Sturgeon to resign as FM

[Nearly Sane]

See above - Yousaf needs to distance himself from the developing sh*tshow within the SNP in the manner that Sunak is distancing himself from the Johnson era administration, despite the fact that both were key members of those earlier administrations.

Yousaf cannot, himself, be seen to take the blame and therefore needs to pass the blame squarely onto Murrell, and of course, Sturgeon.

Any moment soon I suspect we'll see Yousaf coming out with the likes of - "blah, blah, blah, cannot comment on ongoing investigation, but we will cooperate fully, important for the law to run its course. My priority will be to fix these problems in the SNP, blah, blah, blah'

And what does any of that do to answer the qustion asked? Yousaf is, according to that, throwing Sturgeon under a bus by doing things he hasn't done?

And you think he should at any point say as FM that he won't cooperate with a police investigation?

[jeremyp]

My issue is if you have a party indulging in internecine strife for 3 years then the day job is forgotten about, some may say it already has. Add to that the ongoing investigations and ramifocations they might have and it's not exactly as if much will get done, though again there will be those that see that as a benefit.

I wish the Tories in Westminster would forget about the day job and get on with some internecine strife.

[Nearly Sane]

That's true and will be interesting to see how this pans out in the polling.

But I guess for a new SNP leader (would have been the same had it been Forbes) they will have been well aware that there was a shitshow that wasn't going away. The very fact that there was a leadership election was, I guess, testament to that - never really been satisfactorily explained why Sturgeon suddenly announced she was going.

So the best approach for a new leader to manage the issue is not to try to sweep in under the carpet (far too late for that), but to pin the blame as much as possible on the 'old regime', claim that those people are gone now (legitimately as Murrell and Sturgeon aren't in post now) and promise to ensure all legal processes proceed without any interference from the SNP and promise to fix the mess.

And yet that becomes much harder when you were the lingest in the SNP govt of the candidates, and by the support of more of those who had been in govt, and were seen as the continuity candidate, and fervently defended Murrell in the campaign.


Anyway the real story here is whether Sturgeon throws Murrell under the bus.

[Nearly Sane]

I wish the Tories in Westminster would forget about the day job and get on with some internecine strife.

LOL. I think though some of what they fo in the day job is fuelled by that. The concentration on immigration and asylum seekers seems part of that to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet that becomes much harder when you were the lingest in the SNP govt of the candidates, and by the support of more of those who had been in govt, and were seen as the continuity candidate, and fervently defended Murrell in the campaign.

All the more reason for Yousaf to distance himself as far as possible from the site of the car crash. I would be astonished if he defended Murrell now.

[ProfessorDavey]

Anyway the real story here is whether Sturgeon throws Murrell under the bus.

Or whether Murrell pulls Sturgeon into the path of the bus.

[Nearly Sane]

All the more reason for Yousaf to distance himself as far as possible from the site of the car crash. I would be astonished if he defended Murrell now.

So would I since it is a live investigation

[ProfessorDavey]

So would I since it is a live investigation

Would be very easy to say 'the investigation needs to progress to completion, but I have always had confidence in Murrell'. He won't though.

[Nearly Sane]

Or whether Murrell pulls Sturgeon into the path of the bus.

Yep, though given he was happy for Sturgeon she knew nothing about the £107k loan may mean that he dorsn't want to or can't.

[Nearly Sane]

Would be very easy to say 'the investigation needs to progress to completion, but I have always had confidence in Murrell'. He won't though.

Not in a live investigation. Could be seen as contempt.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not in a live investigation. Could be seen as contempt.

I seriously doubt that the hypothetical quote I gave could be seen as contempt - people make much stronger claims in public - e.g. confidence that person x or person y will be acquitted.

[Nearly Sane]

I seriously doubt that the hypothetical quote I gave could be seen as contempt - people make much stronger claims in public - e.g. confidence that person x or person y will be acquitted.

They do. They are generally not the FM of Scotland and leader of the party of the person under a live investigation.

[ProfessorDavey]

They do. They are generally not the FM of Scotland and leader of the party of the person under a live investigation.

I doubt the law on contempt would make a distinction as it applies to all equally.

I fully accept that politically (rather than legally) it is in Yousaf's interests to say nothing noting that saying nothing will both ensure he is well away from any legal line on contempt, but also noting that his 'silence' speaks volumes, just as Sturgeon's did when Salmond was the subject of a live investigation.

Point is that there is plenty that a politician can say during a live investigation that would infer a broad support for the individual (while of course not making any specific claims about the matter being investigated). A decline to support, couched around 'inappropriateness to comment' remains a decline to support.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt the law on contempt would make a distinction as it applies to all equally.

I fully accept that politically (rather than legally) it is in Yousaf's interests to say nothing noting that saying nothing will both ensure he is well away from any legal line on contempt, but also noting that his 'silence' speaks volumes, just as Sturgeon's did when Salmond was the subject of a live investigation.

Point is that there is plenty that a politician can say during a live investigation that would infer a broad support for the individual (while of course not making any specific claims about the matter being investigated). A decline to support, couched around 'inappropriateness to comment' remains a decline to support.

It's the prominence of the remarks. Any  Scottish Govt lawyer with a hint of sense will be saying not to say anything that could be read as support.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's the prominence of the remarks. Any  Scottish Govt lawyer with a hint of sense will be saying not to say anything that could be read as support.

Which Yousaf will be very happy to comply with, as it helps him to distance himself from Murrell/Sturgeon. But as I've pointed out there is plenty he could say and not get into legal hot water - but he isn't going to.

[Nearly Sane]

Which Yousaf will be very happy to comply with, as it helps him to distance himself from Murrell/Sturgeon. But as I've pointed out there is plenty he could say and not get into legal hot water - but he isn't going to.

Your expertise in contempt law in Scotland is noted.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your expertise in contempt law in Scotland is noted.

Is it very different to contempt law in England and Wales. Evidence please.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it very different to contempt law in England and Wales. Evidence please.

Oh, sorry I didn't realise we were basing this on your deep knowledge of the contempt laws in England and Wales. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh, sorry I didn't realise we were basing this on your deep knowledge of the contempt laws in England and Wales.

Straw man - I asked whether there are differences in Scotland vs England and Wales.

And actually, on the letter of the law, I don't even think we are in Contempt territory yet, as as far as I'm aware this only kicks in when an individual has been charged. I don't think Murrell has been charged with anything yet, so legally I think Yousaf can say what he likes and not risk contempt. Politically and pragmatically I suspect he will take the view that silence is the best approach.

[Nearly Sane]

Straw man - I asked whether there are differences in Scotland vs England and Wales.

And actually, on the letter of the law, I don't even think we are in Contempt territory yet, as as far as I'm aware this only kicks in when an individual has been charged. I don't think Murrell has been charged with anything yet, so legally I think Yousaf can say what he likes and not risk contempt. Politically and pragmatically I suspect he will take the view that silence is the best approach.

May be I will take the judgement of the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates on when it's activated. I suggest you should as well.

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1643537760521781253?t=iGbfng77E2Zv5acRl0AyeA&s=19

[ProfessorDavey]

May be I will take the judgement of the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates on when it's activated. I suggest you should as well.

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1643537760521781253?t=iGbfng77E2Zv5acRl0AyeA&s=19

Trade you this one:

https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connected-litigation/contempt-of-court

"Where court proceedings are active (in criminal cases, from the point of charge onwards) any publication that creates ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ will be regarded as a contempt of court, on a strict liability basis."

This is in the context of Scottish law from Contempt of Court lawyers, so perhaps there is some confusion.

Nonetheless - the threshold is ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ - there is plenty that a politician could say, legally, that would never reach that threshold. That they may not do so has as much to do with the politics of the matter (whether avoiding awkward questions or avoiding seeming to support a colleague) as the law.

[Nearly Sane]

Trade you this one:

https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connected-litigation/contempt-of-court

"Where court proceedings are active (in criminal cases, from the point of charge onwards) any publication that creates ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ will be regarded as a contempt of court, on a strict liability basis."

So despite the Dean of The Faculty of Advocates position this morning, you think that the FM of Scotland should trust you and a web site. Ok.

[ProfessorDavey]

So despite the Dean of The Faculty of Advocates position this morning, you think that the FM of Scotland should trust you and a web site. Ok.

It isn't just any old website though is it - it is the website of specialist Contempt of Court lawyers.

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't just any old website though is it - it is the website of specialist Contempt of Court lawyers.

And is just general not specific guidance.

[ProfessorDavey]

So despite the Dean of The Faculty of Advocates position this morning, you think that the FM of Scotland should trust you and a web site. Ok.

I note you've ignored my point about what could be said that would never come close to the threshold for contempt of court, specifically ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’.

Politicians regularly hide behind this to avoid having to answer any awkward questions regardless of whether giving the answer would pose ‘a substantial risk that the court of justice in the proceedings concerned will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’.