Alex Salmond has walked free from the High Court after being acquitted of charges of sexual assault – but he has made clear that this is far from the end of the matter. With a series of inquiries in the pipeline, what is going to come next?
In the first instance, very little is going to happen. Politics is essentially on hold while the country is in the grip of the coronavirus crisis – there are frankly far more important things to be dealing with right now.
But there is already much activity beneath the surface, with both opposition politicians and some within the SNP starting to pose questions. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said she will answer many of them in due course.
What did we learn during the trial which could give an indication of the political fallout from the case?
To start at the end of the trial, what did Mr Salmond mean when he said outside court that there was “certain evidence I would have liked to have seen led in this trial” which had not come out?
This almost certainly refers to the limits placed on the questions which can be asked of complainers in sexual offences trials. Primarily this refers to questioning about their sexual history, but it can also extend to other matters.
There was much debate in pre-trial hearings – which could not be reported until after the trial itself – about what could be asked of the complainers.
The defence wanted to press some of the women about later developments, around the judicial review process where Mr Salmond challenged the government over its handling of internal complaints against him.
Lady Dorrian ruled that this would remove the focus of the trial to another matter – which took place a decade after some of the charges – and would distract the jury from the merits of the charges themselves.
The defence actually tried to challenge this decision with another judge, but were rebuffed by Lady Stacey in similar terms.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Why did the defence want to talk about the judicial review? Because they believed it was central to a politically-driven conspiracy against Mr Salmond.
There was little direct talk of this in the trial itself, Gordon Jackson’s assertions that “this stinks” in his closing speech aside. Mr Salmond said some allegations had been “deliberate fabrications for a political purpose”, but the jury were never told why this might have been the case.
To again look to the pre-trial hearings, here the defence were able to be much clearer. Mr Jackson said there had been “a great deal of egg on faces” in government over the “spectacular” collapse of its case in the judicial review.
He said that after this, people working within the current administration turned their attention “very directly” to the criminal probe and “sought to influence that process to discredit the former first minister”.
Text messages were read out saying Mr Salmond’s ire over the botched internal probe risked “bringing down Nicola on the way”.
Where might this evidence come out, then, if not in court?
MSP Alex Neil has called for a “judge led public inquiry” – post-coronavirus – to find out if there was a “criminal” conspiracy to “do in Alex Salmond”.
However, a series of inquiries are already waiting in the wings, having been set up in 2019 before being put on ice after criminal charges were brought.
A parliamentary inquiry is due to examine the role of Nicola Sturgeon and her advisors in the internal inquiry, which the government conceded had been unlawful shortly before Mr Salmond’s legal challenge was to be heard at the Court of Session.
Ms Sturgeon insisted at the time that the process was “completely robust” and had only fallen down in one “deeply regrettable” area in the case of Mr Salmond.
However, one of the complainers in the trial also hit out at the government process, saying it was “flawed” and that she didn’t want to be part of the internal inquiry because there was too much “risk” around it.
This is almost certainly set to be the focus of much of the parliamentary inquiry – along with the questions posed repeatedly at Holyrood back in 2019, about what Ms Sturgeon knew and when.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
The first minister has also referred herself to a standards panel who will decide whether she broke the ministerial code during the government investigation of her predecessor.
Ms Sturgeon told MSPs she had face-to-face meetings with Mr Salmond and spoke to him on the phone while the probe was ongoing, but insisted that she “acted appropriately and in good faith” at all times.
Ms Sturgeon previously insisted that she first heard about complaints against Mr Salmond at a meeting at her house in Glasgow on 2 April, 2018. She has also said this meeting was party business, rather than that of the government – negating the need for official notes to be taken.
This meeting was facilitated by Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein. And while giving evidence under oath, Mr Aberdein said he had held an earlier meeting with Ms Sturgeon at her Holyrood office, on 29 March.
The question eliciting this revelation appeared to be specifically prompted by Mr Salmond, who called his QC across for consultation before it was asked. Clearly, the former first minister thinks this a significant point.
What actually happened at that meeting was not discussed in court, but the fact it was held sparks immediate questions. If it was in the first minister’s parliamentary office, was it government business? And why did we only hear about it via testimony in court?
And outside of government itself, there have also been questions asked about the role of the SNP.
Mr Salmond’s supporters were quick to comment on the verdict, with Kenny MacAskill calling for resignations – without specifying whose – and Joanna Cherry demanding an independent inquiry into the party’s internal complaints procedure.
One complainer, Woman H, said she had made a complaint to the SNP specifically so it would be on file for vetting purposes should Mr Salmond ever run for office again.
The court heard she had received a text message from a party official saying “we’ll sit on that and hope we never need to deploy it”.
Woman H was clear that this was at her request, but questions are sure to be asked about a process which saw a complaint of sexual assault effectively buried. What else might political parties be “sitting on”?
Mr Salmond quit the party at the point he launched his judicial review. Will he now seek to rejoin it? Or has the rift with the current leadership grown too stark?
Finally, while he has walked free from court acquitted on all counts, has Mr Salmond’s reputation come through the trial intact?
He will not mind that one verdict was “not proven” rather than not guilty – in practice, they mean the same thing, that he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
He is free to return to normal life and society – albeit a society currently in lockdown – and will presumably keep his arm in the political debate while presenting his TV show on Russian channel RT.
But the defence case readily admitted that he had not always behaved well. Mr Jackson said throughout that the “touchy-feely” Mr Salmond could certainly act inappropriately, and led witnesses who called him “extraordinarily pugnacious” and “extremely demanding”.
The QC said in his closing speech that the former first minister “could certainly have been a better man” – but that none of this made him a criminal, something the jury accepted.
Mr Salmond admitted to having a “sleepy cuddle” with one complainer, and what Mr Jackson called “a bit of how’s your father” with another – both members of his staff far younger than he, and neither of them his wife.
The defence also never really attempted to dispel the slightly raucous image of Bute House drawn by the prosecution, of exotic liquors being poured late at night after celebrity dinners and staff being invited to do paperwork in the bedroom.
To stress again, a jury has ruled that none of this was criminal conduct. But that does not mean nobody will question it. The SNP’s equalities convener has already called elements of it “deeply inappropriate“, although Mr Salmond is also sure to fight for his reputation in light of the verdict.
While the trial may be over, the political fallout is only just beginning. This is a difficult moment for all concerned – ultimately, very few people may come out of this affair well.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.
“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.
“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”
Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”
“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.
“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”
While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.
“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.
Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.
Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.
“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.
New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.
The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.
It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.
While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.
Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.
He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.
Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.
The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.
With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.
The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.
She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.
Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.
They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.
However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.
Her statement on X is closed to comments.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
