To create a better politics for women, the ‘Yes movement’ must be honest about Salmond’s legacy

This is for the women who felt let down in the wake of the trial of Alex Salmond.

For those who were hurt by the commentary which followed, and forgotten in the political spectacle which eclipsed the allegations and the admissions of behaviour that many of us would consider unbefitting of a First Minister.

It’s for the women for whom the news of Salmond’s untimely death was met with trepidation over what was to come: the inevitable flood of tributes, glorification, and hero-worship for a man who, not five years earlier, faced 13 sexual misconduct charges alleged by nine women. And the renewed backlash against his accusers which would surely follow any mention of his tarnished legacy.

First and foremost, this is for the nine women – once Scottish Government officials, civil servants, an SNP staffer, and an SNP politician – who wrote in a statement published on 29 March 2020 that they were “devastated” by the verdict in Salmond’s trial in which their allegations had been heard.

For over two months now, these women and all they represent have been largely erased, minimised or worse in numerous glowing commemorations of Alex Salmond, former first minister, leader of the SNP, and champion of Scottish independence.

It is understandable that the death of a political figure of such significance to Scotland as Alex Salmond would be met with commemorations and reflections on all that he contributed. It was to be expected that many people who knew the man or were influenced by him in their politics would wish to attend his public memorial service.

What is less clear is why those who would whitewash his legacy – and ask us to shape the future of the campaign for independence around it – have been allowed to represent themselves as the sole, or even the leading, voices of this movement.

What is less forgivable is taking this moment, a time of apparent reflection after six ugly years, and learning absolutely nothing from it.

So, this is for every woman – every person – across the country who has experienced sexual assault or harassment and watched on over the past six years as those very issues took centre stage in our media, parliament, and social media, only to feel disillusioned, hopeless, betrayed.

This is for them, because if we aren’t brave enough to stand with them now, as we look to the future of the independence movement, I’m not sure we ever will be.

It might be difficult, painful even, to grapple with the idea that someone can make great achievements in one aspect of life and fail in others; that a person can be multiple things at any one time. But this is reality.

That’s precisely what makes it so hard to come forward with complaints about individuals who are widely respected and admired.

If there’s any chance of breaking that pattern, it simply won’t do to sweep this aspect of Salmond’s story – of Scotland’s story – under the rug now.

If there’s any possibility of moving forward to a better kind of politics, we all have a duty to put partisanship to one side when it comes to matters this serious.

I’m not sure it is possible, in the few words I will afford myself here, to adequately reflect the breadth and depth of the damage done in just a few years to the notion that Scotland, in the aftermath of the global Me Too movement, was equipped to handle these subjects with the gravity and sensitivity they demand.

Not because of the legal verdict, in which the jury found Salmond not guilty of nine charges of sexual assault, two charges of indecent assault, and one charge of attempted rape, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found “Not Proven”.

Those on all sides of the case ought to have been prepared for such an outcome. Rape and attempted rape cases in Scotland are a statistical coin-toss: one in two of them end in acquittal, as do 37% of sexual assault cases. This compares to an acquittal rate of just 6% for all crimes.

This disparity is, in large part, because the nature of these highly personal offences means that eye witnesses and hard evidence can be difficult to come by. There is also a long way to go with regards to societal understanding of the issues involved, which poses a challenge for juries.

So, in many ways, the verdict was not altogether shocking. That is the justice system: black or white, even as the matters it deals with are anything but.

No, what was most damaging was what took place outside the courtroom.

From the moments after the verdict, when Salmond alluded to the press that additional evidence in his defence – not touched on in the trial – would “see the light of day”, it was clear the fight was far from over. The raft of pro-Salmond social media accounts that had spent the trial vilifying the women were galvanised by those words.

To this day, any mention of Salmond’s behaviour towards his younger, female subordinates will be met with a chorus of “the women were liars” and “it was all a conspiracy”. Many of these people seem to hold a childlike understanding of criminal justice: that because one person was found not guilty (or not proven), their accusers are proven liars who deserve to be in jail.

This isn’t how it works, and to accept the premise that it should be, would be to condemn thousands upon thousands of alleged victims in the many cases which do not end in conviction. The impact that this line of argument could have on people who are considering coming forward about experiences of sexual violence is chilling.

So too is the sheer vehemence and desire for retribution expressed by many of Salmond’s most eager supporters. Inherent to this has been the worst kind of misogyny, coupled with an apparently blind loyalty to a man who represents, to them, a political ideal.

In court, Salmond’s defence team made the case that their client could have been a better man, stating in the closing remarks that “none of us would be here” in the courtroom had he been so, but that his actions did not meet the threshold for criminality.

Yet there are people – and more than a few of them – who would sooner believe that the Scottish Government, under the direction of then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, made the whole thing up than accept the defence that was made in the trial.

Of course, this interpretation of events hasn’t come from nowhere. From the judicial review, to the parliamentary inquiry into the government’s investigation into the complaints, to an ongoing civil suit, Salmond and a number of his more influential allies appeared determined to bring Sturgeon and her supporters down for what he characterised as a malicious plot against him. There are those who are persisting in those efforts to this day.

When remembering Salmond’s contribution to Scottish politics, to the independence movement and to its public image, it would be a glaring omission not to remember this.

In truth, the women who made the complaints were let down by just about every person and every system that ought to have been in place to handle the issues they raised with care.

That includes the opposition MSPs and journalists who revelled in the “fallout” within the SNP as if these allegations were the latest development in a soap opera, or a weapon in their arsenal in the constitutional debate. And it includes those who would allow the invective and accusations directed at those women to stand unchallenged for fear of rocking the boat.

Let’s take a moment to remember the woman known as “Woman F” in the trial. A civil servant and one of the first two women to come forward with complaints about Salmond, she said she received an apology from the former first minister back in 2013 following an incident for which he would later be charged with sexual assault with intent to rape. Salmond’s defence team said the incident amounted to no more than a “sleepy cuddle” and that the civil servant had consented.

I’m hard-pressed to think of a workplace where this behaviour, as outlined by Salmond’s own defence lawyers, would be deemed acceptable. For a person granted the honour of the highest political office in the country – the foremost representative on the world stage of Scotland, of the SNP, and of the cause of independence – the standards of behaviour surely ought to be higher.

In the days following the verdict, the nine women who made the allegations expressed one wish: “We hope through shining a light on our experiences, it will serve to protect and empower women in the future.”

Out of the wreckage of the past several years, if there is any hope to be wrought it is that we might now finally be prepared to begin the difficult process of learning from the recent past and realising that very wish.

That would be a worthy legacy indeed, if not for Salmond, then for the movement he helped build.

 

Comments (8)

Comments are closed.

  1. Hannah says:

    Very well said – thanks for writing this timely snd articulate piece. Empowering and protecting women should be a vital priority in the independence movement.

  2. WT says:

    Unnecessary article, the man was found not guilty. It’s time people started to respect the institutions that underpin democracy. You cannot have a smoke without fire approach to justice. Just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it true. How about respecting that other woman’s appeal to let her grieve.

    1. Sonny says:

      This is an utterly dishonest piece which will sow further division. Perhaps it is intended to do just that.

  3. Angus says:

    Well said, but sadly too many are entrenched and blinded by political allegiances.
    Setting aside the court outcome, Mr. Salmond’s lack of probity, should have been enough for some people to see was no longer fit for office.

  4. Statan says:

    I get the feeling that nationalists haven’t bothered to speak to anyone but themselves for a decade. And they usually appear to be shouting at each other. Sexual assault has nothing to do with political ideologies.

    1. No-ones shouting at each other. No-one is suggesting sexual assault is to do with political ideologies but expressions of power in society.

  5. Jim Anderson says:

    Remind us again of the actual charges brought that were thought actionable by the PFS, please. Also you might care to provide some of the defence evidence that was so missing in all journalistic reporting except in those jailed or pursued by the establishment.

    A one sided, totally without evidence, nonsense piece that is entirely the fantasy of the author. If you are going to write pieces such as this, they have to be balanced, truthful, verifiable and honest.

  6. Sonny says:

    Alex Salmond was acquitted by a women-majority jury. That woman who accused him of attempted rape when she wasn’t even in his vicinity at the time should be on trial for perjury.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.