Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you mean 'shouldn't' not 'couldn't'

Nope:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-nicola-sturgeon-urged-29635548

"Both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Yousaf have so far claimed that could not comment on an active investigation"

So is this Schrodinger's active investigation - one in which Yousaf both cannot comment on and at the same time can comment on. Or perhaps good old fashioned politics - will comment when it suits him politically, will claim he cannot comment when any comment would undermine him politically.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-nicola-sturgeon-urged-29635548

"Both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Yousaf have so far claimed that could not comment on an active investigation"

So is this Schrodinger's active investigation - one in which Yousaf both cannot comment on and at the same time can comment on. Or perhaps good old fashioned politics - will comment when it suits him politically, will claim he cannot comment when any comment would undermine him politically.

Then he shouldn't have said that as it does indeed undermine him politically. I don't take the Express as a style guide.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't take the Express as a style guide.

Nor do I, but we aren't dealing with Express opinion but factual information as to what he said.

And if you don't like the Express, how about the National:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23436464.humza-yousaf-speaks-following-peter-murrells-arrest/

'The First Minister told journalist Alan Smith: “As you’ll understand I can’t comment on a live police investigation but what I can say and what reassurance I absolutely can give is that the SNP have been fully co-operating in that police investigation and will continue to do so.'

And you can actually see him say those very words at the beginning of the video clip in the link.

So he cannot comment on a live police investigation, until ... err ... he can and does comment on a live police investigation. Point being (and I've been making this point till I'm blue in the face) there is plenty scope to comment on a live police investigation without coming close to the contempt threshold. And I suspect Yousaf and his legal advisors know this - so there is plenty he can say legally but his political advisors will advise him not to. Not because he cannot comment but because it is politically advantageous to duck challenging questions by claiming he cannot comment, when he actually can but is choosing not to.

[Nearly Sane]

Nor do I, but we aren't dealing with Express opinion but factual information as to what he said.

And if you don't like the Express, how about the National:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23436464.humza-yousaf-speaks-following-peter-murrells-arrest/

'The First Minister told journalist Alan Smith: “As you’ll understand I can’t comment on a live police investigation but what I can say and what reassurance I absolutely can give is that the SNP have been fully co-operating in that police investigation and will continue to do so.'

And you can actually see him say those very words at the beginning of the video clip in the link.

So he cannot comment on a live police investigation, until ... err ... he can and does comment on a live police investigation. Point being (and I've been making this point till I'm blue in the face) there is plenty scope to comment on a live police investigation without coming close to the contempt threshold. And I suspect Yousaf and his legal advisors know this - so there is plenty he can say legally but his political advisors will advise him not to. Not because he cannot comment but because it is politically advantageous to duck challenging questions by claiming he cannot comment, when he actually can but is choosing not to.

Are you suggesting that he was advised to say this?

[Nearly Sane]

Profile of Colin Beattie - the arrested treasurer.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/colin-beattie-profile-the-discreet-snp-treasurer-arrested-by-police-scotland-in-finance-probe

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you suggesting that he was advised to say this?

Advised to say what?

[Nearly Sane]

Advised to say what?

See replies 697 and 698

[ProfessorDavey]

See replies 697 and 698

I doubt he was advised to say this - however I imagine his legal team would have advised him that making a statement of that nature would not contravene the legal threshold for contempt.

However at other times he's closed down difficult questions with the "cannot comment" line, when I suspect his legal team would have advised that he could comment, but it was expedient of him not to and to use this as the reason.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt he was advised to say this - however I imagine his legal team would have advised him that making a statement of that nature would not contravene the legal threshold for contempt.

However at other times he's closed down difficult questions with the "cannot comment" line, when I suspect his legal team would have advised that he could comment, but it was expedient of him not to and to use this as the reason.

I imagine you're wrong, and I take it you are suggesting that he decided here to overrule his political advisors who you've already imagined telling him not to say anything.

It's a politically idiotic statement. It's a legally stupid one.

[ProfessorDavey]

I imagine you're wrong, and I take it you are suggesting that he decided here to overrule his political advisors who you've already imagined telling him not to say anything.

His legal advisors will advise him on what he can say within the legal rules. I suspect they will have advised him that his comment would be within the legal rules if he chose to make that comment.

His political advisors would advise him not to comment where commenting would not be to his political advantage and to comment where it is to his political advantage. They will also (of course) say that any comment must be OK legally, but that would be for the legal team, not them to comment on.

It's a politically idiotic statement.

Not really - now that he is leader of the SNP, he needs to protect the SNP as far as he can. And he needs to protect his position as leader of the SNP as far as he can. That is what is in his political interest.

He was asked whether the SNP was operating criminally now, since he became leader. It is clearly in his political interests to say that now, since he became leader that he believes that the SNP isn't operating criminally. It is politically in his interests as to suggest otherwise, or even not to comment, would be bonkers. It also helps (and boy does he need help) to create a narrative that he is cleaning up the mess - that things weren't right in the past, but they are now OK.

It's a legally stupid one.

Really? He was asked, and commented on, the situation now. The criminal investigation is about past events. Why is it legally stupid to comment on the current position, which as far as I am aware isn't the subject of police investigations.

[Nearly Sane]

His legal advisors will advise him on what he can say within the legal rules. I suspect they will have advised him that his comment would be within the legal rules if he chose to make that comment.

His political advisors would advise him not to comment where commenting would not be to his political advantage and to comment where it is to his political advantage. They will also (of course) say that any comment must be OK legally, but that would be for the legal team, not them to comment on.
Not really - now that he is leader of the SNP, he needs to protect the SNP as far as he can. And he needs to protect his position as leader of the SNP as far as he can. That is what is in his political interest.

He was asked whether the SNP was operating criminally now, since he became leader. It is clearly in his political interests to say that now, since he became leader that he believes that the SNP isn't operating criminally. It is politically in his interests as to suggest otherwise, or even not to comment, would be bonkers. It also helps (and boy does he need help) to create a narrative that he is cleaning up the mess - that things weren't right in the past, but they are now OK.
Really? He was asked, and commented on, the situation now. The criminal investigation is about past events. Why is it legally stupid to comment on the current position, which as far as I am aware isn't the subject of police investigations.

I find it a tad bizarre that you are so convinced of Yousaf's grasp of the fairly complex areas of law, politics and English usage that you are cheerleading for him being a 7th level Dan on all of them.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find it a tad bizarre that you are so convinced of Yousaf's grasp of the fairly complex areas of law, politics and English usage that you are cheerleading for him being a 7th level Dan on all of them.

I'm not - I don't think you need to be much more than a novice to recognise that legally it is perfectly safe to comment on a current situation when the police investigation is not about the current situation, but a previous situation.

I also think you don't have to be much more than a novice to recognise that politically if you are asked whether the party you lead is currently operating criminally that you would answer that you do not believe that it is.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not - I don't think you need to be much more than a novice to recognise that legally it is perfectly safe to comment on a current situation when the police investigation is not about the current situation, but a previous situation.

I also think you don't have to be much more than a novice to recognise that politically if you are asked whether the party you lead is currently operating criminally that you would answer that you do not believe that it is.

What you think about legally being a novice means is just you imagining again.

Politically if you think saying that you don't think your party is criminal is not a stupid thing to say, then I would suggest that describing you as a novice would be hyperbole
 

[jeremyp]

What you think about legally being a novice means is just you imagining again.

Politically if you think saying that you don't think your party is criminal is not a stupid thing to say, then I would suggest that describing you as a novice would be hyperbole

Why would that be a stupid thing to say? If a reporter asks you "is the SNP operating in a criminal way?" You are going to answer in exactly the way Yousaf answered. He can't say the SNP is operating criminally for obvious reasons. He can't say "no comment" because, in the minds on many, that is the same as a yes. He can't say the SNP isn't operating criminally, because it is obvious that, until recently, he had very little knowledge at all about how it was operating.

What he can say is that he believes the SNP is not operating criminally because that is a statement about his own possibly imperfect knowledge of the situation, not a statement of the facts of the situation.

Furthermore, just because the treasurer has been arrested, doesn't mean the SNP collectively is doing anything illegal. If the treasurer, for example, was embezzling funds for his own gain, the SNP is not considered the criminal; it is considered the victim.

[Nearly Sane]

Why would that be a stupid thing to say? If a reporter asks you "is the SNP operating in a criminal way?" You are going to answer in exactly the way Yousaf answered. He can't say the SNP is operating criminally for obvious reasons. He can't say "no comment" because, in the minds on many, that is the same as a yes. He can't say the SNP isn't operating criminally, because it is obvious that, until recently, he had very little knowledge at all about how it was operating.

What he can say is that he believes the SNP is not operating criminally because that is a statement about his own possibly imperfect knowledge of the situation, not a statement of the facts of the situation.

Furthermore, just because the treasurer has been arrested, doesn't mean the SNP collectively is doing anything illegal. If the treasurer, for example, was embezzling funds for his own gain, the SNP is not considered the criminal; it is considered the victim.

So the usage as Prof D has already covered that he shouldn't talk is not something you had considered?

You've then gone off a strawman in terms of what people might say.

[jeremyp]

So the usage as Prof D has already covered that he shouldn't talk is not something you had considered?

You've then gone off a strawman in terms of what people might say.

He can’t say nothing because that is the same as no comment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would that be a stupid thing to say? If a reporter asks you "is the SNP operating in a criminal way?" You are going to answer in exactly the way Yousaf answered. He can't say the SNP is operating criminally for obvious reasons. He can't say "no comment" because, in the minds on many, that is the same as a yes. He can't say the SNP isn't operating criminally, because it is obvious that, until recently, he had very little knowledge at all about how it was operating.

What he can say is that he believes the SNP is not operating criminally because that is a statement about his own possibly imperfect knowledge of the situation, not a statement of the facts of the situation.

Furthermore, just because the treasurer has been arrested, doesn't mean the SNP collectively is doing anything illegal. If the treasurer, for example, was embezzling funds for his own gain, the SNP is not considered the criminal; it is considered the victim.

Absolutely spot on.

Remember this question was asked by a journalist as Yousaf walked by so this was an off the cuff comment.

But even on that basis I cannot see how he could have answered in any different manner - either on the basis of legal or political intent.

Remember also that the question was about whether the SNP was currently acting criminally since Yousaf became leader.

He could hardly answer 'yes' could he, either legally as he cannot know for certain, and this would, of course, be deadly politically. To refuse to answer or claim 'no comment due to ongoing investigation' would certainly lead to people thinking there is something dodgy going on right now, noting that there is no criminal investigation into the current situation, only into previous issues so no comment is not a reasonable legal response.

And he didn't say he could guarantee there is no criminal activity (again he cannot be 100% sure) he said he did not believe there was.

So given that he was somewhat 'ambushed' by the question (but obviously would expect questioning of this type) his answer was pretty pitch perfect in both legal and political terms. He is in an awful situation, but he response was about as good as he could have come out with.

[jeremyp]

So the usage as Prof D has already covered that he shouldn't talk is not something you had considered?

You've then gone off a strawman in terms of what people might say.

I was addressing the last part of your post where you said you thought it was a stupid thing for Yousaf to say he didn't think the party was operating criminally. So it wasn't going off on a straw man.

However, my last paragraph was addressing an earlier post #697 which implied that you think the treasurer getting arrested means the SNP may well be operating in a criminal way. I should have made that clear, sorry.

[ProfessorDavey]

However, my last paragraph was addressing an earlier post #697 which implied that you think the treasurer getting arrested means the SNP may well be operating in a criminal way. I should have made that clear, sorry.

And even if someone within the SNP was acting criminally in the past (not that that has been proven yet), that doesn't mean there is still criminal activity going on now. And that was the question - not whether there had been criminal activity at some point, but whether Yousaf could guarantee that there isn't criminal activity occurring now, and since he became leader. Answering that he didn't believe there was is surely the only sensible answer.

[Nearly Sane]

And David Frost offers succour to the SNP by attacking devolution


https://archive.vn/osWVd

[jeremyp]

And David Frost offers succour to the SNP by attacking devolution


https://archive.vn/osWVd

This is a good one:

I say “let us hope” because nothing is predetermined. The SNP’s failings have been widely known for years. The party’s dreadful record on Scottish health and education, the shambolic ferry procurement, its appalling efforts to constrain free speech, its endless nannying and hectoring, its inept pursuit of its own main goal of a second independence referendum

One or two changes and:

I say “let us hope” because nothing is predetermined. The Conservative Party's failings have been widely known for years. The party’s dreadful record on health and education, the shambolic ferry procurement*, its appalling efforts to constrain free speech, its endless nannying and hectoring, its inept pursuit of its own main goal of Brexit

*remember that company they contracted that had no actual ships?

[Nearly Sane]

This is a good one:

One or two changes and:

*remember that company they contracted that had no actual ships?

Not sure what your point is? Tories and SNP equally shite?

[Nearly Sane]

And as so often now, ooft

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/scottish-politics-snp-nicola-sturgeon-colin-beattie-police-investigation-b1075484.html

[jeremyp]

Not sure what your point is? Tories and SNP equally shite?

Bingo

[Nearly Sane]

Now some weird cross between The Wire and Sale of the Century


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-fraud-investigations-looks-items-29783779