Grope over fear. Part 3.

I've decided there is to be a part 3.

There has been a huge amount of nonsense talked in the last ten days but not the least of it has been that their might be immediate further legal proceedings.

Firstly, by the complainers. There have been a small number of cases in Scotland where victims of sexual assault, when the perpetrator has been found not guilty or not proven in the criminal courts, have successfully raised civil proceedings for damages. That won't be happening here for there is a three year time bar on such proceedings and, although that can be waived at the discretion of a court, none of the case law would support such a discretion being exercised here.

Secondly, by Mr Salmond for "malicious prosecution." That would certainly be a competent process but the idea that it would be a wise idea to voluntarily invite a court to opine on his guilt or innocence on the basis of the civil standard of proof "on the balance of probabilities"? Or even on the Crown's own set standard of "reasonable prospect of conviction". Even to posit it demonstrates its patent inadvisability.

Then there is the suggestion Mr Salmond might write a book exposing the "conspiracy" against him. That won't happen either. Because nobody would publish such a book. It is not possible to identify the complainers but it is in the public domain that most of them are women who hold prominent public positions in Scotland and thus people with significant reputations to defend, To state that they engaged in a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would be a hugely defamatory one. If but one of them, on the publication of Mr Salmond's proposed opus, waived their anonymity and gave him 24 hours to retract his allegations then, on his failure to do so, the damages would be astronomical. Salmond himself, such is his hubris, might take that risk but no reputable publisher ever would.

To be honest, anyway, I have considerable doubt whether the anonymity will hold, not because some cybernat or other won't breach it, that will almost certainly happen but be dealt with the criminal justice system appropriately. If it weren't for the current civil emergency I suspect a few collars would already have been felt. Who knows, perhaps they have been and we are just not allowed to know about it.

No, rather, I think the anonymity won't hold because one or more of the women themselves will decide to waive it. These women are people of integrity and they may ultimately decide that the only way for the public to know who is and is not lying here is for the public to know who they are and then form their own view based on that knowledge.

I can't in any event see "jig saw" identification, buttressed with the full might of the criminal law, surviving the inevitable Holyrood investigation. They may also, regrettably, have to work that out for themselves.

Then we have the consequence ultimately for the SNP if Salmond tries to rejoin. I cannot model a circumstance in which that would be allowed to happen without a huge electoral price being paid and indeed a huge loss of membership following. Or preceding, dependent on the exact sequence of events. Which the current leadership would understand. 

One of the most annoying features of Scottish politics in the last ten years has been the ability of the SNP to portray themselves as morally superior to other Parties. It is annoying but it has to be acknowledged. The minute even contemplating letting sex pest Salmond back in is mooted that bubble would be burst. And burst bubbles can't be re-inflated. Anyway, if a lot of white late middle aged men leave "in disgust" that might suit them. At least until they work out that this is most of their activist base. Better still that however than admitting to those young idealists drawn to the "Yes Movement" that, when these guys were dancing with them in George Square, they weren't participating in a mutual "civic, joyous" moment. They were just looking at their arse. And were now officially excused to do so. Or indeed worse.