Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think the public in Scotland do - the key issue is clear: which is whether of not our FM breached the ministerial code. In terms of wider Scottish politics Salmond is largely an irrelevance now, outwith his support base - his antics on a Russian TV channel saw to that long before any court cases. Joanna Cherry the more likely challenger to Sturgeon.

It isn't about 'Sturgeon vs Salmond' at all - it's just about Sturgeon. Maybe the guys in YouGov aren't spending enough time in Scotland.

It's worth pointing out that any challenge from Cherry is doomed unless Sturgeon is found to have lied, in which case we are into Cherry v Robertson - though Cherry will have a problem as she isn't standing for an MSP position.

[ProfessorDavey]

  Ah look, an ad populum how cute.

You don't seem to understand much about politics in a democracy, do you NS.

Last time I looked politics within a democratic context is all about having the most popular politicians with the most populars policies so that the largest number of people vote for you. If you aren't popular (or more popular than your rivals) then you don't win elections.

So politics in a democracy is based entirely on ad populum principles.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't know but the challenge to Sturgeon is not Salmond going 'head to head' with her but whether the inquiry shows she lied to the Parliament.

Hmm - well if you won't take it from he that it is fundamentally about Salmond vs Sturgeon (because I'm not Scottish - or rather only half Scottish so cannot possibly understand politics in Scotland - a rather patronising view) then perhaps you'll take ot from others who have a better insight into Scottish politics.

So for example, this chap, who sees a reshuffle in Westminster, entirely through the prism of who is a Salmond supporter and who is a Sturgeon supporter - his quote:

'As far as I can see there are 3 SNP MPs to have no position in this list: Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill and Angus Brendan MacNeil. All of them are seen as being linked to Salmond.'

So this chap seems to think it is about Salmond vs Sturgeon so perhaps you'll be more persuaded by his view ... oh wait a moment ... that was you NS.

[Nearly Sane]

You don't seem to understand much about politics in a democracy, do you NS.

Last time I looked politics within a democratic context is all about having the most popular politicians with the most populars policies so that the largest number of people vote for you. If you aren't popular (or more popular than your rivals) then you don't win elections.

So politics in a democracy is based entirely on ad populum principles.

  The majority of people might want free unicorns but given there are no unicorns it doesn't mean they will get them. The majority of people might think that this is about a Salmond v Sturgeon head to head but given that what will have an effect is whether Sturgeon lied to the Parliament, they, and you, are simply wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm - well if you won't take it from he that it is fundamentally about Salmond vs Sturgeon (because I'm not Scottish - or rather only half Scottish so cannot possibly understand politics in Scotland - a rather patronising view) then perhaps you'll take ot from others who have a better insight into Scottish politics.

So for example, this chap, who sees a reshuffle in Westminster, entirely through the prism of who is a Salmond supporter and who is a Sturgeon supporter - his quote:

'As far as I can see there are 3 SNP MPs to have no position in this list: Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill and Angus Brendan MacNeil. All of them are seen as being linked to Salmond.'

So this chap seems to think it is about Salmond vs Sturgeon so perhaps you'll be more persuaded by his view ... oh wait a moment ... that was you NS.

I haven't ever denied that there is an element of Sturgeon v Salmond in this - I just pointed out that seeing it purely in that light is simplistic. It's way more complex.


Since we are quoting my estimable output see herr

'Secondly it's enormously simplistic in that there are a number of different issues here. The gradualist approach of Sturgeon to independence which is actually Salmind's position as well but those who want to ignore Westminster giving permission for a next referendum are using the split as a flag of convenience. Next, there is a genuine split on GRA reform and in part because of the comments from Joanna Cherry, this too has become a flag of convenience. And the mention of Joanna Cherry adds the split that there are those who see this as much more a case of Cherry v Sturgeon. '

[ProfessorDavey]

  The majority of people might want free unicorns but given there are no unicorns it doesn't mean they will get them.

And in democratic politics if they don't get the thing they were promised (and was popular enough for them to vote for) then that party and its politicians will become less popular and fewer people will vote for them,

Politics in a democracy is all about ad popular principles.

[Nearly Sane]

And in democratic politics if they don't get the thing they were promised (and was popular enough for them to vote for) then that party and its politicians will become less popular and fewer people will vote for them,

Politics in a democracy is all about ad popular principles.

Simply repeating your mistake about facts is very tedious. The inquiry in the parliament is not going to find that Sturgeon lied to parliament, if it does, because of a Salmond v Sturgeon head to head.

[ProfessorDavey]

I haven't ever denied that there is an element of Sturgeon v Salmond in this ...

Really - says the guy who previously opined that:

...the challenge to Sturgeon is not Salmond going 'head to head' with her but whether the inquiry shows she lied to the Parliament.

Which implies that is it about Sturgeon vs the inquiry not Sturgeon vs Salmond.

You do seem a touch confused, particularly as you see a reshuffle in Westminster (which, remember doesn't include either Salmond or Sturgeon as MPs) as entirely framed around who is a Sturgeon supporter and who is a Salmond supporter.

- I just pointed out that seeing it purely in that light is simplistic. It's way more complex.

Indeed which I why I recognise this to be fundamentally about Salmond vs Sturgeon, with the inquiry just being one battle in a rather long and protracted tug of power in the SNP and Scottish politics between the wounded big beast (Salmond) and the young upstart and his protege (Sturgeon).

You are the one showing naivety to complexity if (as seems to be the case) you cannot see that the inquiry is fundamentally framed around, and entirely due to, Salmond vs Sturgeon.

As as touchingly loyal Salmond fan-boy (clearly a rare beast these days, and amazingly we have two here at least) you perhaps lack the neutrality and balance to see the wood from the trees.

[ProfessorDavey]

The inquiry in the parliament is not going to find that Sturgeon lied to parliament, if it does, because of a Salmond v Sturgeon head to head.

Once again to demonstrate your bias.

You are correct that the inquiry will not find that Sturgeon lied to parliament ... and you need go no further.

Why - because the inquiry is about whether Sturgeon misled parliament. Your use of the more inflammatory word lied which isn't the remit of the inquiry is rather telling as to your bias.

[Nearly Sane]

As as touchingly loyal Salmond fan-boy (clearly a rare beast these days, and amazingly we have two here at least) you perhaps lack the neutrality and balance to see the wood from the trees.

  Please show your working for this statement which is quite frankly the most ludicrous thing I've seen on this site - easily outdistancing Nick Marks by a large hadron collider.

[Nearly Sane]

Once again to demonstrate your bias.

You are correct that the inquiry will not find that Sturgeon lied to parliament ... and you need go no further.

Why - because the inquiry is about whether Sturgeon misled parliament. Your use of the more inflammatory word lied which isn't the remit of the inquiry is rather telling as to your bias.

I think if you want to split the hair between misled/lied, it illustrates your desperation

[ProfessorDavey]

I think if you want to split the hair between misled/lied, it illustrates your desperation

Not at all - the distinction is important and that you want to see the inquiry as being about whether Sturgeon lied to parliament (which isn't its remit), rather than whether she misled parliament and in doing so broke the ministerial code (which is its remit) is telling. It demonstrates that your bias prevents you from being dispassionate and describing the process that is going on appropriately.

[Nearly Sane]

Not at all - the distinction is important and that you want to see the inquiry as being about whether Sturgeon lied to parliament (which isn't its remit), rather than whether she misled parliament and in doing so broke the ministerial code (which is its remit) is telling. It demonstrates that your bias prevents you from being dispassionate and describing the process that is going on appropriately.

Pray tell, what is the difference between misleading and lying? And we're back at your invented idea of bias which you have knitted from your lack of knowledge.

[ProfessorDavey]

Pray tell, what is the difference between misleading and lying? And we're back at your invented idea of bias which you have knitted from your lack of knowledge.

Lying involves telling a mistruth - saying something that isn't true, and really to be lying that needs to be deliberate - in other words you say something that you know to be untrue.

Misleading is entirely different (although it could encompass lying) - you can mislead without ever telling a lie. A good example being failing to reveal full information, which was deliberately or inadvertently mislead someone. It doesn't involve lying but it may mislead.

Typically most people see lying as a worst form of deceit than misleading, so it is very telling that you use that term, which is of course not the remit of the inquiry.

[Nearly Sane]

Lying involves telling a mistruth - saying something that isn't true, and really to be lying that needs to be deliberate - in other words you say something that you know to be untrue.

Misleading is entirely different (although it could encompass lying) - you can mislead without ever telling a lie. A good example being failing to reveal full information, which was deliberately or inadvertently mislead someone. It doesn't involve lying but it may mislead.

Typically most people see lying as a worst form of deceit than misleading, so it is very telling that you use that term, which is of course not the remit of the inquiry.

You mean lying by omission? And you do know what the question is? About when Sturgeon knew about the allegations. If she is found to have misled parliament about when, how will that not be a lie?

[ProfessorDavey]

You mean lying by omission? And you do know what the question is? About when Sturgeon knew about the allegations. If she is found to have misled parliament about when, how will that not be a lie?

No, not lying by omission.

Mislead also involves situation where you inadvertently create an impression that isn't the case - it doesn't necessarily involve a deliberate act. Lying, of course, is deliberately saying something that isn't true.

They aren't the same - mislead, while broader (in other words it includes lying) also includes a range of other actions or omissions that are generally considered less significant. Interesting you've decided to replace the word actually used in the inquiry (misled) with one (lie) which is considered much more serious. Hmm, but you aren't biased or anything.

[Nearly Sane]

No, not lying by omission.

Mislead also involves situation where you inadvertently create an impression that isn't the case - it doesn't necessarily involve a deliberate act. Lying, of course, is deliberately saying something that isn't true.

They aren't the same - mislead, while broader (in other words it includes lying) also includes a range of other actions or omissions that are generally considered less significant. Interesting you've decided to replace the word actually used in the inquiry (misled) with one (lie) which is considered much more serious. Hmm, but you aren't biased or anything.

I see you've ignored the actual question. And mislead does involve an intentional act

[ProfessorDavey]

And mislead does involve an intentional act

Not necessarily. To mislead covers intentional acts/omissions and also unintentional ones. Hence under ministerial code the 'resignation offence' as-it-were is intentionally misleading parliament. There are cases where ministers have been found to have unintentionally misled parliament.

By contrast lying is considered to be an intentional deceitful act.

[Nearly Sane]

Not necessarily. To mislead covers intentional acts/omissions and also unintentional ones. Hence under ministerial code the 'resignation offence' as-it-were is intentionally misleading parliament. There are cases where ministers have been found to have unintentionally misled parliament.

By contrast lying is considered to be an intentional deceitful act.

So the sense it is used here it is intentional

[ProfessorDavey]

So the sense it is used here it is intentional

No, not necessarily. In the past there have been inquiries which have found that ministers have unintentionally misled parliament - that is unlikely to be a resignation offence, but may require the minister to apologise and/or correct any statement or omission that unintentionally caused parliament to be misled.

So if this is all about potential breach of the ministerial code then the inquiry will presumably be considering the whole range of potential issues that stem from 'misled parliament' - so that will include both intentional and unintentional.

Worth noting too that there are situations where legal restrictions prevent a minister from being able to inform parliament fully on a particular issue, even if parliament would love to know about it and request information. That inability to reveal full information could be construed as 'misleading parliament', but would be covered by legal mitigation.

[Nearly Sane]

No, not necessarily. In the past there have been inquiries which have found that ministers have unintentionally misled parliament - that is unlikely to be a resignation offence, but may require the minister to apologise and/or correct any statement or omission that unintentionally caused parliament to be misled.

So if this is all about potential breach of the ministerial code then the inquiry will presumably be considering the whole range of potential issues that stem from 'misled parliament' - so that will include both intentional and unintentional.

Worth noting too that there are situations where legal restrictions prevent a minister from being able to inform parliament fully on a particular issue, even if parliament would love to know about it and request information. That inability to reveal full information could be construed as 'misleading parliament', but would be covered by legal mitigation.

Does any of that apply here to the specific question?

[ProfessorDavey]

Does any of that apply here to the specific question?

The specific question of what? You seem to be focussing on the inquiry, so presumably you mean the question being asked by the inquiry. Well absolutely - it is integral to the inquiry.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe the guys in YouGov aren't spending enough time in Scotland.

YouGov are just asking the questions, as is the role of a polling organisation. In this case the questions were answered exclusively by people on Scotland on their favourable view or otherwise of various politicians and parties. Why would the notion of whether YouGov do, or do not, spend lots of time in Scotland have any bearing on the results of such simple and standard favourability questions?

[ProfessorDavey]

Another set of recent polling from YouGov, which NS and Gordon as our resident Salmond fan-boys may be interested in. This time specifically looking at Sturgeon vs Salmond in relation to the inquiry.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xzean1bi82/InternalResults_SalmondSturgeon_210125.pdf

So on the question:

'What you have seen or heard about the Alex Salmond inquiry and how it relates to Nicola Sturgeon, do you think each of the following has or has not generally told the truth?'

Both are in negative territory - in other words more people feel they have not told the truth than have, but the differences between the two on net result are quite striking. Sturgeon -6; Salmond -37.

Overall 50% of people think Sturgeon should resign if she is found to have misled parliament - interestingly I find this surprisingly low, as I'd have thought that misleading parliament (or rather deliberatively misleading parliament) was pretty well an automatic resigning offence. Perhaps the Scottish people are a bit more sophisticated in the understanding of unintentional vs deliberate misleading of parliament. Or, of course, it might be just good old fashioned politics as opposition party supporters want her gone while SNP supporters want her not to resign.

[Nearly Sane]

Another set of recent polling from YouGov, which NS and Gordon as our resident Salmond fan-boys may be interested in.

Sorry, no point in reading beyond this made up nonsense of yours