Talk:Alex Salmond sexual harassment scandal

Title/scope

This article begins, "The Alex Salmond scandal is an ongoing political scandal in Scotland concerning how the Scottish Government, led by incumbent First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon, breached its own guidelines in its investigation into the harassment claims against Sturgeon's predecessor as First Minister, Alex Salmond." I don't think that's correct. The "Alex Salmond scandal" isn't one thing, or rather different people would call different things part of the "scandal". Part of the scandal is Salmond's own behaviour: while cleared of all criminal charges, plenty of reliable sources would still highlight his behaviour over a long period of time as problematic and part of the "scandal". Can we re-word the opening sentence, and/or re-title the article to be more specifically about the actions of the Scottish government, or can we expand the article with discussion of Salmond's behaviour? I would prefer the latter for the full context. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the discussion on behaviour could be valid if you want to draft some additional paragraphs? JLo-Watson (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a timeline here that might be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed this is quite useful. Entirely separate discussion but I wonder what your thoughts would be to merge the Harassment Committee article here? It might make sense to have the whole scandal, ie the background, various reports etc, all in one place? JLo-Watson (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As the AfC reviewer who accepted this draft, I was equally as flummoxed about the correct title. I eventually kept it the way it is, as that seems to be the nomenclature used by the RS referenced in the article. Would not be opposed to a title change, however. Bkissin (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints article should remain separate and go into the detail of that Committee's hearings and findings. There is plenty of expansion that could be done to that article. I see the value in this as a broader article that covers the original allegations, Salmond's behaviour, the criminal trial, the Harassment Committee, the Hamilton inquiry and the launching of the Alba Party. Something to bring everything together, but also to discuss how they are all related. I sympathise with Bkissin about the title, but can't think of something better either. Bondegezou (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, Bkissin, and JLo-Watson: I had created a similar draft at Draft:Inquiry into the Scottish Government's handling of harassment complaints (which is obviously redundant now that this article is in mainspace), but might the title be an acceptable alternative? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You could merge some of your draft into Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, which could do with expansion. The title doesn't really help here, which I take to be an article that goes beyond a specific inquiry. Bondegezou (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue we have here, as seen by us all above, the scandal itself is difficult to define. I do think what we have at the moment though is good as a reader would expect everything related to the Salmond scandal (including his prior conduct/background) to be in one article. I agree per Bondegezou that the article is more than just the inquires. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, this is a significant political event in itself (arguably the most significant scandal since devolution given how unprecedented it is to have Salmond-Sturgeon essentially against each-other - and I think that can’t be understated - so perhaps we need to have a section on the political consequences, i.e. SNP splits/defections/ Alba Party being formed etc. Re, the Harassment Committee article, I agree that it needs quite a bit of expansion. If it’s not expanded, then I could see a merge into this article as there isn’t a great much more detail in that article at the moment. JLo-Watson (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Major NPOV Issue

The article is written in such a way that it concentrates on the Scottish Government's actions, and suggests that the Government's mishandling of the complaints against Alex Salmond constitute the Scandal.

Many would regard the allegations of Attempted Rape and Sexual Assault by a former First Minister while he was in office as constituting a large scandal in it's own right. While the article touches on this, the lead paragraphs frame the scandal by suggesting that the Scandal is due to the Scottish Government's actions, rather than by Salmond's own behaviour. The focus of this article is not the actions of Alex Salmond and the resulting fallout, it is a description of how the Scottish Government made a mess of investigating it, which reads quite favourably about Salmond.

I'd suggest AfD but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts first,

--Vitalis196 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I said similar above, so I agree with your general point. However, AfD doesn't seem appropriate as per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Bondegezou (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Vitalis196, I notice you have completely deleted the lede which equally I don't think is warranted. You could have waited for us to reach a talk-page consensus before unilaterally removing the whole thing. You have also totally deleted the paragraphs which outlined the outcomes of both the Committee's report (which said Sturgeon mislead the Committee in her evidence) and also the Hamilton Report (which said that she didn't breach the Ministerial code). Having both of those reports in the lede (given that they differed) surely was neutral. At the very least, I suggest you transfer the findings of both reports to the main body. JLo-Watson (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the Lede was misleading to say the very least. The Committee and the Hamilton Report are still in the main body. Vitalis196 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Vitalis196, please respect WP:BRD. You boldly removed some material, you have been twice reverted, now let's discuss here. I suggest you try expanding the lead section to ensure better NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou If we were to cover every aspect of the scandal in as much depth as the lede paragraph you've reinstated then the lede may end up the same length as the rest of the article! The content of that paragraph is replicated below in any case. Nevertheless I'll try to summarise everything. Vitalis196 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to some trimming of the current material. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou Do you have any objection to moving that paragraph in full into the Background section? That would seem a reasonable compromise?Vitalis196 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that would be appropriate. I think the lead section of this article should mention key events, and those two reports are key events. Maybe it's useful to consider what else should be in the lead section. I think the lead section should outline that there were allegations against Salmond, that there were criminal charges and he was found not guilty, but that Salmond acknowledged some personal failings. Maybe also that the final upshot of all this was Salmond going off to form a rival party. But happy to hear what other editors think. Bondegezou (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think the Alba Party being in the lede would be a good idea - especially given the 2021 elections are already mentioned. I think it could also do with highlighting the sheer significance of the scandal on Scottish politics, ie the Salmond-Sturgeon divisions/split. That’s been widely discussed by the media in recent months JLo-Watson (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't see Alba as particularly connected? Relations between Salmond and the rest of the SNP declined for other reasons long before the scandal came out. The idea of a list party to exploit the voting system had been around for a while too. Vitalis196 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe the Alba Party as being connected, which it obviously is! Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns Vitalis196, and this article languished in the AfC draftspace catacombs for weeks before I finally decided to accept it. I accepted it as it seems to have lasting coverage from RS enough to pass GNG. I do agree with the point by Bondegezou that it is in need of a cleanup. Bkissin (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vitalis196: I have removed your comment here as it may violate WP:BLPTALK. Could you consider your wording please? Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I think what I said was supported by the sources in the article and not hugely contentious, But I've rephrased and expanded my comments

I think the premise of the article is a bit off, but it's mostly fixable. While Salmond loyalists might want to make this out as an issue of the Scottish Government mishandling complaints, the scandal ultimately arose from Alex Salmond's own behaviour. Though he denied criminality Alex Salmond was described by his own lawyer as "touchy-feely" and something of a "sex pest", he was also charged with multiple serious sexual offences alleged to have been committed while serving as First Minister. That trial was heavily covered by the national news, and received at least as much coverage as the subsequent inquiry.

What constitutes a scandal is often vague, but in most countries I'd imagine a former national leader and major political figure being put on trial facing a possible jail sentence for actions committed while in office would be a scandal in it's own right. While HM Advocate v Salmond was originally treated as the background to this, I think any balanced overview of this political scandal has to consider Alex Salmond's actions, his trial and the fallout from that as a key part of the scandal. I'd like to steer away from any suggestion that the scandal is how terribly Alex Salmond has been treated in all this.Vitalis196 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Smaller things have lead to similar political backstabbing, lol. I think there is a way to balance the Salmond allegations (that is, the allegations against Salmond) with the current allegation that Sturgeon was "showing him the door". Bkissin (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree that Salmond's own behaviour should be covered. However, he was cleared of the criminal charges and we cannot imply he is guilty of those crimes. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Technically not cleared on all charges. Not proven suggests that the court believes the defendant to be guilty, but there is not enough evidence to prove guilt. In any case his own defence did admit that he had acted badly. So we can state that he behaved improperly Vitalis196 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

However, NPOV does mean that we consider BOTH points of view. For all intensive purposes, he was cleared of all criminality. At the end of the day, he’s not in prison etc, and this is how most people will view it. The article now has some of what you state “improper behaviour” now.JLo-Watson (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)