Legal expert defends Sturgeon and says charges under ministerial code ‘difficult to stick!’

How’s that for hiding light under a bushel? Then we read:

Salmond inquiry: Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence explained

The writer, Dr Nick McKerrell had no part in the headlines, I feel sure. I wonder what he thinks as he reads them this morning?

Before going on, some context on Dr McKerrell is useful:

Scots law lecturer named in secret ‘do not employ’ dossier:

Legal expert warns of barriers to indyref2 without Section 30:

So neither an establishment figure nor an uncritical friend?

Anyhow, first, McKerrell makes clear that the problems with the Scottish Government’s ‘catastrophic’ handling of the complaints against Alex Salmond was down to the involvement of the civil servant whom the First Minister, as is proper, did not instruct.

Second, the legal advice did not suggest a ‘doomed case‘ at any point and was followed by the First Minister. McKerrell notes the FM correctly making the point that the Scottish Government had previously pursued the case for minimum pricing in the public interest, against a well-funded legal challenge and had won.

He concludes:

5 thoughts on “Legal expert defends Sturgeon and says charges under ministerial code ‘difficult to stick!’

  1. Good to see a more measured analysis highlighting points of law and process that were ignored in the twitter and media frenzy as they smelt the possibility of taking a prize scalp. For what it’s worth I thought Nicola did an excellent job yesterday – calm, able to listen and respond to questions, and above all very human.

    And doesn’t it show the strengths of our parliamentary systems when the First Minister agrees to detailed questioning for hours on end, allowing the issues to be dissected and mistakes to be aired in public. There seems little point in comparing & contrasting with Westminster as I think it’s pretty obvious to most the differences in approach and accountability. But I do think there are lessons here for other parties (in Scotland & the UK) and the press. I’ve said for many years that the (often hostile) scrutiny the SNP face daily has made them a stronger party as they know they have to justify every move & plan. If only Douglas Ross, Jackie Baillie et al got similar scrutiny they might start to sort themselves out and work to become more credible and informed.

    We can also do it here in more modest ways. I thought it was great how Stewartb challenged several posts re SNP membership figures the other day and how he did this politely while demonstrating we’re not here just to accept what anyone says unless they can back it up. Your posts John consistently challenge MSM reports and while you point out SNP failings you also highlight areas of success and you don’t expect the blind support of your readers.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Alex Salmond should rejoin the Party. Come back into the fold. Or if he can be bothered start up another Party to harvest up the votes. There is another Indy Party. Needed to harvest up the vote. Break the D’Hond’t system imposed on Scotland. Without a mandate.

    Until them it has to be SNP 1 & 2. For Independence sake.

    Alex Salmond did not do it. He was stitched up by liars. Alex Salmond has always promoted women and believed in equality, fairness and justice. He did more for Scotland than anyone.In the dark old days. Haste ye back Alex. Not a saint in anyway but he did not deserve what happened to him. Throw under a bus by people he totally supported. It is beyond sick. It is unjustifiable, Good luck and best wishes Alex. People are thinking of you, always. .


  3. I watched as much as I could of the commitee
    Session and my observations were
    1.The female tory was a absolute disgrace
    2.Most of the members could be likened to
    Paplov,s dogs and when the starter bell rung
    For Questioning of NS
    They fair foamed at the mouth and got quite frenzied
    3.The mad dogs in main found the dog bowls
    Empty but fair rattled them round the room
    Vigoursly licking and nosing the empty question bowl in vain attempts for any answers to appear as sustenance in the bowls
    In general if you were open minded or neutral
    A fair conclusion would be
    What The F**k was that all about
    But the madness continues and those who continue to pursue these matters are going to end up being judged as FOOLS
    But worse still as Mad & Bad


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.