Heriot-Watt Removes Alex Salmond Monument

After having been cleared of all sexual assault charges earlier this year (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/23/alex-salmond-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-sexual-assault-trial), Heriot-Watt has decided to remove a monument on campus that features a quote from Salmond expressing his support for their free tuition policy. Curious to hear what people think. Certainly seems political to me.

The lack of any direct fee liability in Scotland is hugely popular amongst Scottish students so I’m guessing that isn’t their reasoning behind it but the same day charges were filed against Salmond the students’ association put up a Facebook poll, which it promptly took down after it attracted negative press attention.

The University’s official line is that it has taken down the monument to make way for some commemoration celebrating its international diversity, because where else are they going to fit a second installation on their campus...?

That is perfectly possible. If that staff member or student received a jury duty summons and had already participated in the university-based conversation then they may be entitled to be exempt from the case due to this circumstance. If that staff member or student has not already participated in the conversation then I still can't see how the institution itself can be accused of interfering in a criminal trial.


But you've also told me that the poll outcome was to keep it. You're suggesting that not only have Heriot-Watt interfered in a criminal trial but that they're also going to go against the poll of students that they've conducted in the first place?

As far as I can tell, "find a new location" is just another way of phrasing "we will move it". It's just how it's phrased, I don't expect the vice chancellor to be wandering around campus with a pair of binoculars looking for an appropriate space.

Because now you have to prove your innocence. Nowadays it’s guilty until proven innocent unfortunately

But the trial has already taken place and he was acquitted? For all practical purposes, he has proven his innocence.

Well i just checked and it's actually a large stone with an engraved quote on tuition fees.

So maybe check your definition of monument before you actually use the word.

Well you’d need to ask the students’ association what the turnout was but they’re unlikely to tell you as they never actually released the results of the poll - they just took it down after a day or two when the papers started reporting on it. But it was noted by the papers/participants that it was at 60 - 40 (it was a binary choice) at the time it was removed. They’ve never denied this and the figure has been reported by a number of outlets. Not sure I see what you’re driving at though? If the turnout is low then somehow the University has a mandate for it?

If you really can’t appreciate why publicly visible Facebook polls conducted by public institutions are inappropriate during a criminal trial, in the locality of that trial, where the punishment could have been a huge prison term... can’t help you there. I suspect you’d feel differently if it were your life on the line but it wasn’t so screw principles right?

The poll that I've seen wasn't publicly visible. A link to it was provided on the association's facebook page, but the poll itself required a university login. A public facebook poll has no guarantee that voters are students or staff members. I've seen the facebook post, it's still there.

What I'm driving at is that there are a number of factors in a poll result which may determine the decisions made as a result. Without that information available I would find it difficult to judge a decision that was made based on said information.

I'm not sure what principles I'm supposed to be screwing. You've suggested that this interfered with a criminal trial, the only argument you've offered is the possibility of a jury duty summons of an individual, not an institution. If you wish to offer more reasons I'd be happy to discuss it further, but I can't produce arguments on your behalf.

It commemorates the scrapping of tuition fees in Scotland, does it not? And arguably commemorates the person the quote is sourced from. Having your name and philosophies inscribed in stone is rarely a form of abuse.

Also, try not behave like a cretin. Or am I not using that word correctly either?

No you actually aren't.

In the media it's a "tuition fees stone", "Salmond stone". Some go as far as "commemorative stone". Even a Guardian journalist has a better grasp of vocabulary than you.

The principles that you’re disregarding are the person’s right to a fair trial. You wouldn’t like a public body like a university putting up a Facebook poll on the question of your guilt and you know that

Ah yes, the undisputed final word on the acceptable use of language... newspapers.

Believe me, I really don’t need to have my vocabulary signed off on by you. Always happy to have an argument with someone who has a point of substance to make but telling me I’m using a word incorrectly because that isn’t how it’s referred to in newspapers isn’t a sign of substance, it’s a sign of substance abuse.

Did you do a draft before sending me this?

I'm not telling you because it's referred to in a particular way in newspapers. I'm pointing out that they have actually bothered to use language correctly.

I think you’ll find that rather than have a linguistic argument, which I might have enjoyed (since I received a degree in English before I went on to study an LLB 😉), you simply started quoting newspapers. I’d have been happy to talk to you about linguistic prescription but as it is, you didn’t decide to take that approach. Instead you chose to quote some newspapers - with some ironically poor grammar as it happens.

At any rate, this exchange is getting truly pathetic. Perhaps it’s best to just put it to one side. Thanks for your comments, even though they were entirely unrelated to the subject.

A degree in English means you know and understand every word in the English language?

I think "monumentally pathetic" might be more appropriate.

Just got the record, no, of course having a degree in English doesn’t mean that. But I think I’m allowed to take some level of comfort from it when some random individual suggests that I can’t write in coherent English. Someone who again, had absolutely nothing meaningful to add to the conversation.

Obviously one person appreciates it but that “monumentally pathetic” line would probably have been a lot funnier if I’d recently sustained a blow to the head.

So a poll that was posted to association’s Facebook page (which is publicly visible), and went on to be reported in national newspapers is in fact not a public poll? Tell me, because apparently I need educating on the subject, what would they need to have done to make the poll public? Personally find every resident in Edinburgh and demand they participate in it?

You’re right about the participants not necessarily being students, staff or alumni but surely that’s a criticism of their methods rather than mine? It also just goes to underline even further that they were speculating on his guilt in a very public way. And please don’t insult me by suggesting that launching this poll a matter of hours/days after he was charged was about anything other than those charges. The thing had been there for years. Incidentally, if the poll had been 60-40 in favour of removal, would you still be invoking this argument?

A degree in English means you know and understand every word in the English language?

I think "monumentally pathetic" might be more appropriate.

Chris, I've already had dealings with "Johnathan 94" and for all his bragging about his English degree, he has next to no grasp of the subject. He does like to throw a tantrum though, when contradicted.