General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScottish parliament votes against probing Trump finances
By Agence France-Presse
Published February 03, 2021
?width=1200&height=806
Scottish lawmakers on Wednesday opted not to demand an investigation into former US president Donald Trump's finances, amid concerns about how he funded the acquisition two golf courses in the country.
Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) voted down a motion calling for the probe into the Trump Organization's two Scottish golf courses using an "unexplained wealth order".
The legal instrument requires individuals to explain the source of wealth used to acquire property and other assets in the UK.
https://www.rawstory.com/scottish-parliament-votes-against-probing-trump-finances/
Firestorm49
(4,030 posts)ananda
(28,837 posts)Sheesh
atreides1
(16,067 posts)But the Scots have a long history of being on both sides...depending on what and how much they got paid!
tenderfoot
(8,425 posts)history in Northern Ireland. Not a good look.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)Think of the separation of powers in the US.
The reasoning in the Scottish Parliament was that it would be a blatantly political act for politicians to instigate what should be a purely legal consideration.
As I've explained elsewhere on DU, Unexplained Wealth Orders aren't intended to be used for fishing expeditions, they're generally invoked when other legal action raises suspicions.
If that circumstance arises, then there are legal procedures for pursuing an Unexplained Wealth Order that need to be undertaken by the Civil Recovery Unit, which reports to the Lord Advocate. There have been very few grants of such an order since it was created in 2017.
We don't know whether undisclosed investigations into the Trump businesses in Scotland are in progress. If they are, then such an order may be an appropriate measure, but it shouldn't be prompted by politicians.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,846 posts)Celerity
(43,132 posts)The SNP, along with the Tories quashed it
https://beta.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/votes-and-motions-search/S5M-24030
Scottish National Party 59 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 2 no vote
For
Aileen Campbell
Alasdair Allan
Alex Neil
Angela Constance
Angus MacDonald
Annabelle Ewing
Ash Denham
Ben Macpherson
Bill Kidd
Bob Doris
Bruce Crawford
Christina McKelvie
Christine Grahame
Clare Adamson
Clare Haughey
Colin Beattie
Emma Harper
Fergus Ewing
Fiona Hyslop
Fulton MacGregor
Gail Ross
George Adam
Gil Paterson
Gillian Martin
Gordon MacDonald
Graeme Dey
Humza Yousaf
Ivan McKee
James Dornan
Jamie Hepburn
Jeane Freeman
Jenny Gilruth
Joan McAlpine
Joe FitzPatrick
John Mason
John Swinney
Kate Forbes
Keith Brown
Kenneth Gibson
Kevin Stewart
Linda Fabiani
Mairi Gougeon
Maree Todd
Maureen Watt
Michael Matheson
Michael Russell
Paul Wheelhouse
Richard Lochhead
Richard Lyle
Rona Mackay
Roseanna Cunningham
Ruth Maguire
Sandra White
Shirley-Anne Somerville
Shona Robison
Stewart Stevenson
Stuart McMillan
Tom Arthur
Willie Coffey
Against
-
Abstained
-
No vote
David Torrance
Nicola Sturgeon
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 27 for, 0 against, 1 abstained, 2 no vote
For
Adam Tomkins
Alexander Burnett
Alexander Stewart
Alison Harris
Bill Bowman
Dean Lockhart
Donald Cameron
Edward Mountain
Finlay Carson
Gordon Lindhurst
Graham Simpson
Jackson Carlaw
Jamie Greene
Jamie Halcro Johnston
John Scott
Liam Kerr
Liz Smith
Margaret Mitchell
Maurice Corry
Maurice Golden
Miles Briggs
Murdo Fraser
Oliver Mundell
Peter Chapman
Rachael Hamilton
Ruth Davidson
Tom Mason
Against
-
Abstained
Annie Wells
No vote
Brian Whittle
Jeremy Balfour
Scottish Labour 0 for, 23 against, 0 abstained, 0 no vote
For
-
Against
Alex Rowley
Anas Sarwar
Claire Baker
Claudia Beamish
Colin Smyth
Daniel Johnson
David Stewart
Elaine Smith
Iain Gray
Jackie Baillie
James Kelly
Jenny Marra
Johann Lamont
Lewis Macdonald
Mark Griffin
Mary Fee
Monica Lennon
Neil Bibby
Neil Findlay
Pauline McNeill
Rhoda Grant
Richard Leonard
Sarah Boyack
Abstained
-
No vote
-
Independent 2 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 1 no vote
For
Andy Wightman
Mark McDonald
Against
-
Abstained
-
No vote
Derek Mackay
Scottish Liberal Democrats 0 for, 5 against, 0 abstained, 0 no vote
For
-
Against
Alex Cole-Hamilton
Beatrice Wishart
Liam McArthur
Mike Rumbles
Willie Rennie
Abstained
-
No vote
-
Scottish Green Party 0 for, 4 against, 0 abstained, 1 no vote
For
-
Against
John Finnie
Mark Ruskell
Patrick Harvie
Ross Greer
Abstained
-
No vote
Alison Johnstone
Reform UK 1 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 0 no vote
For
Michelle Ballantyne
Against
-
Abstained
-
No vote
-
No Party Affiliation 0 for, 0 against, 0 abstained, 1 no vote
For
-
Against
-
Abstained
-
No vote
Ken Macintosh
turbinetree
(24,685 posts)Celerity
(43,132 posts)Unexplained Wealth Orders (Donald Trump)
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)
The next item of business is a Scottish Green Party debate on motion S5M-24030, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on unexplained wealth orders, Donald Trump.
16:34
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
This is a story that goes back a long way. In previous chapters, we saw two successive First MinistersJack McConnell and Alex Salmondactively courting the business interest of Donald Trump, despite already knowing what kind of character he was. We saw the Scottish planning system being overturned for him. We also saw the highest level of environmental protection that any land in Scotland is able to have being overturned; in the end, that protection proved worthless against an environmentally destructive development.
Even before Trumps candidacy or presidency, he was known around the world to be an untrustworthy, dishonest, racist conspiracy theorist. This was never someone that we should have wanted to associate Scotlands good name with. Now he is a disgraced former President who left office only after attempting to overturn a democratic election and inciting a violent mob at the Capitola mob that was composed of the people he had radicalised: the conspiracists, the white supremacists, the religious extremists, and the grifters of a Republican Party that enabled him. Some people were shocked, whereas others thought that behaviour entirely predictable and in character.
Now that it is all over, maybe some people think that Trump should just go back to being the global joke that he was before he became a global threat. However, people who abuse political office need to be held accountable, not only as a matter of direct justice, but as a clear signal to those who come after them that they will not get away with such abuse. That is why the definition of a politically exposed person in the legislation that provides for unexplained wealth orders makes it clear that the status continues after the person has left office. The mechanism is no less relevant to Trump now that he is out of power.
The reasons for the concerns about his financial conduct are long standing and they have been detailed in many places, including reports published by Avaaz and given to the Scottish Government. The purchases in Scotland were part of a very long spending spree, with his spokespeople claiming that he had vast sums of money sitting around and available for investment even though, at the same time, he was apparently being turned down for credit.
The Avaaz report says:
investigations by the US Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, the US Congress, and others have unearthed a wealth of evidence tying Mr Trump to alleged ?nancial misconduct, including opening questions about Mr Trumps ?nancial dealings in Scotland.
We all know that a number of Trumps former associates have been investigated and that some have been prosecuted and convicted, including for crimes of dishonesty and financial misconduct.
I have neither the time nor the need right now to go through every single detail of the concerns and questions that surround Trumps business dealings. That is not what this debate has to be about. We all know what the investigations have shown. The point of this debate and the issue that we bring to the chamber is that it is for Scottish ministers to take action.
I totally understand the principle of independent prosecutors acting without control or guidance in individual cases. When it comes to individual criminal prosecutions, it would be completely wrong for ministers to decide who should be prosecuted and who should not. However, what we are talking about is not a prosecution, but merely going to court and asking for information to be provided.
As the legal opinion that was published recently by Avaaz makes clear, this is a matter of political responsibility for the Government. It says that, as a matter of law, it is simply not possible for the Scottish ministers, including the First Minister, to insulate themselves from the responsibilitylegal and politicaland accountability for decisions concerning unexplained wealth orders in Scotland. Even if the immediate departmental responsibility for the operation of seeking UWOs has been allocated to the Lord Advocate, that can be only for the purposes of administrative convenience or efficiency. It does not and cannot change the legal responsibilities of the Scottish ministers.
There are reasonable questions to ask a court to put to the Trump Organization. If it can provide reasonable answers to the reasonable questions, it will have no problem. However, the Scottish Government and Scottish ministers have a responsibility to ask those questions, and they cannot maintain the position that they have no ability to act. They do, and so does this Parliament.
I ask that all members back this necessary and relatively modest step towards accountability.
I move,
That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Ministers to use their powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to seek the grant of an Unexplained Wealth Order in respect of Donald Trumps property transactions in Scotland.
16:39
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Humza Yousaf)
Before I go into the detail of the motion and our amendment, let me make it clear that, frankly, I find former President Donald Trump to be a deplorable individual. I do not say that lightly, but as a person of colour and a Muslim, I am exactly the type of person who would be the target of his racist and divisive policies if I lived in America. Members will find no defence of Donald Trump from me or, indeed, this Government.
However, we rightly have a separation of the political and law enforcement. Just because I do not like someone, or because something might be to my political advantage, that does not mean that I should exercise any power that allows me to instigate an investigation into individuals or law enforcement processes against them. If I would not do such a thing to somebody whom I like, I must apply that equally to those whom I do not likeand Donald Trump is at the top of that list. That would be an abuse of power and would fundamentally undermine our entire justice system.
I turn to the detail of the motion and the amendment in my name. The amendment calls on Parliament to recognise that there are calls for an investigation, or for a UWO to be sought, regarding the finances of Donald Trump. I have had emails from Avaaz, which has led a campaign, and the First Minister has had those emails, tooI expect members across the chamber have had them. We recognise that there are calls for such an investigation. However, my amendment to the Green motion makes it clear that it is for the civil recovery unit to independently undertake the investigatory role that is associated with civil recovery in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish ministers, and that that process must not be subject to any form of political interference.
Patrick Harvie
I entirely recognise that the Scottish Government is entitled to delegate certain decisions to the civil recovery unit or the Lord Advocate, but that does not absolve the Scottish Cabinet and ministers of responsibility for making the necessary political judgment. UWOs are specifically about politically exposed persons. Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that there is a political judgment to be made, and that the Cabinet needs to make it?
Humza Yousaf
No, Patrick Harvie is incorrect. He is asking the Cabinet to make a political decision on instigating an investigation into an individual. I have sat in many Cabinet meetings, and the Cabinet should never discuss instigating an investigation into an individual. That would not be correct, so I disagree with Mr Harvie. I will go into more detail about why I disagree, although I suspect that I associate myself with Mr Harvies judgment of former President Donald Trump.
Decisions on applying for a UWO are an operational matter for the CRU. The CRU is responsible to the Lord Advocate, who exercises an oversight function under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as one of the Scottish ministers. That arrangement was put in place not by this Administration but the previous Administration, in 2003.
Although Mr Harvie is right that the Scottish ministers could apply, I do not think that it would be right or proper for ministerseither individually or, to answer Mr Harvies question, collectivelyother than the Lord Advocate, who is not a political minister, to become personally involved in the pursuit of a particular investigation into any individual.
A society that respects and seeks to uphold the rule of law should not aspire to a system of civil recovery under POCA that could be influenced by how well connected the person holding the assets was to a Government minister, or how disliked they were by a particular Government. That is the crucial point.
Mr Harvie has called on the Scottish ministers to use their powers under the 2002 act, but he does not recognise that the CRU undertakes its impartial investigatory role on behalf of the Scottish ministers and reports directly to the Lord Advocate, who is a non-political minister. Scotland is a nation that upholds the rule of law. No matter how much I, or we, as the Government, dislike any individual, to preserve the integrity of an investigation into the activities of any individual, there must be no political interference in the process of seeking an unexplained wealth order.
snip
I think that a country that is less powerful than the US would be treated very differently. I do not lay that at the cabinet secretarys door, as he has said clearly that he will not make any decisions about the matter at all but will leave it to others to decide. I think that a country other than the US would have been treated differently.
Let us not refuse to do what I propose simply because it concerns a dodgy character who has held office in a different country. That makes it more, not less, of a priority. Let us assert clearly that Scotland is not the kind of country where anybody with money, no matter how they came by it, can rock up, buy a slice of our country, do what they like with it, trash our environment and keep their business dealings opaque. Let us say clearly that they will be held accountable.
turbinetree
(24,685 posts)uponit7771
(90,304 posts)Celerity
(43,132 posts)Add Scottish at the beginning in this case.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)Or do you think politicians should decide who should be investigated or prosecuted?
That was the question that led to today's vote outcome at Holyrood. I think it's a sound and justifiable one.
Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #14)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.
Celerity
(43,132 posts)Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Let us be clear: the unexplained wealth order was specifically designed to bring transparency to the murkiest of dealings. All that todays motion does is call on the Scottish ministers to use their power as set out in legislation. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended, allows for the Court of Session to make an order
on an application made by the Scottish Ministers.
The Scottish Government has claimed that that power rests entirely with the civil recovery unit, which reports directly to the Lord Advocate, and the cabinet secretary has relied on that argument again today.
However, the decision-making process was designed by ministers. The power to apply rests with the Scottish Government as a wholethat is what the legislation says. It is then the Courts decision whether to grant an order. That is not just my interpretation; the Lord Advocate confirmed as much when I raised the matter with him last March. In a letter to me, he stated:
Scottish Ministers are the enforcement authority for the purposes of civil recovery proceedings in Scotland. This function is fulfilled, on their behalf.
Therefore, the Scottish Governments contention, as set out again in its amendment, that an unexplained wealth order is a question for the CRU and the CRU alone, does not stack up.
Over the last year, many of my constituents have shared with me their deep concerns about the way in which the Trump retreats were purchased. Those concerns may be misplaced and they may not, but the Lord Advocates response was hardly reassuring. I was told to
appreciate that the work of the CRU is necessarily of a sensitive nature
and that the unit responsible for unexplained wealth orders could therefore
neither ... confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation.
That response is even less transparent than Trumps business dealings.
As the Avaaz report explains, the unexplained wealth order is a legislative tool that should compel transparency where there are questions to be answered. The motion does not try to pre-empt the findings of any such investigation. It simply asks the Scottish ministers to make use of a power that rests with them. It is not enough to stand idly by. If the Scottish Government is genuinely interested in preserving the rule of law, it must ensure that it is upheld without fear or favourPresident or not. The Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the motion at decision time.
snip
Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Emma Harper made an interesting point about Trump and his impact on America, which is now a deeply divided countryit is the divided states of America. There is a lesson there for politicians in our country. When politicians sow the seeds of division in the way that we have seen, they will get such an outcome.
To get back to the subject of todays debate, the cabinet secretary is hiding behind the law. Commonly, he uses a lot of rhetoric about what he does not like but fails to take the action that is necessary, and that is what we see today. Avaaz has said that there are two critical questions to which Scottish ministers have the power and the justification to seek answers: how did Mr Trump raise enough up-front liquid assets to buy Turnberry, given what was known about his financial straits at the time; and was Scotland exploited as a money-laundering agent? Those are legitimate questions to which ministers should want to seek answers. I can understand why the Tories would not want to seek answers to such questions, but I cannot understand why SNP members continually team up with the Toriesas they will again tonightto block the legitimate concerns that are being raised. Parliamentarians have raised legitimate questions, but Humza Yousaf is hiding behind some legal argument that says that everything is down to the Lord Advocate.
Basically, Avaaz says that the First Minister has designated the Lord Advocate as the relevant Scottish minister responsible for carrying out the unexplained wealth order portfolio. Because of the wording of section 396A of the 2002 act, any such appointment by the First Minister of the Lord Advocate can be made only in his capacity as one of the Scottish ministers. As such, any decision by him in his capacity as her designated minister with immediate responsibility in relation to the administration and operation of the unexplained wealth order regime remains, at all times, one that falls within the collective responsibility of Scottish ministers.
The point is that Scottish ministers have the power to put the order in place, and Mr Yousaf should come off the fence and stop hiding behind the Lord Advocate. This matter is the responsibility of Government, and I urge members to support the Greens motion.
snip
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
I thank members for taking part in what was a deliberately short debatepartly because of the need to prioritise the Covid debate and partly because the issue needs a decision rather than a lengthy debate. It certainly was not intended to be about finger wagging, as the cabinet secretary, perhaps tongue in cheek, described it.
Mr Yousaf called Trump deplorable, but he maintains that it is not for ministers to act. I say that holding someone such as Trump accountable specifically for being what is defined in law as a politically exposed person is a legitimate political choice. Given that other authorities around the world are prepared to do that, we should play our part.
I think that the SNP regrets its previous errors in courting Trump, even though some of the individuals who were involved at the time remain in high office today. I hope that their predecessors in the Labour-Lib Dem coalition also regret courting Trump. The comments from Alex Rowley and Liam McArthur suggest that they do. Everybody knew what sort of person Trump was, but perhaps they did not see the scale of the threat that he posed or the damage that Scotlands reputation might suffer from association with the toxic Trump brand.
Liam Kerr and the cabinet secretary repeatedly expressed concern about independent prosecution. I say, again, that the proposal is not for prosecution; it is simply about asking the courts to seek answers to reasonable questions. Colin Smyth made that point well.
It would not surprise me if some Conservatives reject the case for holding Trump to account, given that so many of their colleagues tried to normalise his politics or even praised him and his extremist movement. However, I welcome support from Labour and the Lib Dems.
I appeal to SNP members who recognise that Scotland made a serious error of judgment in inviting the toxic Trump brand into Scotland. Let us not just acknowledge the mistake but seek transparency, accountability and the information that we need to answer the serious concerns that have been raised.
Trump can no longer be dismissed as just an unpleasant, bullying developer or a celebrity conspiracy theorist with offensive views. He became, and remains, a political danger not only in the US but globally. He has used his platform to promote fascists in this country and still has links with far-right politicians here. The threat that he brought to the US Congress a few weeks ago is by no means limited to the US.
If suspicions of financial illegal practices had been swirling around a disgraced former President of a developing or undemocratic country in Africa or eastern Europe, I do not think that there is any doubt that we would have acted by now. The unexplained wealth order is the obvious mechanism through which to act.
snip
Patrick Harvie
I think that a country that is less powerful than the US would be treated very differently. I do not lay that at the cabinet secretarys door, as he has said clearly that he will not make any decisions about the matter at all but will leave it to others to decide. I think that a country other than the US would have been treated differently.
Let us not refuse to do what I propose simply because it concerns a dodgy character who has held office in a different country. That makes it more, not less, of a priority. Let us assert clearly that Scotland is not the kind of country where anybody with money, no matter how they came by it, can rock up, buy a slice of our country, do what they like with it, trash our environment and keep their business dealings opaque. Let us say clearly that they will be held accountable.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)Wikipedia'll do:
In May 2019, the NCA secured three further UWOs as part of an investigation into "London property linked to a politically exposed person believed to be involved in serious crime". The three properties, originally bought for more than £80m and held by offshore companies, were subsequently identified in an investigation by BBC News, Finance Uncovered and Transparency International into the ownership of London property by members of Kazakhstan's political elite.[7] Nurali Aliyev (Nursultan Nazarbayev's grandson) and his mother Dariga Nazarbayeva "have denied all wrongdoing saying they can prove independent and legitimate wealth for their UK property investments".[8] On 8 April 2020, the High Court of Justice subsequently ruled that the case against the two be dismissed and that the properties be unfrozen "after they spoke more candidly about the sources and scope of their wealth".[9]
The first successful UWO was in October 2020 against Leeds businessman Mansoor Mahmood Hussain. Hussain, who had links to a convicted murderer, agreed to surrender 45 properties in his property empire to the NCA as well as other assets amounting to a total of almost £10 million.[10]
As of July 2020, the NCA is the only body to have secured UWOs. The Serious Fraud Office, HM Revenue & Customs, Financial Conduct Authority and Crown Prosecution Service have authority but have so far not used the legislation. At the same time it was reported that UWO investigations into politically exposed persons had proved much more difficult than the UK authorities had expected.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexplained_wealth_order
As you'll see, they're not a measure to be invoked out of the blue, certainly not at the direct behest of politicians as Harvie suggests, and being relatively new instruments made available only three years ago, going after someone for political exposure is untested ground. UWOs are one of the tools available when ongoing legal proceedings give rise to suspicion, not something to be invoked in isolation. I'm actually disappointed, as when I heard about this debate coming up, I assumed Harvie had something up his sleeve that would serve as a better justification. He didn't.
Maybe once some of the legal cases in the US pan out, there'll be enough to feed into what we already know in order to pursue Trump more effectively in the courts here. As it is, we don't know whether or not the CRU is carrying out any investigations.
Celerity
(43,132 posts)I find the part of the debate I posted persuasive enough for me
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)As for the debate, maybe bear in mind that as a matter of historical fact, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems are fully capable of goading the SNP into a course of action then vying for first place in the queue to pillory them for going along with it when it all goes pear-shaped and Trump appeals or countersues, as he no doubt would. A politician-initiated action would play right into Trump's hands.
Saying that Holyrood in the form of "the Scottish Ministers" could directly petition for an UWO skips past the point that the application would have to be legally justified in the strict terms set out in the legislation. Imagine trying to defend that in court merely on the basis of a report produced by an organization, Avaaz, that has no legal significance in the UK, which is all Harvie et al. currently have to cite.
Harvie et al.'s argument seems to hinge on the phrase "an application made by the Scottish Ministers". As has been pointed out elsewhere, the CRU has the delegated authority to act on behalf of the Scottish ministers. That's how it's supposed to work, not by taking extraordinary action in the Scottish Parliament. I'm sure we could find similar set-ups in the US or Sweden if need be.
The key to unravelling Trump's affairs probably lies in the court cases in the US regarding his tax affairs. When they conclude, or when more about his tax and financial arrangements is revealed during the course of them, there may be more scope for investigations in the UK as a whole or Scotland that could lead to the triggering of a UWO. Jumping the gun could end up letting Trump off.
Celerity
(43,132 posts)charging ahead and going straight to a prosecution, they would have just instructed the Court of Session to do the UWO enquiry. Trump was and is quite possibly using Scottish soil to commit money laundering, but we shall not know with an investigation.
on an application made by the Scottish Ministers.
The Scottish Government has claimed that that power rests entirely with the civil recovery unit, which reports directly to the Lord Advocate, and the cabinet secretary has relied on that argument again today.
However, the decision-making process was designed by ministers. The power to apply rests with the Scottish Government as a wholethat is what the legislation says. It is then the Courts decision whether to grant an order. That is not just my interpretation; the Lord Advocate confirmed as much when I raised the matter with him last March. In a letter to me, he stated:
Scottish Ministers are the enforcement authority for the purposes of civil recovery proceedings in Scotland. This function is fulfilled, on their behalf.
Therefore, the Scottish Governments contention, as set out again in its amendment, that an unexplained wealth order is a question for the CRU and the CRU alone, does not stack up.
Basically, Avaaz says that the First Minister has designated the Lord Advocate as the relevant Scottish minister responsible for carrying out the unexplained wealth order portfolio. Because of the wording of section 396A of the 2002 act, any such appointment by the First Minister of the Lord Advocate can be made only in his capacity as one of the Scottish ministers. As such, any decision by him in his capacity as her designated minister with immediate responsibility in relation to the administration and operation of the unexplained wealth order regime remains, at all times, one that falls within the collective responsibility of Scottish ministers.
The point is that Scottish ministers have the power to put the order in place, and Mr Yousaf should come off the fence and stop hiding behind the Lord Advocate. This matter is the responsibility of Government, and I urge members to support the Greens motion.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)See the legislation I linked above for details of what that would have to be. These are the strict tests any such call would have to pass.
As things stand, with no current ongoing court case to provide evidence that would stand up in court, a call for a UWO would almost certainly be thrown out, handing Trump a publicity coup, if not arguments for dismissal for any subsequent legal actions, and tying up the courts and costing the public purse to no effect.
Kerr's claims run counter to the way these orders have been used, successfully and unsuccessfully, since they were put in place in 2017. They have never been invoked outside the context of other inquiries by the delegated (that word again) legal bodies (so far, only in English courts) that have given grounds for suspicion. That's the sequence that has to be followed. Again, insisting that Holyrood's ministers could instigate a UWO sidesteps the fact that it needs to be legally justified. I can hear the cries of "Witch-hunt!" already. I'm glad they decided not to give Trump that opportunity.
Rowley's never been the sharpest tool in the box and is a shameless opportunist. Accusing the Scottish Minister for Justice of "hiding behind the law" is farcical. Upholding the law is Yousaf's brief. Rowley would have him pretend it doesn't exist!
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)This vote didn't change that, as amended it just clarified the point of law.
Celerity
(43,132 posts)thus I said goes to
not the best syntax by me, sorry
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Why are they standing by him? Are they compromised too?
God, how sickening! I am so tired of people who are so unwiling to take this mofo down when he would not lift a finger to help them if they needed him.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)Why don't you read the debate that Celerity posted above: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215049718#post9
How would you feel if lawmakers in the US just decided they were going to direct a legal investigation against a businessman?
As the debate and decision shows, it's about the separation of powers. It's up to the legal system to deal with Trump, not politicians to pursue a vendetta, no matter how well deserved. Hopefully it will do so.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I don't think it's up to us how the Scottish decide to handle his business. Politicians or businesspeople. They want him the fuck out of there and I don't blame them.
And I wouldn't give a damn if lawmakers in the US decided that they were going to direct a legal investigation against a crooked busineperson such as the likes Donald J. Trump. In fact, I would applaud it.
He deserves everything that is coming to him. Since when has Trump ever operated on a level that has been legal? Fuck him! Nothing is too low when it comes to bringing him down. The gloves are off.
Scottish politicians have every right to pursue a vendetta. I don't think you quite understand the Scots. If you have a problem with it, maybe you are in the wrong place.
dkhbrit
(110 posts)They are following the rule of law for Scotland. We expect governments to follow the rule of law don't we?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)But it doesn't really work that way when it comes to the Trumps.
Celerity
(43,132 posts)see this reply (which draws directly from the debate)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15051788
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)that would withstand challenges in court, a point you seem determined to avoid by quoting sections of the debate which were rebutted.
Celerity
(43,132 posts)if you are a Celtic fan (I like Gers, even though I grew up detesting Gerrard, lol).
cheers
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)let alone the lack of any serious consequences for him to date!
As so often in these cases, I try to imagine how I'd feel if by some vanishingly unlikely freak of circumstance the Tories were in power in Holyrood and decided to go after a progressive entrepreneur because they didn't like how he or she went about his or her business. That's always a test of our partisanship we should apply when considering government interference in legal actions.
We need to let the wheels of justice grind inexorably on. If and when they do result in Trump's empire unravelling even more in the Scottish courts, we may end up declaring a national holiday.
For context and disclosure, I was writing about the bastard and his horrible antics at his Aberdeen golf course development on a not insignificant American blog ten or so years ago, when the stories were just breaking in the US. His behaviour there foretold what he'd be like as a president. His prospects of taking that office were considered out of the question at the time. I wasn't so sure.
It's been a long haul, but I think we'll get him yet. But we need to do it in an unimpeachable way that leaves no wriggle room and pointless years of litigation and counter-litigation that might see him die without justice having been served. That means gritting our teeth and waiting for the situation to play out legally. I have my popcorn at the ready.
Celerity
(43,132 posts)served and his life (and his corrupt family's) destroyed. I am unfortunately not holding my breath. His short and long term damage done to the world is incalculable.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)LOL. Check out my profile. I actually LIVE in Scotland, and have done for 30+ years. That's perhaps why I understand the issues better than you do.
No, I'm not "strangely on his side", any more than Humza Yousaf is.
As for my being "in the wrong place", the idea of abusing political powers that you advocate sounds quite ... Trumpian. Forgive us if we're not prepared to debase ourselves to satisfy you.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)My apologies.
However, it does seem like your fellow country-people have an inordinate amout of hatred for him, and rightly so. I would expect that this would have put some pressure on your government to get him out by any means. But I really don't quite understand what is going on over there.
I suppose I am not terribly interested in what is "legal" here or over there, since the Trumps have never obeyed the rule of law. I only care about what is effective. And by effective, I mean destroying him and his properties wherever they are, anywhere in the world.
The republicans have abused the political system and have ignored the rule of law for too long to keep pigs like him in power. I have no problem with anyone going the extra-judicial route to destroy him.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)He was a laughing stock before the really serious dislike set in. With luck, he'll return to being a laughing stock some day soon, preferably behind bars.
I think it's going to be up to the US courts to get things rolling. Like Capone, I think tax is going to be a major factor in Trump's undoing. And once discovery happens for any of those pending court cases, it could open the way to others, including in Scotland.