Imbalances and simplistic statements

Does anyone remember feeling a wee bit exceptional? Do you remember seeing through Unionist shenanigans, and being discerningly choosy about what to believe or disbelieve? While our English neighbours were choking down some barely concealed slurry, pissed out by some posh Tory, we were sitting up here nursing our cynicism - honed to a keen edge by the strop of a thousand constitutional debates.

We knew our stuff, we were proud Scotland had the worst rate of payment for the BBC's television tax. We basked in our ability to see through the sometimes-dense patina that coated political jobbies, and we revelled in our skills at negotiating the skein of political discourse so we could understand exactly what turds they were trying to lay on our doorsteps. 

Google turd, and this appears.

Turns out we're no better than the average UK prole, which is a bit disappointing.

The things Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are being accused of, are not comparable - in any sense. Of course, you know that, you're not stupid. But I don't mean what they did or didn't do, I mean they're not comparable in terms of perception - and it's causing an imbalance we should be able to see through and cope with.

But we're not.

The allegations against Alex Salmond are straightforward, the rebuttals are complicated. The allegations against Nicola Sturgeon are complicated, the rebuttals are simplistic.

The accusations levelled at Alex Salmond have all the weight of #MeToo behind them. Like the current trans-rights movement, which has a gravity all of it's own, it tends to mow down anyone and anything in it's way - however measured or reasonable they may be. Meanwhile, Nicola Sturgeon's accusations - a spot of political skulduggery - are far easier to excuse due to their mediocrity. (Except they're not really mediocre, an innocent man could have been jailed, possibly for the rest of his life.)

The TL/DR version of this? If two parties are warring, and the accusations against one side are complicated, while the defence of the other is simplistic, it creates an imbalance in terms of how it's understood by us proles.

The independence movement is currently split three ways - Salmond independence supporters, Sturgeon independence supporters, and horrified independence supporters. The first two groups believe what they believe because they think they've deployed that finely-honed judgement. The third group, are still horrified.

But only one group is right.*

For me? There are two things at the front of what passes for my mind. Firstly, a lot of people, (including Nicola Sturgeon), have dropped hints that although Alex Salmond was found not guilty, it doesn't mean his accusers were lying. To that, I'd say this: the jury can only return an innocent or guilty verdict, (I know, 'not proven' is also available, but it's a cop out - it means not guilty). While the answer a jury gives must be binary, the reasoning that leads to that answer is anything but.

No one except the jurors know what reasons they had for finding as they did. Everything else - what Salmond's lawyer said in summation, (or on a train) - is tittle tattle and not admissible in court or informed debate.

Secondly, I don't understand why Nicola Sturgeon would do any of this. I've read about imposter syndrome, or an expansive ego. It may be the people who wrote those words have inside information that I don't. But I don't buy it, so at this time, it's tittle tattle so not admissible in court or informed debate.

On balance, putting all the tittle tattle to one side, much as I hate to say it - because I am a fan - this looks bad for Nicola Sturgeon. Much was made of the Moorov Doctrine in the lead up to Salmond's trial - hold on while I find an explainer...

While not an exact comparison - Moorov talks about a witness statement when taken on its own meaning very little, but when taken with others, hinting at a 'course of conduct'. It seems to me, that could just as readily be applied to the activities of the Scottish Government's leadership these past few years.



* The Horrified Independence Supporters are right.