Scotland’s retention of its own legal system, based on an entirely different legal inheritance to the Anglo-Saxon one, is an important part of its national heritage. Senior judiciary and lawyers held a unique social status in national life for many centuries, as joint custodians with the Church of the residual national autonomy. The lawyers of Edinburgh are still a formidable, and broadly conservative, caste. That caste is collectively astonished by the revelations in the Alex Salmond case, and especially by the Scottish Government’s brazen reaction to the judgement of Lord Pentland and the inexplicable failure of Leslie Evans to resign. Secrets that are sealed and kept from the public are shared in whispers amongst the legal brotherhood. In the corridors of the Court of Session, in the robing rooms, in the Signet Library, in the Bow Bar, in the fine restaurants concealed behind medieval facades in the Old Town, in the New Club, the facts whirl round and round, in an atmosphere approaching indignation.
I think now you should share in some of those facts.
The Scottish Government’s version of events was that in December 2017 a new civil service code was adopted which allowed complaints to be made against former ministers. That new code was published to staff on the Scottish Government intranet, which resulted in two complaints against Alex Salmond being received in January of 2018.
Neither I, nor the collective consciousness of legal Edinburgh, can recall any example in history of a government being caught in a more systematic and egregious lie by a judge, but yet continuing to insist it is in the right and will continue on the same course. Every point of the above official government story was proven not just to be wrong, but to be a lie, because Lord Pentland called a Commission on Diligence.
This is a little known and little used process in Scots Law where one party challenges whether the other party has really produced all the important evidence in disclosure. A Commissioner is appointed who, in closed session, hears evidence on oath as to what documents are available and their meaning.
The Scottish Government had opposed before Lord Pentland the setting up of the Commission on Diligence, on the grounds that there was no more relevant documentation – which turned out in itself to be a massive lie.
Over the Festive period, the Commission in the Salmond case obtained quite astonishing evidence that proved the Scottish Government was lying through its teeth and attempting to hide a great many key documents. The oral evidence under oath, particularly from Leslie Evans given on 23 December 2018, was even more jaw-dropping. It is because of what was revealed behind closed doors in the Commission on Evidence that legal Edinburgh cannot believe Leslie Evans has not resigned.
The truth is that Judith Mackinnon, the “Investigating Officer” in this case, was closely involved in the new and unprecedented procedure for complaints against “former ministers” from at the latest 7 November and had multiple direct contacts with the complainants against Salmond at the very latest from early December 2017 – just three months after Mackinnon took up her job as “Head of People Advice”. On or shortly after 7 November 2017, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans was briefed about the complaint, which fact was minuted, in a manner that very definitely made Evans acutely aware of Mackinnon’s involvement. Evans claimed on 23 December 2018 under oath to have not noticed this, or to have forgotten it.
Evans being informed of the potential complaint against Salmond on or shortly after 7 November, coincided very closely with the initiation within the Civil Service in Scotland of the drafting of a new Civil Service Code enabling complaints against former ministers. This Civil Service activity included seeking the views of the Cabinet Office in London on creating a code enabling complaints against ex-ministers. The Cabinet Office in London did not support the idea. Nevertheless on 22 November 2017 the First Minister agreed the change in principle, as in line with the aims of the MeToo movement.
Judith Mackinnon’s preparation of the complainants against Salmond then entered a higher gear. She had numerous meetings and communications with both complainants in early December 2017. At the same time, she was continuing to be actively involved in the drafting of the new Code to enable the case she was working on. Astonishingly, the two complainants were themselves actually sent the draft Former Ministers Procedure for comment by Judith Mackinnon, before it was adopted! One of them, who had left the Civil Service, also appeared from the records to be potentially encouraged by another senior civil servant with the suggestion of the prospect of employment. Both were told by Mackinnon that she was likely to be the chosen “investigator”.
The Former Ministers Procedure in final form was not adopted and active until 20 December 2017, when it was signed off by Nicola Sturgeon, wweks after Mackinnon initiated action to proceed with complaints against Salmond. The new procedure was not advertised on the Intranet to staff until 8 February 2018, two months after Mackinnon’s first meeting with at least one of the complainants.
Contrary to the lies of the Scottish Government, zero complaints against Alex Salmond were received from staff following the publication to staff of the new former ministers procedure on the Intranet. The only two complaints had both been canvassed and encouraged a minimum of three months earlier.
Leslie Evans was aware of Judith Mackinnon’s role in the process at least from November 7 2017. Evans was repeatedly informed throughout December 2017 of the development of the complaints and of Mackinnon’s – and other civil servants’ -contacts with the complainants. The complaints against Salmond were being developed in parallel with the drafting of the Code which would retrospectively cover them, and being developed by the same people doing the drafting, and even the complainants were consulted on the draft Code. It was not until January 2018 that Mackinnon was appointed as “Investigating Officer” despite the fact that the Civil Service Code stipulated that the Investigating Officer must have “no prior involvement with any aspect of the matter”. She had in fact had intensive contact with the complainers over two months and had been active in the development of the procedure for three months. There is no indication that Mackinnon was keeping that secret from her senior colleagues or the Permanent Secretary, Evans.
Nicola Sturgeon, reacting to her Government’s court defeat, disingenuously described to Holyrood Mackinnon’s contacts with the complainants as merely “welfare support and guidance”. Sturgeon knows for a fact that is not true. The documents the Scottish Government was forced by the Commission to disclose prove that Mackinnon’s involvement comprised, as described in open court:
the substance of the complaint, evidence to support the complaints, circumstances in which they arose, the manner in which they could go on to make formal complaints and a significant decree of assistance to the complainers bordering on encouragement to proceed with their complaints.
Still more of a lie is Leslie Evans’ astonishing and unrepentant statement after the humiliating capitulation of the Government case before Lord Pentland. It is a statement woven through with falsehood and deceit, but the most obviously untrue point of all is her refusal to acknowledge what the documents show, that she knew full well all this was happening at the time.
After reassessing all the materials available, I have concluded that an impression of partiality could have been created based on one specific point – contact between the Investigating Officer and the two complainants around the time of their complaints being made in January 2018.
The full picture only became evident in December 2018 as a result of the work being undertaken to produce relevant documents in advance of the hearing.
Evans’ blatant attempt to pretend she knew nothing, and thus throw Mackinnon under the bus alone, is morally disgusting. Still more so is her utterly false claim that, the case having fallen after she conceded it on the basis Mackinnon ought not to have been appointed Investigating Officer, all Alex Salmond’s other legal points fell. Evans’ statement reads:
All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed.
That is a total untruth. It was made perfectly plain in Lord Pentland’s Court that, the Scottish Government having conceded the case, there was no point in hearing all the other grounds. This was made specific in court, where the other points were described as “now academic”.
I hope I have managed to make plain to you that Mackinnon’s appointment as Investigating Officer was the least of the many dreadful things of which the Scottish Government was guilty in this case. They naturally conceded on the least embarrassing. In fact, the entire matter is an orchestrated stitch-up.
Finally, I am obliged to consider the role of the First Minister and her subsequent defence of Evans and Mackinnon. I do so with the heaviest of hearts, because I know that any criticism at all of Nicola Sturgeon is considered utterly inadmissible by many of my fellow campaigners for Scottish Independence. Believe me, if I did not feel a strong obligation to truth I would much prefer not to speak of it.
But consider this, with as open a mind as you can muster.
Sturgeon’s defence of Mackinnon, as doing no more in the instigation of the complaints than provide welfare counselling and advice, is completely untrue. Sturgeon knows very well that it is untrue.
Consider this as well. Had the Scottish Government not thrown in the towel, Nicola’s Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd would that day have been questioned under oath about documents that she would have had to produce to the Court. Lloyd may well also not be anxious to be questioned about the leak of salacious details of one of the allegations, to David Clegg of the Daily Record. Lloyd knows Clegg well.
It really is very difficult to look through all the facts – including some I have not given here as they have not been referred to in open court – and conclude that Nicola was unaware of the stitch-up. I have spoken to dozens of sources this last three weeks, including many elected SNP figures, a couple of civil servants, and others who know Nicola personally. This is my conclusion, based on their extensive observations.
It is no secret that feminism is Nicola’s passion. A gender-balanced Cabinet, all-female shortlists for SNP Holyrood candidates, gender balance on boards of public authorities, these and many more are results of Nicola’s feminist activism in government, much of it admirable. Leslie Evans is close to her and a key ally in driving forward that agenda.
Leslie Evans has built a career out of promoting PC identity politics within local authorities and the civil service. In this story of her dishonesty when an officer at Edinburgh City Council, that appears to be her motivation against the project she sought to penalise. Evans frequently states her feminist principles.
And my gender politics too – my feminism – and I am a feminist – dates back to learning about Elizabeth 1st’s speech at Tilbury (‘I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king’)…
Most Permanent Secretaries are male and the product of private schooling and the Oxbridge system. You might have noticed I’m none of these things. In fact I am only the 30th female Perm Sec in whole history of the UKCS and the first female Perm Sec in Scotland has ever seen.
She was chosen, from a shortlist, to head the Civil Service in Scotland by Nicola. I am quite certain that the fact she was a woman with a history of promoting gender issues was a major factor in Nicola’s choice. Precisely the same factors also characterise Judith Mackinnon’s career in human resources, as I previously reported. Here is Leslie Evans on gender equality throughout Scottish government:
There’s another key difference between Scotland’s government and the UK’s – for Holyrood’s a world leader in gender diversity. Not only are the perm sec and the leaders of the three biggest parties women, but also half the cabinet, half the directors general, and 46% of the senior civil service.
As in all fields of diversity, Evans warns, this parity’s fragile: “It only takes one or two people to leave, and you’ve got a completely different balance again. You can never have the luxury of thinking you’ve done it.” And does achieving that balance change how government operates? She’s cautious. “I’d be foolish to say that this government feels very different from others, or that the cabinet operates in a markedly different way,” she replies. “I do think there are some broad themes that I can pick out. I think women tend to be a bit more collaborative; sometimes they’re a bit more thoughtful, and less likely to jump to conclusions. But I’m sure that people would challenge me on some of that thinking.”
This key ITV News article from 2015 was headlined “Sturgeon’s Women Power vs Cameron’s Man Power”
But Ms Sturgeon has also made her mark at the heart of government.
Women now occupy the three most important jobs in Scottish politics.
That’s in marked contrast to the big jobs in Downing Street, all held by men.
As it happens there are also significant educational differences too.
In Scotland the top three women were all state educated.
South of the Border they all went to public (in other words private) schools.
Here’s the roll call:
There’s Ms Sturgeon herself who went to Greenwood Academy in Ayrshire, and on to Glasgow University.
Her chief of staff and senior political adviser, Liz Lloyd, went to Gosforth High School in Newcastle, a state school, and Edinburgh University.
Leslie Evans, newly appointed as the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government, the most senior civil servant in Scotland, went to High Storrs school in Sheffield and Liverpool University.
That article was briefed by Sturgeon’s office and Nicola sees Lloyd, Evans and Mackinnon as performing key roles in driving her gender equality policies in Scotland. That is why she leaps to defend them. That is her here and now, and has become more real to her than the time before she was First Minister, campaigning for Independence with Alex. She is emotionally attached to Lloyd, Evans and Mackinnon on that basis, to the extent that she is prepared to defend the indefensible.
Nicola sees the criticism of the attack on Alex, an attack made under her MeToo inspired Former Ministers Procedure, as a slur on the integrity of the gender policies which Nicola sees as cementing her place in history. It is also a direct attack on the female team which she hand-picked to implement those policies. It is not irrelevant to the MeToo context that Alex Salmond has been described frequently as, solely in a political sense, being a father figure to Nicola, and perhaps is thus easily associated in her mind with the abusive patriarchy as characterised by the feminist movement. Despite the obvious fishiness of both the allegations against Alex and the way they were dredged up, they fit Nicola’s most valued agenda. In pursuing that agenda, Nicola has simply lost all sight of the notion of fairness to Alex Salmond.
It should be noted that after Lord Pentland’s ruling, Nicola rightly apologised to the complainants for the mishandling. She remarkably did not apologise to Alex Salmond, who was actually the person Lord Pentland had ruled her Government had treated unfairly. That was not an accidental omission.
If Alex Salmond goes ahead to sue the Scottish Government for damages, which I certainly hope that he does, the Scottish Government cannot oblige him to settle and will find it very difficult to stop both the documents to which I refer, and the key evidence on oath, from coming out in open court. I am very confident that anybody who now scoffs or rails at me will look very stupid when that happens.
In conclusion, a senior judge does not describe the Government’s proceedings as “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias” without extreme care. Those words carry full weight. That Nicola Sturgeon has simply sought to ignore them is astonishing.
UPDATE at 20.06: This article led to a number of people contacting me to offer more information, or in some cases correction, on various points, plus two lawyers who contacted me with legal advice. I have therefore made a number of relatively minor changes to detail including some dates, but they in no way alter the thrust of the narrative or the argument. If further information comes in, there may be more changes. I will let you know.
———————–
*In a previous article I had written that Mackinnon started contact with the complainants in January 2018. It was in fact still earlier, November 2017.
You obviously have access to information that I do not. Having said that, having NOW found herself in the situation she is in, should she sack those responsible? To do so will confirm that she is Pro Salmond and is somehow the architect of the failure of the court case (NB how DID Salmond know what to look for?)
Politically she needs to back her Civil Service ESPECIALLY when they are investigating her former boss and mentor. The sackings would look like brazen bias.
As for the civil servants, I think they’re holding out for a deal. I’m assuming they are still actually in place and not on ‘garden leave’? I doubt they’ll get it. The Scottish Press will soon forget/rewrite their involvement and pressure will switch from them to Sturgeon.
Were it not for your comments on material that you are privy to then I would see this differently. On the face of it, with the facts I have, or thought I had. It looks like Sturgeon was hoodwinked into backing something that reflected her views on ‘MeToo’ without knowing that it had been specifically created with the idea in mind of getting Salmond. She has then had to deal with the resulting fallout from this. I’d thought this because Sturgeon would know that any such case brought would be bad for her, bad for SNP, bad for The Scottish Government and bad for the Independence Movement. I’m not sure, even now, that she would back ‘encouraging’ such complaints.
I don’t know the truth of the complaints, I know that erroneous complaints CAN be made and then ruin careers, but I also know that MANY true complaints are made and dropped due to ‘lack of evidence’ Many well known politicians have walked triumphantly back into the House proclaiming themselves to have ‘cleared their names completely’ when there was simply just not ENOUGH evidence to bring the case before a criminal court.
I know from painful, personal experience within the Civil Service that every single actor has their own agenda, sometimes conflicting, sometimes coinciding, but always with their own modus operandi. Some are clever and thoughtful, others take a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I think what is happening here is a lot less straightforward than it, even now, appears. Obviously opposition parties will make MUCH mileage from this aided by the Scottish press and will confuse matters by saying that Sturgeon is both behind Salmond and also guilty somehow of trying to protect him.
One thing is for sure, it’s difficult to make a judgement without all the facts…
A very good, considered, comment Gary, thank you for your rational outlook.
It looks to me like Sturgeon is indirectly the cause of the court action herself as an exponent of the politically correct feminism mode. It is also doubtful that the boffins would have acted on their own without her say-so. It seems as if she is trying to show that political correctness is more important to her than loyalty itself, particularly now that the charges have been exposed as bogus. As an outsider I don’t know for sure but this all appears very damaging to the independence project. My guess is that to remedy the situation they perhaps need to bring Salmond back into office if that is possible, a question I can’t answer. As someone with some Scots ancestry who knows about how the British government has been operating, I think it is a negative development for the independence movement to be damaged by the same politically correct identity politics corrupting progressive activities throughout the western world.
“Politically she needs to back her Civil Service.”
I disagree Gary.
We’ve seen situations in politics where colleagues have had to step away from others they’d been close to because evidence of misconduct on their part had emerged. It happens in the Civil Service too.
In Evans’ case the extent of the misconduct was delivered, in damning terms, by a judge. NS chose to defend her, despite the evidence she’d run a bent investigation against Salmond. That was a bad move because, like Evans, she was effectively ignoring what the judge said about Evans’ investigation.
I don’t know if NS has the authority to dismiss Evans. I doubt it. What I’m certain of, however, is that she had a duty, as FM, to study that ruling very carefully and consider the damage it did to the Scottish Civil Service that its head had just been found to have conducted a high profile investigation which a judge had declared unfair, unlawful and tainted with bias.
What message did that send out?
Leslie Evans’ conduct should have been referred, by NS, to the appropriate person for advice. Immediately. It doesn’t matter that the case was against Salmond. What matters is the judge’s ruling with particular attention being paid to the language he used to describe what had been done by Evans. Again, unfair, unlawful, tainted with bias. NS has no duty to defend any Civil Servant who conducts official investigations in such a manner whether it’s Salmond or some insignificant Civil Servant lower down the ladder. She should want a clean process. And wanting that shouldn’t suggest bias on her part.
Instead, she chose to back a woman who had run a filthy process.
I’ve held these views since the day the judge’s ruling was announced. I was stunned when NS backed Evans immediately.
I was further dismayed, a few days later, to see the General Secretary of the FDA, Dave Penman, issuing a press release to every newspaper and broadcaster defending Leslie Evans and attacking Alex Salmond for suggesting she should resign. Penman too played down the ruling, expressed sympathy for the accusers and said Salmond was still facing a criminal investigation in any case!
You’ll know that the FDA is the CS “VIP” Union? Why on earth would it’s GS launch such a public attack on Salmond on Evans’ behalf? Why would it even be involved and behave in such an undignified manner? Who engineered its involvement and got Penman to issue such an aggressive attack on a former FM?
You say Evans and McKinnon will be forgotten and “pressure will switch from them to Sturgeon”. The pressure has never been on Evans! The press have ignored her misconduct completely. The focus was solely on Sturgeon. It still is. And who knows what’s still to come out.
It’s also unacceptable that we still don’t know who leaked the information to the Record. That is a serious offence and could compromise the case – in fact I am surprised that the case hasn’t collapsed because of it. Is Alex Salmond not entitled to be protected by the law any more? How can he get a fair trial rather than a kangaroo court? The whole thing stinks.
There’s apparently an investigation into the leaks to the Record Kathy. I doubt it will find answers. Sources will be protected and all that. What surprised me was that the Record was able to publish details from a confidential investigation and where the case was going to be further investigated by police. They were potentially jeopardising everything. And got away with it.
Gary,
‘Many well known politicians have walked triumphantly back into the House proclaiming themselves to have ‘cleared their names completely’ when there was simply just not ENOUGH evidence to bring the case before a criminal court.’
Innocent until proven Guilty. Whether you have a liking or not for the accused, this is our rule of law. It comes without bias, speculation, chit-chat, rumour etc.
Likewise, as Craig mentions, the Judicial finding is that the Scottish Government case was ‘unlawful, unfair and tainted with bias’. At this stage of proceedings, any wrongdoing has been done against Alex Salmond and no-one else.
Those are the facts as we know them just now, so no, it’s not difficult to make a judgement.
Relevant facts may come to light in the future that may change things, but at present, we are where we are.
Excellent and measured comment, Gary. I also feel sympathy for Mr Murray and what happened to him.
Thanks Gary, this well thought-out response is the one that chimes with me. If I were in charge of planning a wheeze that would cause maximum political inconvenience to my enemies, and with knowledge of which of Nicola’s buttons to press for the best chance of success, this is exactly what I would come up with – almost too good to be true. I am a feminist, but I crowdfunded for Alex. I’m sorry she fell for it, and allowed herself to be blindsided but Alex has been magnanimous, and called for unity, and I want to respect that and move forward for the sake of our best chance ever for an independent Scotland. I am thankful to Craig too for his foray into the facts of the matter, and the compelling way he has presented the story. I see two people being stitched up here, Alex and Nicola, jolly good wheeze, and I hope the true culprits pay down the line.
My personal belief without any evidence or proof, is that concerning Nicola, there’s a massive elephant in the room, which people are either afraid to mention, or are too ‘right on’ to discuss. I don’t want to mention it here in fear of legal action, defamation, reprisals and all that nonsense but who could possibly complain that the Scottish Government has been recognised as a LGBT inclusive employer?
I would like to say more about what I personally believe without any evidence or proof, but I can foresee the shitstorm that would occur if I did. I bet Alex Salmond knows what I’m talking about though.
He must be the only one then.
Was thinking the same!
Same
My understanding is that the complaint had already been settled some time before with the conclusion that it had been due to a misunderstanding for which Alex Salmond apologized. Is that the case? If so, that is also shocking.
Kathy
Yes. Good you brought that up. One of the two cases involved an incident in 2013 which was dealt with informally. No notes, no records. It was resolved amicably and put down to a misunderstanding, Salmond apologised and that was it. This is apparently one of the cases McKinnon dredged up and then brought through official complaint channels five years later. She really shouldn’t have been able to do that when the matter had been settled.
The parellels with Julian Assange are striking.
Yep.
FWIW: as a US resident remote from this controversy, I’m just kibitzing on this thread.
But the exact same thought that you wrote floated into my mind just before I got to your comment.
Expecting someone to resign, in these days?
Nobody resigns willingly these days. Old notions of honour and dignity are no more. People have to be either given their marching orders by superiors, or categorically break some rule. Slipping standards in public office are why the UK desperately needs a codified written constitution, but, I digress.
This is absolutely true, sadly and disgustingly. Nobody takes responsibility for anything anymore.
I don’t claim to be a paragon of virtue myself, could probably easily be accused of hypocrisy pointing to the failings of others. But the key difference is, I’m not seeking public office or power over others.
I was amazed, when one Tory govt minister accused of ‘effing and blinding’ at a No.10 policeman(remember him?), accused journalists of being hypocrites for highlighting his alleged foul language. He didn’t seem to get the fact he’s the one with power over others therefore it’s ok to hold him to a higher standard.
“or categorically break some rule”
And even then… some won’t go! Evans was found by a judge to have run an extremely dodgy and biased investigation.
Slipping standards in public office are why the UK desperately needs a codified written constitution,
Not too sure about that. The US and many other nations have written constitutions and they have not made a blind bit of difference to the increasing levels of injustice and corruption in their civil services or high office. In my view it is the lack of enforcement of clearly accepted rules and procedures that is the problem, written down or not.
‘Nicola sees the criticism of the attack on Alex, an attack made under her MeToo inspired Former Ministers Procedure, as a slur on the integrity of the gender policies which Nicola sees as cementing her place in history. It is also a direct attack on the female team which she hand-picked to implement those policies.’
This is absolutely correct, though I balk at the father figure characterisation in the next couple of sentences. I think there is a barely-submerged hatred and jealousy there, because Mr. Salmond was able to deliver what Ms. Sturgeon seems incapable of, an independence referendum, and he is far more widely liked than the divisive protege he nurtured in her. Ms. Sturgeon’s feminism and hyper-PC equal rights obsession (which, these days, equates to female domination; there is no desire for equality in many feminists) posturing, and, to my mind, misandry-driven policies, have badly backfired on her here. It’s embarrassing, disturbing, and disgusting, to have two clueless feminista fools like the mendacious Evans and Mackinnon still in a job. And, by not apologising to Mr. Salmond, as she surely should have, it seems that Ms. Sturgeon has learned nothing, is inflexible, and unwilling to admit a mistake in the (yawn) ‘battle of the sexes’ she clearly fights in her head on a daily basis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
I would vote a little ^ (up arrow) on this comment if it were available.
Just a wee note.
I believe Ms Sturgeon is not empowered to sack the Permanent Secretary.
So maybe ca canny until it all comes out in the wash. First Minister shouting while the case is still under review by Police Scotland, not a very clever thing to do.
Well documented piece. Craig
You’re right that NS cannot sack Leslie Evans.
That said, once the judge ruled that the investigation had been unfair, unlawful and tainted with bias, NS was empowered, as you put it, to refer her conduct and seek urgent advice on it. (Senior Ms Evans may be but she doesn’t outrank a judge no matter how hard she tried to water down the ruling!)
No, only her Whitehall boss can do that, I believe. The whole point is that the Civil Service should be neutral.
If Ms. Evans resigns it will be for ‘personal reasons’. It will be no more significant than a sabbatical to the sin bin.
We have here a watery eyed fawning to the Anglo-Saxon legal inheritance of the Scottish judicial system, with its revered caste of time serving lawyers rocking no boats until they get appointed as a judge. To me that is like singing the praises of a feudal autocracy.
This is now wrapped up in a mild rebuke of snout in the trough Sturgeon, for being a bit unfair to that nice chap Salmond.
I make no apologies for my fury at a legal caste and judiciary, who it is claimed are “collectively astonished” at the shenanigans of a Scottish establishment, but say and do nothing about the shameful outrage of the fitting up of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie Pan Am murders in 1988…_
I read it as non-Anglo Saxon heritage of the Scottish legal system.
Quite right. Thankyou…_
with my greatest repect to Mr. Murray and all the achievents of western democracy, I should say it is not the same in Russia.
I’m desperate to see it still covers mis-actions of high oficcials in any field. We’ve got special word to describe it – кумовство и лизоблюдство – which can be translated as “godfathery” and “fear-of-what-is-beyond-your-power”.
Does it happen on will or does it happen reluctantly – I don’t know.
It would be dishonest to not mention many good changes in this mentality; many corrupt officials sued and prisoned, many social iniriatives realised; total attitude in society is different and still develops to whole understanding of real state of things.
But nontheless, we need more time and perhaps most of all we need total change in society’s mentality to bring all the good things to come true.
It’s hard to know whether Russian corruption is the result of its socialist heritage or its capitalist conversion. My impression is that political stability cannot avoid gradual corruption. The price of peace is bureaucratic corruption.
Capitalist conversion. With a soupçon of state “special circumstances” apparatus “going rogue pragmatically” thrown in.
Hello Craig.
Your contribution is without doubt indispensable ,you provide information that people in Scotland do not get anywhere else.There will always be SNP, Nicola Sturgeon ,Scottish independence ,supporters who will not stand for any criticism whatsoever about that they support , I think it’s because the British press and BBC have for decades criticised Scotland , it’s independence leaders and commentators so vigorously without reply from a significant platform that those supporters are over sensitive.
Please please please keep doing what you do , you are the best at this time and the most trusted for accuracy I might add.
Nicola Sturgeon I like but when in government I’m sure there is pressure to do the wrong thing and on occasion I’m sure there will be things you decide to do that you regret or get caught out with.
We all have to remember that Scottish independence is what we are all aiming for and Scottish independence is more important than any person and any scandal Nicola sturgeon and Alex Salmond included.
If both of them sink but Scottish independence prevails the history books will glorify that which is most important which as I’ve said is Scottish independence.
Nicola Sturgeon once said that she would be the most open first minister. I had a complaint about the work of Kenny McAskill as justice minister over the handling of a legal matter. I wanted to bring this matter up with NS, so I wrote to her at her Bute House address, given her “most openness”. The letter contained private information. I was horrified that NS had not answered this letter herself (even just something just dashed off by her secretary), but had given it to Kenny McAskill himself to answer (!), divulging my exact complaints to NS about him. I felt that this was a disclosure of private information and an appalling breach of trust… especially as she trained as a lawyer. If you are complaining about a public servant to another public servant, surely the complaint should not be divulged by the one to the other?!?
It is quite possible NS’ PS passed your letter onto KM’s office without NS seeing it.
I imagine that Elish Angiolini QC considers herself fortunate that her other work for the Scottish Government and a potential conflict of interest meant that she could decline to become involved in acting for the SG.
All credit to Lord Pentland for identifying that it would be useful to set up the disclosure commission and for appointing Morag Ross QC. Smart moves from some smart people.
A fascinating investigation of facts and journey. I too was profoundly disappointed in Nicola’s cold announcement of the alleged complaints against her mentor, Salmond, just as I was when she singularly failed to demand a name from her political opponents accusations again me. By keeping things general they were free to start and fan the flames of a bushfire. If you demand a name be put to an accusation you place accusers in the precarious position of committing defamation. They are no longer making general comment, they are making a specific allegation. Instead, Nicola took the mob’s baying as a cue she had to shift the controversy out of public view, and shifted it to the SNP disciplinary committee who were already privy to public statements from SNP colleagues the accusations were justified.
In other words, there’s something seriously wrong with the SNP’s grasp of basic justice, legal niceties and dignity, by the top of the SNP.
“…there’s something seriously wrong with the SNP’s grasp of basic justice, legal niceties and dignity…” Yes, this hits the nail square on the head. This is a serious organisational fault which cannot be left unaddressed. Potentially, this is a terminal flaw.
There is no doubt that the Unionism of the British Civil Service protagonists in this botched stitch up of Alex Salmond was a key motivating factor.
However, a powerful underlying driving factor was a fundamentalist form of feminism which dispenses with the concept of the presumption of innocence and accompanying due process when a man is accused by a woman, and the basis of the whole toxic exercise becomes apparent. That the civil servants caught up in this latter factor enjoyed the patronage, and consequently the aegis of the First Minister, whose supreme confidence in responding and playing to the gallery of the #MeToo phenomenon so captured the zeitgeist that basic principles such as presumption of innocence and due process were overlooked, is the most genuinely regrettable aspect of all this.
We’ve had a situation in Scotland over the past few years where the First Minister & leader of the SNP, 50% of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet, the leaders of the Scottish branches of the three parties of Union, the co-Convenor of the Scottish Greens, and the head of the Civil Service in Scotland, have all been female. This is something to be applauded and to start taking for granted as perfectly normative. But the whole feminist cause risks being set back by a strain of feminism which uses the breaking of these many glass ceilings to high office to pursue a pernicious form of female exceptionalism rather than an equality- including before the law – which is gender blind. It’s a feminist form of an old boy’s network and is equally undesirable in public life.
This spiders web in which the First Minister seems needlessly to have entangled herself should be a wakeup call on what gender equality means and what it does not mean. It should also raise awareness that causes which may begin as worthy social media trends have the capacity to become latter day baying mobs. When the premise is what might be termed a ‘right on’ one, then there’s a demonstrable risk that even those charged with a duty of absolute impartiality in Government and public institutions may become caught up in it and make bad decisions for what they’ve become convinced are the best of intentions. Let’s just hope that this particular episode doesn’t realise its potential to seriously damage the only and essential political engine for delivering Scotland’s independence. I have no doubt that some of those involved in its initiation – and I obviously explicitly exclude the FM from that – would be supremely satisfied with their handiwork if it did.
Absolutely agree with this 100%. We live in a female revenge-cum-wannabe-dominating culture now. Ms. Sturgeon’s inflexibility, and actions, are witness to this disgusting state of affairs. Scotland is being run for women and sexual and racial minorities now. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with female politicians in whatever high office they hold. But, as you point out, when they use that office for female-centric retroactive malice and vindictiveness, it endangers the whole democratic enterprise, and Ms. Sturgeon has come out of this terribly. But she will learn nothing. She is an inflexible domineering feminist ideologue. And not for nothing did her husband buy her that painting of her as a dominatrix. We know who wears the trousers in that family.
Are you from outer space, as in some parallel galaxy somewhere? You see to have a wee bit of a toxic agenda and an urge to sow discord. Mostly people like to be presented with facts, which is why we like to read Craig’s blog, but then for those of us who would like Scotland to be an independent country the path then involves a collaborative debate to find the best way forward. Perhaps you could be a little more specific about where you yourself stand regarding the way forward to independence.
‘Toxic,’ how very American. We seemingly see things differently. I, and other men, are pointing out here (as does Mr. Murray in his article) how we see things with regard to Ms. Sturgeon’s seeming favour of women in Scotland now, including in this case. This may be a blind spot to some people, and especially to women (not necessarily yourself) who can gain from it, but ti’s dangerous. I am not trying to sow discord. I want Scotland to be independent. But I certainly don’t want to live in a country where I am browbeaten for being a white Scottish male, born and bred, as has been the case in recent years.
I have no problem with female or gay or ethnic minority politicians. It’s just when they start to push their radical agendas on us that I balk and push back. Ms. Sturgeon is wrong in this case – the fact she didn’t apologise to her mentor is very instructive. And sexist. And disgusting. To construct a fair, sexes-balanced, workable country, we must divest ourselves of her strain of female-favouring. Very simple. My comments are not about discord, they are about shedding divisive feminist ideological posturing and getting on with getting us independent, male and female, black and white, gay and straight. Full stop.
Alex Salmond case: Kenny MacAskill calls on SNP Chief Executive to stand down
18:53
Tuesday 22 January 2019
Former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has called on SNP Chief Executive Peter Murrell to ‘move on’ from the party as he again criticised senior figures over their handling of complaints of sexual misconduct allegations levelled at Alex Salmond.
Mr MacAskill said that Mr Murrell, who is the husband of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, should quit his role at the top of the party to avoid the ‘suggestion’ that he was looking out for his spouse.
The outspoken comments from the former Edinburgh Eastern MSP will be viewed as a direct challenge to the First Minister, who has come under pressure from within the SNP over how she handled the allegations against Alex Salmond.
/..
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-case-kenny-macaskill-calls-on-snp-chief-executive-to-stand-down-1-4860712
The political system in Edinburgh is on a par with that in Westminster.
There’s some way to go yet, Sharp Ears. How many court cases have gone against the UK Government since Mrs May became PM? How many court cases went against the Home Office when she was in charge of that.
I meant all the wrangling and the chaos. Where do the people come in to the equation? Here in England there is disillusionment and a great deal of worry.
Macaskill is a serial unionist a Britnat. My oh my, the Brit state r going for the jugguler now, Indy is too close to call for them. It’s coming yet, for all that!
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that you still fail to see the most obvious explanation. How unfortunate.
Dear Feminists
I would like to draw your attention to your sisters in Egypt, who found themselves involved, with their menfolk, in a much bigger political struggle against the dictatorial rule of Mubarak than you have ever experienced in Scotland. One curious thing, though, is that they did not break their husbands’ honour by wrecking their marriages and children by behaving badly and rudely in the sexual sphere. They concentrated on fighting the regime that oppressed them. And , in the end, they lost their struggle when a military dictator was imposed on them by America.
Maybe it could be said they lost politically , but they did not lose their honour, their husbands honour and their children’s respect, by trampolining like idiots on the basic rules of society. IMHO you are the worst losers , ever.
fck off.
@giyane – What a ludicrous post, you misogynistic clot.
Agree with that. Social cohesion and loyalty and solidarity are needed in any struggle, not stupid parroting of fundamentalist American feminist tropes and division of the sexes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsFzc0wAtFs
Great work Craig
But Gawd.. Are they winning..Divide… This Is why I do not agree with the Term ‘ Hope ‘ We cannot rely on Hope
Never mind. The BBC is giving you Scots a new channel starting on February 24th to take your minds off any problems.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-6619183/New-BBC-Scotland-channel-programming-details-revealed.html
Please do not link to the daily mail.
Many of us here are sensitive.
Thank You Sharp ears
But it wont happen
They need our Resourses
But people in Scotland won’t watch it, there will probably be more viewers in England for this channel.
Anything broadcast by the BBC in Scotland is poisonous ,untruthful and biased ,doesn’t matter which channel.
Scotland should have its own broadcasting company controlled from Scotland , we won’t have long to wait for that now.
You certainly make a reasonable case that Nicola Sturgeon’s judgement was less than her normal flawless and clear sighted standard.
As it is subject to an active Police investigation it would obviously be inappropriate for me to make even an insinuation of malfeasance towards our First Minister at this juncture.
Suffice it to say only a fool would expect any politician to radiate perfection and I hope that I have never fallen into.
With such a murky picture emerging at this crucial point in time on the cusp of another referendum, I think we have to give her the benefit of the doubt as she may have been trapped in a situation not of her own making by forces hostile to Scottish independence. I may change my mind though if she doesn’t announce a referendum soon.
Kathy,
Yes indeed,I think what you posit may well be the case.
There are many hostile forces who would benefit from such manoeuvres.
Maybe I’ve missed a recent comment on this but it seems to have escaped everyone that all of this skullduggery appeared with almost exact simultaneity to the announcement of AS’s RT show.
Slainte Media was incorporated on July 31 2017. On 18 September 2017 three filings: Statement of Capital, Change of Details for AS, and notification of T A-S as a person with significant control. You can imagine the scramble to find out what he’s up to and then it becomes known that AS is speaking to RT…why he’s practically a fifth columnist barks out David Galileasko to his Integrity Initiative handler. He must be stopped!!!
Get. The. Dirt. On. Him. Now.
I think it came about because he’d stated publicly that he wasn’t ruling out a return to politics after he lost his seat in 2017.
That’s one view…I’m talking about the behind the scenes goings-on. AS might state a wish to come back into politics but he has a few hurdles to clear, some nowhere near as high as others of course, before any return but in politics he would be one voice among many others albeit one of statesman-like proportions. With his own show on RT (and with Puigdemont as his first guest!) he’s now looking like a major continuing irritant with weekly national/international exposure. No more business as usual and much harder to control.
Anyway just a theory…
Yes a girl’s club turns out to be not so different from a boy’s club with its cronyism and corruption. But also confirms my suspicions that doctrinaire feminism, with its misplaced insistence upon equal representation is no more than inverse sexism, lauding biology over wider social commitments. While the Evans affair is entirely a Scottish (or Scotch) matter, the underlying politics are pretty much global these days.
What’s particularly disturbing is the readiness of all too many feminists to get rid of the presumption of innocence.
Under the “new civil service code … which allowed complaints to be made against former ministers”, what sanction or punishment would Salmond have faced had the complaints gone through, and he been found guilty (or whatever the applicable procedural term is)?
Devastating reputational damage, obviously, but beyond that, what were they trying to inflict on someone who was already out of government service?
Well, Salmond himself said that plotters wanted to remove him as a political threat.
Remember, it was just as he was planning a return to politics by contesting a seat that he was warned of the impending investigation.
So would he have been officially disqualified from future office, or again just neutralized by the disgrace?
I’m not trying to minimize what they tried to pull on him. On the contrary, I’m trying to get a sense of whether this new policy was even rational on its face, how it would look in a more normal case.
Maybe none of those responsible bothered to give it that much thought. But the new “code” remains in force, right?
He would have been publicly disgraced, reputation destroyed and any possibility of returning to politics killed stone dead.
But is Miss Leslie Evans in her prime?
LOL
I have always said No one Died in our Ref…And our Continuing Marches..
This However is Far More Serious –
Syria threatens to ‘strike Tel Aviv airport’ unless UNSC acts against Israel’s impunity
Well, Syria has had a devastating war which has largely destroyed their country and killed thousands so there is no comparison.
Israel has repeatedly bombed Damascus airport and otherwise attacked Syria.
The hasbarists say those attacks are justified because Syria and Israel are still in a state of war. Doesn’t the same justification apply to Syrian attacks on Israel?
If Israel agreed not to attack Syria, I imagine Syria would agree not to attack Israel.
Israel will never agree not to attack………USS Liberty showed that. No doubt RAF Akrotiri has its radar directed towards Israel.
The US has ABM bases in Poland and Romania to protect against Israeli Jericho missiles.
Israel will one day try out the F-35 aircraft and the Russians will not knock them out of the sky to preserve US face and Lockheed delivery schedules……..the UK carriers with cost half what the flight deck contingent will
Just to say re Lysias’s post that what Lysias forgets to mention is that Israel is attacking Iranian troops and military assets in Syria. Iranian troops and military assets.
The justification in this case, therefore, would be not that Israel and Syria are still officially at war but that Iran, which has stated that it wishes to remove the Zionist entity from the map, should not be allowed to build up a military presence in Syria.
Stated, in the sense that the manufacturer of that rubbish was a small apartheid State.
” Or is it required to draw the attention of the war-makers in this Council by exercising our legitimate right to defend ourself and respond to the Israeli aggression on Damascus International Civil Airport in the same way on Tel Aviv Airport? “
Brian
The real hard facts here is that Israel can do what they want and provoke because it then gives them the right to retaliate in a massive scale if attacked and of course the triumvirate in the UNSC will protect them. If the Syrians knew they would get away with it they would have retaliated a long time ago.
I am still waiting for the fabled S300 system to draw blood because that is the only way these attacks will stop.
It is at times like this that Craig is so needed. His thorough and compelling article discusses a subject matter that has for many days been utterly ignored by the mainstream media. Several google and other searches reveal not a single recent press or media comment about this, aside from one statement from the FDA on January 10th claiming that the case collapsed only due to a “procedural flaw”. That is a shamefully misleading statement.
I’m glad I am not the only one here who is noticing an alarming parallel with the Assange case, particularly in the way the mainstream media feels entitled to airbrush evidence and events out of public view.
The powers that be have recognized how they can use feminist charges to divide the left.
Gloria Steinem began her career working for the CIA.
ah…..so you “cease” working for the Agency at some stage…….
Was Presidential candidate Jill Stein a CIA asset who stood for election in order to siphon off some lefty votes from the Democrats?
CIA , like banks, call debts assets. But the CIA always forgets they have to be repaid. Eye for eye; tooth for tooth, wrecked country for wrecked country.
Or do you hold the exceptionalist view that Zionists are believers and Muslims are infidels?
Somewhat indirectly related, I recently did a little digging on line and found the following:
The civil service carry out an annual poll which shows that no less than 11 percent of its members experience sexual harassment or bullying every year. That should result in thousands of complaints. It doesn’t but still results in hundreds of formal complaints each year.
Of those hundreds of complaints a tiny fraction, less than 10 percent of them, go on to be officially investigated. Of those officially investigated a tiny fraction actually result in some action being found necessary. Less than 1 percent of official claims ever result in a punitive action of some kind.
Throughout the entire process, the identity of both claimant and accused is kept private.
Compare and contrast with the way Alex Salmond has been treated. Seems like a classic case of ‘Do what we say not what we do’.
Perhaps civil servants should get their own house in order before embarking on some purportedly high moral ground attack on politicians who ‘quite incidentally’ threaten the British state.
Murdoch is still paying out £millions to settle phone hacking claims against the now defunct News of the World and the Soaraway Sun. This report follows the one which detailed the News UK £91 million loss recently declared.
‘News UK has settled settled dozens of cases in recent years with confidential settlements thought to be worth millions of pounds, with agreements often reached on the eve of trial. The settlements do not accept any wrongdoing on the part of the Sun relating to the interception of voicemails.’
‘Sherborne also claimed at a pre-trial hearing that News Group Newspapers frustrated attempts to obtain material relevant to the case. The legal proceedings are still ongoing more than seven-and-a-half years after the News of the World closed following Guardian revelations about phone hacking that led to the conviction of Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor and Downing Street communications chief.’
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/22/phone-hacking-was-widespread-at-the-sun-high-court-told
This strong editorial has appeared in the Guardian. Israel and Netanyahu (he is seeking re-election) are no longer being given the green light.
‘The Guardian view on Israel’s democracy: killing with impunity, lying without consequence?
The late Amos Oz was right to say ‘even unavoidable occupation is a corrupting occupation’. Israeli voters should heed his words’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/22/the-guardian-view-on-israels-democracy-killing-with-impunity-lying-without-consequence
“The late Amos Oz was right to say ‘even unavoidable occupation is a corrupting occupation’. Israeli voters should heed his words’”
So Oz was saying that the Israeli occupation of the left bank was unavoidable? If so, I would tend to agree with him.
I was watching a debate with Jordan Peterson yesterday (sorry, if that sets you off, but bear with me), where he said that we have ample experience of the failings associated with men in power, but that we don’t really know yet what the downsides of women in power might be. I’m not sure that in this case one can detect a gender difference though.
Indira Gandhi had a policy on sterilisation and antagonised the Sikhs – she died. Benazir Bhutto was a licentious type at Oxford but became a hijab-wearer to gain power and ended up like her father. Julia Timoshchenko was as corrupt as an intermediary shell gas-transit company collecting fees from Gazprom could be – and sponsored by Merkel is back in the game, having had her life saved by Merkel.
Merkel of course is the Stasi IM who harangued an audience to raise funds for FRELIMO in Mozambique and stood Stasi watch on a key dissident before being sluiced into Kohl’s party to become the unfettered queen sidelining the Bundestag and German Legal Code. Then we have Isabel Peron and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina.
I think we have conclusive evidence actually
You could look up the likes of Imelda Marcos or Margaret Thatcher if you want to know about the downsides of women in power. Or, Hell, even Theresa May. At least Ms. Sturgeon’s deluded feminism seems to be humanitarian, if misguided.