 2 complaints  had been made against Salmond and to make public the fact that an investigation into the complaints were under way? I don't see how this decision to make public can be reversed. And they can't decide not to investigate the allegations, unless there is some compelling evidence without an investigation that the allegations were complete fabrications.

I don't know that the Permanent Secretary had any choice about handing the details of the complaint to the police, without risking allegations of a cover-up. And that decision can't be reversed either.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes it may do and also it may require the process to be rerun under different rules. You can see how this may significantly advantage Salmond and also may deter the accusers of engaging with the revisited process as it is likely that their names may become public.

So a win may advantage Salmond in 3 ways.

First the initial outcome would be quashed and the process run again
Secondly that he may have a greater ability to defend himself in a rerun (or just result in a different outcome)
Thirdly that the women may decide not to engage in the process if their anonymity cannot be guaranteed

I don't think there has been an outcome has there? There has been no disciplinary action yet, only an investigation into the allegations.

Sure I can see the potential advantages for Salmond. But I don't see any of those as an unfair advantage to him - it didn't seem as if he wanted to go public either and apparently the decision to go public was made by the Permanent Secretary. I think it's a good thing if he has a greater ability to defend himself than he had if the process of investigation was unfair.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree - I don't think his ability to reapply to join the party is subject to the legal process. However if he remains under investigation of found guilty then they might refuse to accept him back into the party. Actually I suspect one of the reasons he resigned may have been that had he not he might have been suspended anyhow, and this way resulted in less embarrassment to the SNP.

And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement  seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.

[ProfessorDavey]

So if I understand you correctly, the decision that you are referring to is the decision by the Permanent Secretary to make public  the fact that 2 complaints  had been made against Salmond and to make public the fact that an investigation into the complaints were under way?

No - as far as I am aware the allegations were raised in January and Salmond was informed of them in March (presumably there was an early pre-investigation to assess the initial claim (Jan - March). An investigation took place from March onward under the defined procedure, which reported in August (22nd) with the report details provided to Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the assurers. The outcome of that investigation being that there was a case to answer and that the details were passed over to the police.

As far as I'm aware the Judicial Review is on those aspects.

The issue of the allegations being made public is separate - Salmond planned to apply for a separate court order (an interdict) to prevent the details being made public, but I gather this was dropped as it was too late and the allegations had been made public.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think there has been an outcome has there?

Yes there has - see above.

[Nearly Sane]

No - as far as I am aware the allegations were raised in January and Salmond was informed of them in March (presumably there was an early pre-investigation to assess the initial claim (Jan - March). An investigation took place from March onward under the defined procedure, which reported in August (22nd) with the report details provided to Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the assurers. The outcome of that investigation being that there was a case to answer and that the details were passed over to the police.

As far as I'm aware the Judicial Review is on those aspects.

The issue of the allegations being made public is separate - Salmond planned to apply for a separate court order (an interdict) to prevent the details being made public, but I gather this was dropped as it was too late and the allegations had been made public.

Nope, the investigation. not the allegations, were made public by Salmond. The allegations, or the detail that we have, was after this,

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope, the investigation. not the allegations, were made public by Salmond. The allegations, or the detail that we have, was after this,

I'm taking this timeline from here:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmond-sexual-harassment-claims-what-we-know-so-far-1-4789193

You are probably correct in that details of the allegations weren't made known to Salmond (that's one of his gripes with the process) but in March he was informed that there were allegations and that he was under investigation.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm taking this timeline from here:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmond-sexual-harassment-claims-what-we-know-so-far-1-4789193

You are probably correct in that details of the allegations weren't made known to Salmond (that's one of his gripes with the process) but in March he was informed that there were allegations and that he was under investigation.

Then I was wrong in that I thought that Salmond effectively withdrew the interdiction to go public before the investigation rather than any detail on the allegations were made.

[ProfessorDavey]

And less embarrassment to him.

Indeed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then I was wrong in that I thought that Salmond effectively withdrew the interdiction to go public before the investigation rather than any detail on the allegations were made.

I think the block to going public was only mooted in August when the investigation reached its conclusions and Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, Leslie Evans indicated that limited details of the case would be made public in the public interest. I think it had been made public prior to Salmond being able to act.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed.

Do you accept then the rest of the post you were replying too i.e.

'And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement  seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.'

[Nearly Sane]

I think the block to going public was only mooted in August when the investigation reached its conclusions and Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, Leslie Evans indicated that limited details of the case would be made public in the public interest. I think it had been made public prior to Salmond being able to act.

We have no issue about all of this being happening in August. Indeed it's last week that is the crucial time. The issue is what was revealed by who on the 23rd. Again what seems to have been made open is the investigation, not any of the detail of al allegations

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you accept then the rest of the post you were replying too i.e.

'And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement  seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.'

When I meant all about Salmond I meant that his statement didn't imply that he was calling for Judicial Review to help others who might also be facing the same procedures. That's what is often the case when people take action or call for inquiries (including judicial review) - it isn't about themselves personally, but to prevent anyone else going through the same thing.

I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on that matter, but maybe it is because Salmond-the-man/the SNP/Independence are one and the same in many people's minds so anything aimed at enhancing (or not harming) him/the SNP/independence are, in effect, all about Salmond.

[Nearly Sane]

When I meant all about Salmond I meant that his statement didn't imply that he was calling for Judicial Review to help others who might also be facing the same procedures. That's what is often the case when people take action or call for inquiries (including judicial review) - it isn't about themselves personally, but to prevent anyone else going through the same thing.

I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on that matter, but maybe it is because Salmond-the-man/the SNP/Independence are one and the same in many people's minds so anything aimed at enhancing (or not harming) him/the SNP/independence are, in effect, all about Salmond.

Sorry, I don't see where your post addresses the question. It's about your opinion of Salmond which seems to think that while being self serving, you somehow don't think that he might use people by implying that Independence is wrapped up.in how he his treated. Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic. See#112

[Anchorman]

Paul Kavanagh's blogs can be ascerbic, witty, provocative and hard hitting. They are never boring. This one hits the nail on the head, and is definately worth a read. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/the-rush-to-judgement/ By the way, Kavanagh is not a member of any political party.

[ProfessorDavey]

We have no issue about all of this being happening in August. Indeed it's last week that is the crucial time. The issue is what was revealed by who on the 23rd. Again what seems to have been made open is the investigation, not any of the detail of al allegations

Which will be considered in the Judicial Review - that will look at whether the Scottish Government's procedures were followed, and also will look at whether they are fundamentally unfair or unlawful.

That said I think this isn't uncommon in processes in the public sector. I'm aware of other potential harassment cases involving a senior figure where they were given very little detail of the allegations nor were those making the allegations revealed (although they might have worked it out). The usual reason being to protect the accusers, where it would be extremely difficult to make allegations against very senior figures if your identity was revealed. Not saying I agree with this, but it is common and I can see the argument that it is probably extremely difficult for a low level employee to make allegations against a senior executive without some significant t protection.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, I don't see where your post addresses the question. It's about your opinion of Salmond which seems to think that while being self serving, you somehow don't think that he might use people by implying that Independence is wrapped up.in how he his treated. Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic. See#112

Let me explain again.

His crowdfunding statement reads to me all about himself personally, and his passions (SNP/independence), which are part of him personally.

What I don't see is the common type of statement for people making legal challenges, particularly inquiries and Judicial reviews. Largely that they have been treated unfairly and by taking this action they will prevent any future person from similarly being subjected to such unfair processes.

[Nearly Sane]

Paul Kavanagh's blogs can be ascerbic, witty, provocative and hard hitting. They are never boring. This one hits the nail on the head, and is definately worth a read. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/the-rush-to-judgement/ By the way, Kavanagh is not a member of any political party.

This reads as if every women I know in the Yes movement who has questioned Salmond's action and some of the support, including McWhirter who tweeted about Salmond's reputation being lost for a couple of tawdry front pages' and thereby undermining any person making the allegations, is part of the establishment trying to do Salmond down. And while that is a acerbic, it's way off nail on the head.

[Rhiannon]

This reads as if every women I know in the Yes movement who has questioned Salmond's action and some of the support, including McWhirter who tweeted about Salmond's reputation being lost for a couple of tawdry front pages' and thereby undermining any person making the allegations, is part of the establishment trying to do Salmond down. And while that is a acerbic, it's way off nail on the head.

Agreed.

[Nearly Sane]

Let me explain again.

His crowdfunding statement reads to me all about himself personally, and his passions (SNP/independence), which are part of him personally.

What I don't see is the common type of statement for people making legal challenges, particularly inquiries and Judicial reviews. Largely that they have been treated unfairly and by taking this action they will prevent any future person from similarly being subjected to such unfair processes.

And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic. See#112

Explain please.

I would certainly accept that SNP/Independence aren't indivisible from Salmond - in other words that there are all sorts of independence voices, including within the SNP that aren't inextricably linked with Salmond.

However I would argue that Salmond is indivisible from SNP/Independence - I struggle to understand how the very notion and purpose of Salmond can be uncoupled from independence and the SNP. They run through him like Blackpool Rock.

[ProfessorDavey]

And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.

Or perhaps I have a level of detachment to be able to see the wood from the trees.

[ProfessorDavey]

And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.

What I am saying is there isn't one iota of evidence from his crowdfunding statement that his main (or even secondary purpose) in calling for Judicial Review is to prevent other people being subjected to what he thinks is an unfair process. That's my point - that was my point when I first made it and in case I wasn't clear enough then I have reiterated it several times.

I'm struggling to see why an in depth knowledge of Scottish politics is required to take a view on this - all you need to do is read his statement.

[Rhiannon]

What I am saying is there isn't one iota of evidence from his crowdfunding statement that his main (or even secondary purpose) in calling for Judicial Review is to prevent other people being subjected to what he thinks is an unfair process. That's my point - that was my point when I first made it and in case I wasn't clear enough then I have reiterated it several times.

I'm struggling to see why an in depth knowledge of Scottish politics is required to take a view on this - all you need to do is read his statement.

Without knowing the man, the context? Just accept it at face value?