Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

To the "concerned shetlander" .....I dont recall anyone screaming for alec Salmond's head when he was found to have deliberately lied during the referendum, regarding the currency issue.

 

Should we insist he leaves his current SNP post? And if not, why not?

 

All politicians lie and distort the truth, that's the reality, it goes with the territory. You cant insist that every politician who has lied leaves his post, the House of Commons and the Scottish parliament building would be completely empty.

 

You can campaign, scream and dream all you like for openness and honesty in politics, but it aint gonna happen, Join the real world.

 

You might class that as cynicism, I call it reality.

What was Salmond's lie about currency? I certainly can't remember one, could you elaborate?

 

I presume you actually mean his "lie" about having received guidance regarding Scotland's EU status, for which he referred himself to an independent inquiry and was cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

Unless there is a currency lie I'm overlooking?

 

 

Didn't the enquiry into the leak clear AC too?

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

 

Ahw come on, do you really think this would have got this far if the SNP had have won.

Of course it wouldn't, nor if any party other than the Lib Dems had won. What would be the point of taking Alistair Carmichael to an election court hearing if he hadn't won the election?

Now do you think it was ok for Alex Salmon to state that Scotland would remain part of the U.K. If it went independant, when the powers to be were clearly saying this was not the case. In my opinion he was trying to deceive the electorate. ? But that's ok isn't it ?

What did you mean to say here? Because Salmond certainly never claimed Scotland would "remain part of the UK" after March 2016 had the referendum delivered a Yes vote. That would be rather contrary to his beliefs...

Sorry I meant to say part of Europe

 

 

OMG, Windwalker!  There has to be an enquiry!  You are deliberately misleading here because you mean the EU not Europe surely? Could you elaborate on whether that's personal or political stance you've taken there please, was that statement as a voter or as an individual?

[Windwalker]

 

To the "concerned shetlander" .....I dont recall anyone screaming for alec Salmond's head when he was found to have deliberately lied during the referendum, regarding the currency issue.Should we insist he leaves his current SNP post? And if not, why not?All politicians lie and distort the truth, that's the reality, it goes with the territory. You cant insist that every politician who has lied leaves his post, the House of Commons and the Scottish parliament building would be completely empty.You can campaign, scream and dream all you like for openness and honesty in politics, but it aint gonna happen, Join the real world.You might class that as cynicism, I call it reality.

What was Salmond's lie about currency? I certainly can't remember one, could you elaborate?I presume you actually mean his "lie" about having received guidance regarding Scotland's EU status, for which he referred himself to an independent inquiry and was cleared of any wrongdoing.Unless there is a currency lie I'm overlooking?

He may have been cleared of wrongdoing, but he clearly, in my opinion, misled the public. May not be illegal but very questionable. Would you trust him any more than you would trust Cameron.

 

As I said before too much is being made out of the whole issue,. I always wonder what the motives are of a few individuals who have gone to so much bother. If it was due to politition dishonesty, they could have tarred and feathered a few others long before this.

[hjasga]

He may have been cleared of wrongdoing, but he clearly, in my opinion, misled the public. May not be illegal but very questionable. Would you trust him any more than you would trust Cameron.

I didn't feel misled, no. If anything I found the way his comments were twisted to be more misleading than anything, and the findings of the independent inquiry would seem to support claims that it was in fact others who abused trust in painting Salmond as a liar.

 

I'm not sure what the relevance of the Cameron comment is.

 

 

Didn't the enquiry into the leak clear AC too?

It did not. It confirmed his role in the leak and found that "he could and should have stopped the sharing of the memo". Hence the court case now being played out.  

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scotland-office-memorandum-leak-cabinet-office-inquiry-statement

 

OMG, Windwalker!  There has to be an enquiry!  You are deliberately misleading here because you mean the EU not Europe surely? Could you elaborate on whether that's personal or political stance you've taken there please, was that statement as a voter or as an individual?

 

Top lolz, but let's not pretend these are actually comparable.

[Equality Street]

...lie all of the time if it suits them, its an unwritten pre-requisite of the job.

 

Perhaps it wouldn't be if they weren't allowed to get away with it so often?

[hjasga]

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/we-wish-to-hear-evidence.html

This is a really well written piece on where the case is at now, for anybody interested. I must admit giggling at this particular section:

 

Lady Paton's legal opinion is an upset. An upset for those who thought this case was a crackpot and oppressive challenge without any sound basis in the Representation of the People Act. The election court's judgment today is a rebuke to the lazy cynics and a vindication for the Orkney four. This is no screwball use of the legislation. Their case is novel, absolutely. Unusual, for sure. But electoral law is complex, little understood and often arcane. It remains a mystery to me, how many folk who (a) know sod all about election law and ( didn't bother to find out still felt able to pronounce the petition hopeless, baseless and motivated by ill will. Well, ye ken noo.

Edited September 30, 2015 by hjasga

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

This is a total waste of public funds.  Which argument we going to use, the personal is political or the political is personal - that goes way back to the days of suffrage and women getting the vote.

 

What's the definition of a lie?  What's that old saying, 'There's usually three sides to every story:  his version, her version, and somewhere in-between lies the truth'?  Thing is, the truth is subjective.  This really boils down to what "this" is when saying whether or not AM knew ALL about it.  Is he going to be penalised for a bad choice of words?  Or what about solicitors going about their day to day duties when they do summing up in cases, or cross examination?  Are they too going to be struck off?  When witnesses and others are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, how many times do they get interrupted and only permitted to give a brief yes/no answer?  How many times do legal professionals LIE by presenting the facts of a case as to how THEY interpret it.

 

This whole thing stinks of the Scottish judicial system wanting to be SEEN to be doing the right thing.  Does AM have the right to appeal?  Sturgeon was not a candidate.  Was AM even a candidate at the time (and which time because it may well be that time is of the essence here)?  He wasn't a candidate when in office.  When you look at the timings of events and interviews, isn't it true that even if one puts forward oneself as a candidate that they are not actually a candidate until their application has been approved by the returning officer supervising the election?  And election under the relevant statute means LOCALLY, not nationally.

 

Semantics.  Besides, you can't get done in law unless there are proven facts.  Do the same rules apply in civil/election cases as in criminal law?  Where exactly does the burden of proof lie?  So how exactly does one prove that something is political or personal?  What's the motivation behind the Orkney four - perhaps one ought to be looking more at THEIR motives.

 

And no, I didn't vote LibDem either but IF there's a by-election, I'm tempted to - Skene is an outright liar in my book for withholding information, he sure as hell didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[hjasga]

This is a total waste of public funds.  Which argument we going to use, the personal is political or the political is personal - that goes way back to the days of suffrage and women getting the vote.

 

What's the definition of a lie?  What's that old saying, 'There's usually three sides to every story:  his version, her version, and somewhere in-between lies the truth'?  Thing is, the truth is subjective.  This really boils down to what "this" is when saying whether or not AM knew ALL about it.  Is he going to be penalised for a bad choice of words?  Or what about solicitors going about their day to day duties when they do summing up in cases, or cross examination?  Are they too going to be struck off?  When witnesses and others are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, how many times do they get interrupted and only permitted to give a brief yes/no answer?  How many times do legal professionals LIE by presenting the facts of a case as to how THEY interpret it.

 

This whole thing stinks of the Scottish judicial system wanting to be SEEN to be doing the right thing.  Does AM have the right to appeal?  Sturgeon was not a candidate.  Was AM even a candidate at the time (and which time because it may well be that time is of the essence here)?  He wasn't a candidate when in office.  When you look at the timings of events and interviews, isn't it true that even if one puts forward oneself as a candidate that they are not actually a candidate until their application has been approved by the returning officer supervising the election?  And election under the relevant statute means LOCALLY, not nationally.

 

Semantics.  Besides, you can't get done in law unless there are proven facts.  Do the same rules apply in civil/election cases as in criminal law?  Where exactly does the burden of proof lie?  So how exactly does one prove that something is political or personal?  What's the motivation behind the Orkney four - perhaps one ought to be looking more at THEIR motives.

 

And no, I didn't vote LibDem either but IF there's a by-election, I'm tempted to - Skene is an outright liar in my book for withholding information, he sure as hell didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'd suggest you read the article I linked as it doesn't seem like you understand the charge being placed against him. It has nothing to with whether the memo was truthful. The "lie" is not anything to do with a French Ambassador or Nicola Sturgeon. It is simply that Carmichael said he was not aware of the memo when he demonstrably was. 

 

The petitioners put forward the case that he told that lie to protect his own reputation. The first part of this case has examined whether lying about oneself would be prohibited by the Representation of the People Act, ultimately finding that it would. That is to say that as well as it being against the rules to slander another candidate (which as you say wouldn't necessarily apply given Sturgeon was not herself a candidate), it is also against the law to lie to improve ones own standing. The court will now look at whether Carmichael's reason for lying was indeed influenced by the upcoming election. 

 

And yes, he was the nominated candidate at the time. He had been confirmed by the party in January 2015, several months before any of this took place. http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/01/06/carmichael-to-review-his-future-after-election

Edited September 30, 2015 by hjasga

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Knowing the contents OF the memo is different to knowing ALL about the memo and of its existence.  How many memos do you think whizz about the Scottish Office on a daily basis?  Didn't he admit that once the enquiry was underway and once he realised they were referring to "that memo", he stated he should have come clean about knowing of its existence?  Didn't he say if he had done so, some would accuse him of not allowing due process to take place - a case of damned if you and damned if you don't?  Should he have known about, read and check the contents of the memo?  YES.  Did he know about the contents of the memo at the relevant time?  Didn't he say he'd never read the actual memo?

 

"And yes, he was the nominated candidate at the time. He had been confirmed by the party in January 2015, several months before any of this took place. http://www.shetlandt...-after-election"

 

You're missing the point.  A nominated candidate by a party is not the same as being the accepted candidate by the returning officer for Orkney & Shetland.

[concerned shetlander]

I t will be a long time before I vote liberal again. I would have had more respect for him if he had resigned, and I f they had a good person standing would maybe and most probably voted for them, but to deny their lies and try to put the blame on other people means no way will I vote for them.

 

Mr Scott was on the radio tonight, and you would have thought they would like to apologise for their arrogant behaviour, but instead of that he was blaming the people who have taken it to law. Maybe they should both be a bit sorry for their bad behaviour.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Oh look here, this MP hasn't resigned.

 

http://news.stv.tv/east-central/1329774-nicola-sturgeon-knew-nothing-about-michelle-thomson-property-deals/

[hjasga]

Knowing the contents OF the memo is different to knowing ALL about the memo and of its existence.  How many memos do you think whizz about the Scottish Office on a daily basis?  Didn't he admit that once the enquiry was underway and once he realised they were referring to "that memo", he stated he should have come clean about knowing of its existence?  Didn't he say if he had done so, some would accuse him of not allowing due process to take place - a case of damned if you and damned if you don't?  Should he have known about, read and check the contents of the memo?  YES.  Did he know about the contents of the memo at the relevant time?  Didn't he say he'd never read the actual memo?

He can argue that case in the upcoming hearings should he wish. I'm not convinced that "oh that memo?" is his strongest hand, given it was perfectly clear in the interview what was being discussed and that he continued the denial until weeks after the election, but I suppose he could try.

 

"And yes, he was the nominated candidate at the time. He had been confirmed by the party in January 2015, several months before any of this took place. http://www.shetlandt...-after-election"

 

You're missing the point.  A nominated candidate by a party is not the same as being the accepted candidate by the returning officer for Orkney & Shetland.

The interview in question took place on 5th April 2015, which was a week after the dissolution of parliament and the official start of campaign time. So I would be amazed if he had not been accepted by this point, but who knows, perhaps this will again be an argument put forward by his defence.

[hjasga]

Oh look here, this MP hasn't resigned.

 

http://news.stv.tv/east-central/1329774-nicola-sturgeon-knew-nothing-about-michelle-thomson-property-deals/

What's your point? As yet the matter is still being investigated, and she has been suspended from the party while that is happening. If the investigation comes to anything and the party whip is removed permanently, it will go to a by-election.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

Oh look here, this MP hasn't resigned.

 

http://news.stv.tv/east-central/1329774-nicola-sturgeon-knew-nothing-about-michelle-thomson-property-deals/

What's your point? As yet the matter is still being investigated, and she has been suspended from the party while that is happening. If the investigation comes to anything and the party whip is removed permanently, it will go to a by-election.

 

 

It doesn't automatically go to a by-election if the party whip is removed permanently.  If the upshot of the investigation AND subsequently going to Court AND being found guilty of a criminal offence then they would be an MP no more resulting in a by-election.  The point I'm making is that it seems okay for people to be calling for AM to resign before a Court case.  And what if it comes out that Sturgeon did know prior to reading about it in the papers?  Oh, and what about the fact there's now reports that Sturgeon is now saying that refugees can't stay in her home and has backtracked, should she now resign too?

[hjasga]

It doesn't automatically go to a by-election if the party whip is removed permanently.

Fair comment, although in practice I think it generally does.

 

The point I'm making is that it seems okay for people to be calling for AM to resign before a Court case.

I have seen many people claiming she should so, again, what's your point?

 

And what if it comes out that Sturgeon did know prior to reading about it in the papers?

Then it'll impact her reputation, but given that both her denial and any subsequent revelation of knowledge would have happened without an election in between it isn't a comparable situation.

 

Oh, and what about the fact there's now reports that Sturgeon is now saying that refugees can't stay in her home and has backtracked, should she now resign too?

Again not comparable.

 

It's also a misrepresentation to say she lied, she gave a heavily caveated answer when asked if she would put up refugees, it certainly wasn't an unconditional offer.

Edited September 30, 2015 by hjasga