The normal rule of thumb is that headlines ending in a question mark should be answered with a “no” – for example, “Does Sudoku Cause Cancer?” However, if Paul Hutcheon‘s story is true, as it surely is, the constituency office of the Deputy First Minister herself was told about Walker’s violent past more than three years before the unfortunate people of Dunfermline got saddled with him as their MSP.
When his past started to come out, I argued that the SNP didn’t do proper vetting on him, and SNP activists argued (reasonably, I concede) that if he’d kept it quiet there’s no obvious way for the party to have found out. That’s true: we don’t want parties to have to hire private investigators to look into candidates. But if a former brother-in-law of Walker had told Nicola Sturgeon’s own office about his unsavoury past, which the SNP’s quote admits, that’s that question answered. They knew because they were told, and they admit that the information went to head office.
If they’d been told in April 2011 I could almost understand not making a scene about it. Who wants to have to deselect a constituency candidate during an election? (Although obviously it would have still been wrong not to act) But February 2008? As with so many scandals, this one has become that which sensible politicians fear most: who knew what and when, and who covered up for the original offence? Incidentally, it’s extremely dangerous and ill-advised for the party to give an account of the meeting which can be disputed by the man who called it, Rob Armstrong.
Note: comments which make allegations against Walker which are not already in the media or which downplay domestic violence will not be approved.
#1 by Gina on April 22, 2012 - 11:36 am
Jekyll and Hyde characteristics are only too well known to the spouses and children who have been abused behind closed doors. Their voices have been silenced for too long by the fear that they would not be believed.
#2 by Alec on April 22, 2012 - 1:11 pm
Any number of jobs and desired positions of authority for us plebs require some sort of check like Disclosure Scotland. Being an MSP candidate – list or constituency – is not a right, and subsequent election is arguably going to be based on the kudos attracted by the Party rather than the individuals’ inherent skills (definitely in the case of Walker, and many other surprise MSPs from May 2011) thus conferring on them an undeserved salary of three or four times the Scotland average.
So, yes. Yes, I do think they should submit to some vetting procedure over and above the local Party members thinking they sound like a good egg.
I could understand it as well. I wouldn’t find it understandable, for reasons elucidated above.
If there’s a glimmer of truth behind this story, high-up resignations are called-for.
~alec
#3 by Alec on April 22, 2012 - 1:26 pm
Whilst I realize you have to worry about potential defamation cases, has he indicated a willingness to sue? Furthermore, I rather think it’s got to the stage of it being reasonable to ask if he has a reputation to defend.
~alec
#4 by scottish_skier on April 22, 2012 - 1:31 pm
Just to be sure….
Given that these allegations remain allegations for now, I trust everyone is hoping that Mr Walker is innocent?
#5 by Alec on April 22, 2012 - 2:12 pm
This is not a court of law. Concepts such as innocence until proven guilty do not apply to what effectively are employment disputes. What is being discussed here is not whether Walker should face criminal punishment.
Every time this and similar discussions come up, the above superficially honest observation is made. And every time it is responded to in the way I just have.
It’s got to the stage where I suspect it’s not being made with all sincerity.
~alec
#6 by scottish_skier on April 23, 2012 - 8:00 am
My observation was honest. What I meant was that I would hope nobody ever wished a person was guilty of a crime because that might have political implications beneficial to them as that would mean they were in effect hoping someone had been a victim of a crime.
This case has been quite politicised and it is that element I find disturbing. Having now read his sons story in the Sun, things do not look good for Mr Walker and it does sound like he is getting his comeuppance. However, the reason this story is making the headlines while so many other similar ones sadly go ‘unnoticed’ (with perpetrators unpunished) is because of who he is and that comes back to my politicising point.
#7 by Alec on April 23, 2012 - 10:25 am
Appealing to concepts of presumption of innocence would be pertinent if James were calling for a custodial/suspended sentence or some fine to be imposed (note I don’t refer to an investigation which may lead to this outcome).
He’s not.
Even if your comment were made in honesty, it was of questionable relevance.
It’s been politicized only if you think objecting to a serial wife beater and tormentor of children is borne out of ulterior motives. Those from other Parties don’t so could be shown to be hypocritical only if they can be shown to be ambivalent towards similar conduct within their ranks.
Even Joyce didn’t do what he did before he became MP, so it can be argued that the original selection process was untainted (although not expelling him after his DUI offence and refusing to provide a sample was a mistake, imo). Not so with the lax selection process for Walker.
~alec
#8 by scottish_skier on April 23, 2012 - 11:20 am
Sorry, but you do seem to be misunderstanding me. In situations such as this I can’t help but almost feel a sense of glee from some when an MP/MSP is found out to have done something criminal. If said politician is accused of, e.g. rape, then nobody should feel pleased in any way about that as it means their is a victim out there. This applies to all parties/the political system; efforts to point score on such cases disturbs me.
I never presume anything and still feel I know only part of the story. The article by Mr Walkers son makes me more convinved that Mr Walker is not apparently a good man. However, this has nothing to do with politics and all to do with Mr Walker and those who have seemingly suffered as a result of his actions. The only political aspect seems to be ‘we need to have better vetting proceedures’. However, we have seen this so many times before and still some will slip through the net. People are human and so amoung any group there will be some not nice ones. The most unpleasant people are often the best at hiding that from the public too.
We will inevitably have to deal with such cases and I would prefer they are dealt with in a respectable fashion. A (no doubt in part) politically driven freenzy by the media / those with something to gain is unbecoming. I feel this case has strayed to much this way.
I might add that there are a number of parties with convicted criminals (arson, fraud, physical violence) in their ranks. A number of these sit in the House of Lords, influencing the laws/policy of the UK. This disturbs me.
In the case of Mr Walker, if even part of the allegations are true – which does look to be the case, then I would support him leaving Holyrood and a by election being held.
#9 by Alec on April 23, 2012 - 2:39 pm
That as well. We plebs have been stiftened and hung-out-to-dry by people who have swanned-off with super gold plated pensions, and seen supposed role models – politicians, journalists, doctors, bank managers and company directors, even cruise ship captains – turn-out to be self-serving cowards or duplicitious cheats who’d impose one set of rules on the rest of us whilst exempting themselves (Ken Livingstone and his tax avoidance, Baroness Scotland had her employing unchecked immigrants contrary to the legislation she herself had introduced, Polly Toynbee and her six figure Guardian salary on top of her other interests and inherited wealth telling shelf-stackers they should accept the ignomy of publishing their income/tax records).
So, when there’s the opportunity to see one of them get a sorely deserved cumuppance, good is all I can say.
Fair enough on the rest of your comment. Pax.
~alec
we would expect
#10 by Tearlach on April 22, 2012 - 2:11 pm
I suspect a cock-up not a conspiracy. Remember no one expected him to get elected. (It would be interesting to see where – if anywhere – he was on the list). A plausable senario is he was economical with the truth in his application, so not raising any flags. His former Brother in Law’s discussions with the Depty FM’s office could easily have been seen as the sort of tittle tattle you see in any political party when its candidate selcteion time.
Two things of course, no-one is condoning the sort of beviour that he is accused off (and todays story in the Sun from one of his sons just heaps coal on the fire), and its easy to be wise in retrospect.
I suspect that the SNP is now very actively reviewing their candiate selection process. Their problem will be Walker turning up periodically at Holyrood, very much as a Spectre at the feast.
#11 by MJL on April 22, 2012 - 4:09 pm
He was 7th on the Mid Scotland and Fife List*, but it’s worth remembering that Swinney, Cunningham and Crawford were also on the list and they held safe constituency seats. That said if the SNP hadn’t of taken Dunfermline (which I think is their most marginal seat in MSF), they probably might of an expected an extra seat which would have went to Douglas Chapman who was at number 6.
In terms of whether or not they expected him to get elected it’s hard to say. The selection will have come at a time when Labour were riding high in the polls, so it’s not out of the question that the SNP were preparing to depend on list seats to win the election. In that case then from 2007 the SNP held 6 MSF seats of which only 1 was a list seat. It’s complicated by how they expected the Lib Dems and Tories to fair (they held 2 and 1 was a list seat) and the Tories ( they held 3 of which all three were list). They also might have expected Labour to take Dunfermline from the LD’s which may have cost Labour a list MSP. I reckon that in order for Bill Walker to have been returned as a list MSP, Labour would have had to have taken Dunfermline and Tricia Marwick’s seat (who was not on the list), which was probably unlikely but not impossible. Again it’s worth pointing out that this is mostly guesswork.
*(http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/snp-regional-list-rankings-for-holyrood.html)
#12 by Donald on April 22, 2012 - 7:57 pm
If Labour had done well enough to take Tricia Marwick’s seat, they’d also have likely taken Stirling (which was very marginal prior to 2011) and Keith Brown’s current seat Clackmannshire and Dunblane (he was list number 4). It also isn’t actually the most marginal, the SNP also took Kirkcaldy by less than 200 votes. I don’t think it’s likely Bill Walker would ever have got in on the list
#13 by Aidan on April 23, 2012 - 12:32 am
Most marginal is surely Glasgow Anniesland with an SNP majority of 7?
#14 by An Duine Gruamach on April 23, 2012 - 11:18 am
In Scotland, yes; but not in the Mid Scotland and Fife region.
#15 by Hugh Jarse on April 22, 2012 - 3:45 pm
Credit to you guys for running with the story. The fact that Sturgeon’s office was given a warning, that evidently wasn’t acted on seems odd to say the least. No winners in this case though.
#16 by Barbarian on April 22, 2012 - 6:05 pm
If the SNP is not careful, this story is going to grow.
A few points in no particular order:
Clearance and security checks are carried out on ministers. Certain roles carry deeper background checks.
Surely there is a case for all political candidates, be it for parliamentary or council positions, to be subject to Disclosure Scotland checks as part of the registration process. This would take pressure off political parties for starters.
There seems to be two possibilities here:
The SNP were fully aware of Walker’s past, but thought even if he did win, nothing would come of it and he would serve a term then retire.
They did not know of it and the party worker simply screwed up. Or more likely, thought that Nicola shouldn’t be bother with minor issues. Remember the letter she wrote for a constituent?
Senior party members are always busy, and have to rely on subordinates to do some of their work.
It’s good to see BN posting a balanced article on this latest revelations, since some other sites will simply say it is a unionist media conspiracy.
The SNP are hiding behind their investigative process at the moment. But I have a feeling that what was intially another issue like Eric Joyce, could potentially be more harmful.
With the council elections due soon, no doubt the media will be scouring the candidate list for other gems.
Don’t get me wrong, the other parties are not pure. But the spotlight is back on the SNP. And once again it seems it was totally avoidable.
#17 by Domhnall Dods on April 22, 2012 - 7:17 pm
No this is not a court of law but since the man has never faced charges the fact is that whether or not anyone was told anything, but the most they could have been told of was an allegation. So any party (or other employers for that matter) would have to be careful about how or whether they act in response to unsubstantiated allegations.
#18 by Alec on April 23, 2012 - 7:34 am
Once again, demonstration of criminal culpability are irrelevant here. People get dismissed from jobs all the time without it ever going to court. Furthermore, following your logic, even the Police wouldn’t be able to arrest/charge someone because “nothing had been proved”.
And there’s more. The refrain that these are “unsubstantiated allegations” is misleading. They have been repeated at the various divorce and civil cases which he was subject to, and presiding judges have accepted them. He even has admitted to punching a 13 year old girl!
He didn’t meet with criminal prosecution because of the prevailing attitude at the time. Not because anyone doubted the events had taken place.
I’ve read the Sun interview with the man on whose birth certificate Walker is cited as father:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4271898/My-MSP-father-is-a-brutal-cheating-heartless-bd.html
With my childhood having been similarly blighted by a minotaur (although, unlike Douglas Walker, I don’t want to risk carrying my male line onto another generation), I feel a mixture of bemusement and open contempt for anyone equivocating about this or looking for loopholes so to shut-down the discussion. Definitely for those repeating this revolting man’s self-pitying claims that this is an anti-SNP smear.
I’d hope that even if I hadn’t experienced as such, my status as a common human being would lead me to a similar conclusion
~alec
#19 by Chris Fyfe on April 22, 2012 - 7:34 pm
I worry what on earth is going on in Nicola Sturgeon’s office. On the one hand serious allegations about Bill walker are ignored and on the other hand the office thought it appropriate to write letters in support of Abdul Rauf.
It really is sincerely mucked up.
#20 by Indy on April 23, 2012 - 7:45 am
??? The story is quite clear – the information was passed to SNP HQ.
James at least ought to know that a taxpayer funded constituency office cannot undertake an investigation into an internal SNP matter which does not relate to that constituency.
There are rules about that.
#21 by James on April 23, 2012 - 10:15 am
EDIT I misread this. I’m not arguing the constituency office should have investigated it, I’m arguing they should have passed it on. Which they did.
Come on, they’re prohibited from passing it on? First, they’re not. Second, they did pass it on.
#22 by Alec on April 23, 2012 - 10:27 am
Indy, as you would say, you only have succeeded in proving James’ point.
~alec
#23 by Indy on April 23, 2012 - 11:30 am
Yes that’s what I am saying. They didn’t ignore it as Chris says.
#24 by pro-loco on April 22, 2012 - 7:35 pm
In the case of the timing of this story there is a winner of sorts – the labour party in Scotland. The unavoidable reporting of the Joyce case, with an actual conviction for proven gbh on a number of people by a Scottish labour MP – compounded by an abuse of trust affair with a barely of age female intern – gave Scottish labour a significantly poor profile before the council elections. There was also a further compounding of the nature of the Joyce case by the newly elected leader of Scottish labour Johann Lamont (who had not sacked Joyce for said gbh) making prejudicial remarks regarding the Joyce/intern relationship.
Cue these allegations which are already a number of years old (and which have not resulted in legal consequences bar divorce) before they are allegedly made to SNP officials.
Cue further high minded labour sorts making sanctimonious comment to distract the public mind from the beam in the labour parties eye.
#25 by Alec on April 23, 2012 - 7:36 am
I think Joyce should be cashiered from Parliament. (Although, unlike Walker, he actually accepts he did what he did in Strangers’ Bar and with that campaign assistant.)
Next piece of whataboutery, please.
~alec
#26 by rullko on April 24, 2012 - 9:06 pm
He denies the story about his assistant, which is the only accusation against him for which there weren’t dozens of witnesses. But indeed, “whataboutery”.
#27 by Doug Daniel on April 22, 2012 - 9:36 pm
I concur with Tearlach: cover up? No. Cock up? Absolutely.
It just doesn’t make sense to me for the SNP to press ahead with Walker as a candidate if those making the decision (i.e. the local party) were in possession of the full facts of his situation. If they did, then they’ve been utterly, utterly stupid and cavalier.
A couple of folk mention the fact that he is only an MSP by dint of the result taking everyone by surprise. This, coupled with the way both Labour and the SNP ended last year’s election with a swathe of MSPs that were not really expected to get elected, highlight the need for parties to be more serious about who they are putting up for election. It is not good enough to fill up the lists with what are essentially cannon fodder, so if there are only 5 good candidates for the list, then 5 candidates is all they should have on it. Doubly important that constituency candidates are respectable people who would do well if elected, since they are harder to shift once elected. Let’s have an end to putting forward candidates that are not fit to be MSPs – parties must ask themselves of each candidate “would we be proud to have this person representing us?”
One thing about this puzzles me. Bill Walker was a councillor in Fife when Armstrong tried to make the information known. Why not take the information to Walker’s local party first, rather than to Sturgeon’s office, where allegations about a councillor at the other side of the country are probably not top priority? And when he heard nothing back, why not make a fuss? When someone makes a complaint but doesn’t show any desire to take the issue further, it’s tempting to assume it’s not actually that big a deal, and it gets lost. Clearly, due to the very nature of the allegations, this should have been tackled properly; but you can see how it may have been treated as “former brother-in-law in attempt to blacken name of sister’s former husband shocker” by whoever handled the initial dealing with Armstrong.
But let’s be honest, even if it weren’t for these allegations, Bill Walker’s views on other matters had already shown him up to be a pretty unsuitable person to be representing the SNP in parliament. Clearly, there is still much work to be done to ensure the candidate selection process successfully identifies candidates who are unfit for selection.
#28 by Catriona Grant on April 22, 2012 - 11:09 pm
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4271898/My-MSP-father-is-a-brutal-cheating-heartless-bd.
Please forgive me for posting an article for The Sun, but Bill Walker’s son works for The Sun as a deputy editor and has written a very powerful and brave testimony of his childhood including how his father treated his mother the night he was born but also being hit by him as a child.
I really think that Bill Walker is the one who needs to be held accountable here, his party perhaps could have looked into the allegations with a bit more rigor. As I said on a previous discussion he has shown no responsibility to his family, his party, his constituents and least of all to his self.
And once again we will get nowhere if you can only be held accountable in a court of law. Why do we think his wives, step daughter and now son have lied? Or indeed his brother in law. Bill Walker needs to do one decent thing, resign and apologise. He can then take it from there what he chooses to do. He can’t continue to minimise and deny his behaviour to his wives and children. He has made a mockery of the Scottish Government’s stance on violence against women.
#29 by James on April 22, 2012 - 11:20 pm
That is a very moving and tragic piece. I’m sure some people will say “the Sun would say that”, but they were Salmond’s main cheerleaders this time, and are no longer anti-Nat in any obvious way. And I don’t disbelieve his ex-wives or his children.
#30 by Doug Daniel on April 23, 2012 - 1:17 am
The one negative thing I would say about that article is that I don’t find the idea of a child in the early 80s being smacked to be particularly astounding, and this is essentially what it was – I could write a similar sensationalised version of the time I refused to shut up during my sister’s nativity play, causing my mum to have to take me outside to skelp my backside and thus missing my sister’s star turn. We should remember that smacking your child was far less controversial then than it is now, and even the slipper detail surely comes as no surprise to anyone who grew up reading Dennis the Menace, Minnie the Minx and Beryl the Peril.
That’s beside the point though. There’s more than enough in that article to show that Bill Walker is a rather horrible little man with absolutely no respect for anyone but Bill Walker. And while I may have been smacked a couple of times as a child, I certainly didn’t live in fear the way Douglas Walker seemingly did. He’s not even fit to be a father, so he’s certainly not fit to be an MSP.
It’s such a shame this is only coming to bite him in the arse now, though. Douglas Walker says himself that “I feel sorry for the innocent electorate who voted for him”, which is exactly why this story needed to come out at least a year ago, if not earlier. Douglas says “I found it sickening when he had the audacity to stand as an MSP and then to preach family values”, which just makes you wish he or one of the ex-wives had done something about it then, so that we wouldn’t now be having to rely on Bill Walker doing something selfless for what appears to be the first time in his life.
He needs to go, but he’s clearly the sort of obstinate git that will refuse to do the decent thing. Even if the police manage to uncover evidence to prove the allegations, we need only look as far as Eric Joyce to see we can’t even rely on being found guilty of a crime to be enough to shift a politician with an ego problem.
Urgh, it’s just not a nice situation.
#31 by Alec on April 23, 2012 - 8:04 am
To be fair, did they know he was a candidate before the election? I recall that it was when he appeared in the press railing against same-sex marriage that the penny dropped.
They are reactionary and unpleasant. They also attract considerable support amongst a significant part of the voting base.
~alec
#32 by Doug Daniel on April 23, 2012 - 11:04 am
I wondered about that, but the bit saying “I found it sickening when he had the audacity to stand as an MSP and then to preach family values” suggests to me that they knew he was standing. But even then, this stuff could have come out when he was a councillor.
Nobody’s fault obviously, and at least we know now, but still, a shame he couldn’t have been exposed before managing to get elected.
#33 by R Pollock on April 23, 2012 - 11:41 am
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the actual story why did none of this come up before he was elected last May?
If they knew about it in 2007 before he was elected to be a councillor that is bad enough. It should have been acted upon. Someone has gone to the bother of arranging a private meeting over an hour long to discuss these allegations. Clearly then this person has taken a keen eye to Mr Walker political movements. What private citizen knows about councillor selection progresses or even cares?
Surely then this person must’ve known that Mr Walker was standing as a candidate for the big Parliament. It’s not a duty of this person to tell the SNP twice but surely he must’ve known. I’m not decrying the guy for coming out and attacking somebody he believes to be violent and he did the right thing telling the SNP about it back in 2007. It’s not upto him to double check the SNP are doing something about it. I’m just curious as to why he wouldn’t say something when he must’ve known Mr Walker would be standing for a seat at Parliament level? I’m more curious as in the real terms of the word, to be clear, rather than insinuating he did something wrong by not doing so.
I just cannot fathom how this man has slipped through the net.
#34 by James on April 23, 2012 - 1:33 pm
I think it’s entirely possible, by chance, that someone would be aware of his councillorship but not notice MSP selection in another area. He was hardly high-profile before he got elected and came out as a homophobe. I agree the timing is a bit curious, in the sense you use it, though.
#35 by Dr William Reynolds on April 23, 2012 - 5:43 pm
As a mental health professional who is familiar with domestic abuse,I have zero tolerance for violence in the home,especially against women.As a Dunfermline man who was so proud that my home town elected an SNP,MSP,I do not condone Bill Walkers alleged behaviour.However,a recent article in Scottish Times has challenged my initial attitude somewhat.
The article entitled “Scottish Parliament tainted by Walker witchhunt.” points out that there is an ongoing police investigation into allegations of rape and domestic abuse,which Walker denies.The writer points out that just as it is wrong for society to tolerate or condone domestic abuse and rape,it is equally wrong to be popularily judged guilty until you have been found guilty in a proper court of law.The questions raised by the Walker case is whether we are following a very dangerous path in judging Walker,or any other politician to be guilty before guilt has been properly estanlished.After reading that article,I recognised that I had judged hin guilty without really knowing this for certain.The recognition of innocence prior to guilt being established.I recommend the article in Scottish Times to those who are interested in this topic
I cannot believe that there was a deliberate cover up of the allegations against Bill Walker.The SNP had nothing to gain by covering this up quite the opposite.It would have been a gift to the lynch mob mentality of our media and political opponents who are always looking for publicity that deflects attention away from bad news.Nicola Sturgeon is an intelligent politician,and she knows this.I’m not sure what the explanation is the failure of the selection process,none of us can be certain.
#36 by Domhnall Dods on April 23, 2012 - 9:01 pm
That is the very poi the I was trying to make earlier when I made my remark about allegations being unproven. This is not a arty political point, but but rather that people ought not to be subjected to witch hunts or lynch mobs. Walker is the subject of allegations and if they are true then he ought to go. But such matters ought to be investigated and THEN action taken, and not the other way around. That is a dangerous route for us to go down.
#37 by Alec on April 24, 2012 - 10:25 pm
As I said to the Skier above, I don’t think you’re excusing or attempting to deflect from Walker’s actions (others definitely are).
I _do_, however, think you’re making an argument which no-one – on this thread, or else on the Scottish political mercat – is disputing.
Not necessarily related to owt you’ve said, I think Walker should be treated as poison at Holyrood. I know he’s resigned from committees. I think he should be shunned, and I would support list members from whatever Party offering to represent his constituents so to make abundantly clear that he is not welcome.
~alec
#38 by Dr William Reynolds on April 25, 2012 - 12:16 pm
I agree if he is guilty.I can see that many people have already decided that he is. That was the nub of my critique As I said in my first post,I initially assumed that he was.However,I have to admit that I don’t really know,and acknowledge that my professional bias and review of the reports on this topic,influenced me.Most postings and articles that I have read on various sites leam towards an assumption of guilt,rather than innocence until guilt is established.
l am also concerned that although Dodds says that this is not a party political point (I agree) unfortunately it is for some people.It must have been a wonderful gift for certain politicians who are struggling just now.It a side of politics that is irritating since it distracts us from how politicians seek to respond to what people regard as being important to them.
Regarding list MSP’s they do offer alternatives to constituents who may also have made up their minds.Annabel Ewing (SNP) is one choice available to
them.There are others from other parties.This illustrates the value of list MSP’s.In the past the voting did not provide choice to many thousands of people who did not elect their local member of parliament,or were disatisfied with their member.