|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 26, 2021 16:04:14 GMT
You may have forgotten he was cleared of all charges.. And that is not about what the current stramash is about - leastways not directly. What is under scrutiny isn’t Salmond but the Scottish Government and its processes that led to Salmond’s day in court. It’s not going back over the court case. I clearly haven't forgotten he was cleared of all charges do you think that 9 separate women were involved in a conspiracy or clearly deluded that a man in a considerable position of power was making unwarranted advances towards them? Has Metoo reached the natives North of the border I repeat these women seem to have been completely overlooked in the current stramash. #metoo was a big influence on what has transpired. It is complicated though. You might find this piece helpful... A beginner’s guide to the Salmond inquiry
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 26, 2021 16:17:42 GMT
Naah! Most of the country is behind her. She's got ridiculous approval ratings. She'll get a thumping win in May, and then lead the push for another Independence referendum over the next couple of years, once Covid has settled down a bit, providing a headache for whoever is in charge of the Tories then! Once the Tory govt turns down their referendum claim, it'll shore up her popularity north of the border and provide further evidence that it's elite, distant, Brexit Tory Westminster vs Remain, local, independent Scottish people. I wouldn't be surprised if they held their own (obviously non-binding) referendum regardless of whether the Tories grant a second one. If they did and it came back as 60/40, which it might, with the added votes from the Tories having said no, the UK government can hardly refuse another vote. I agree about Davidson, one of the best Tories in the UK, let alone Scotland. I suspect you are right - as far as Sturgeon’s electoral prospects. She is truly incredible - the worse she is the more popular she becomes. It is extraordinary. I seriously doubt anything arising from the Salmond affair will stick. That said, all political life end in failure, often precipitant failure. So who knows, she may well come a cropper. We will find out soon enough. You could equally apply the same response to the Bluffer south of the border. Which, if nothing else, underlines the fact that the populations of the two countries are heading in different directions entirely and that, as a result, the two countries should probably separate officially and legally.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 26, 2021 17:49:35 GMT
Regardless of politics, or opnions of him as an individual, Salmond's performance today has been like a Championship boxer taking on some volunteers off YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 26, 2021 18:24:00 GMT
Regardless of politics, or opnions of him as an individual, Salmond's performance today has been like a Championship boxer taking on some volunteers off YouTube. Agreed. He is a colossus. The thing is his principal opponent, who gets her turn in front of the committee, is every bit his equal. I wonder who will come out on top.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 26, 2021 19:09:31 GMT
I clearly haven't forgotten he was cleared of all charges do you think that 9 separate women were involved in a conspiracy or clearly deluded that a man in a considerable position of power was making unwarranted advances towards them? Has Metoo reached the natives North of the border I repeat these women seem to have been completely overlooked in the current stramash. #metoo was a big influence on what has transpired. It is complicated though. You might find this piece helpful... A beginner’s guide to the Salmond inquiryI'm fairly familiar with the information in that piece thanks. Salmond has certainly got some front most would have crawled back under the stone from whence they came. There's a certain irony that Sturgeon could be his next victim. Did Labour or the Conservatives ever try to make use of the Scottish political gossip about this man's behaviour which seems to have been common knowledge in political circles.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 26, 2021 19:10:25 GMT
Regardless of politics, or opnions of him as an individual, Salmond's performance today has been like a Championship boxer taking on some volunteers off YouTube. Agreed. He is a colossus. The thing is his principal opponent, who gets her turn in front of the committee, is every bit his equal. I wonder who will come out on top. That's an image I didn't need...
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 26, 2021 19:42:05 GMT
Agreed. He is a colossus. The thing is his principal opponent, who gets her turn in front of the committee, is every bit his equal. I wonder who will come out on top. That's an image I didn't need... Apologies
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 27, 2021 8:57:57 GMT
Absolutely shameless lie on primetime BBC news.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 27, 2021 9:57:36 GMT
Absolutely shameless lie on primetime BBC news. Yes it is very poor journalism I sense the press can smell blood and just can’t help themselves But she covers herself with the word thinks nowhere does she say he said she should resign What’s your opinion on the inquiry not being able to hear all salmonds evidence To me it leaves a uncomfortable feeling that unless the whole truth is allowed to come out there will always be questions hanging around
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 27, 2021 10:53:01 GMT
But will this bring down Sturgeon?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 27, 2021 10:56:31 GMT
Absolutely shameless lie on primetime BBC news. They're getting good at this....
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 27, 2021 10:57:51 GMT
But will this bring down Sturgeon? Probably not But if it does enough to stop the snp getting a overall majority in may’s election Than jobs a good un in my eyes To me the biggest question still lies with by blocking the publishing of evidence and not allowing salmond to give his full evidence What are they hiding
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 27, 2021 11:15:10 GMT
Absolutely shameless lie on primetime BBC news. They're getting good at this.... Retractions and apologies are never as impactful as the original statement
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 27, 2021 11:53:55 GMT
Absolutely shameless lie on primetime BBC news. They're getting good at this.... His answer even managed to get a dig in at the Tories. He was playing 4D chess whilst the SNP members, who are there in a large part due to him, would struggle with the rules of draughts.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 27, 2021 11:55:03 GMT
They're getting good at this.... Retractions and apologies are never as impactful as the original statement Especially when one is on prime time news and the other on Twitter - they know what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 27, 2021 12:15:02 GMT
But will this bring down Sturgeon? Probably not But if it does enough to stop the snp getting a overall majority in may’s election Than jobs a good un in my eyes To me the biggest question still lies with by blocking the publishing of evidence and not allowing salmond to give his full evidence What are they hiding The redacted paragraphs point to the meeting happening 4 days before that NS basically wiped out of her diary and should have minuted. The reason it was supposedly retracted was because it could identify an accuser but the Spectartor thought they had cleared that. The Crown office said it couldn't be published at the last minute and the Lord Advocate has said it wasn't his decision. Basically the 'conspiracy' is if that meeting took place NS actually knew about it for months as part of the code is that first minister needs to be notified or that the Civil Service just cracked on without authority. The way I read it is NS was concentrating on winning over women as they were less favourable to Independence and SNP in general. When MeToo came along and they didn't have a process in place to discipline Salmond she shat herself and allowed them to start rewriting it to avoid negative press. From there it grew arms and legs particularly as some in the background saw it as an opportunity to finish Salmond - her husband hates him! They spent an absolute fortune on two sets of legal advice on the new procedure and both said it was unlawful but they still cracked on to the last minute. When they pulled it finally someone leaked the rape allegations to the press and then Murrell's alleged to have got the COPS involved to pressure the police into conducting a fishing exercise. They tried to get him via Moorov principle but fucked it up by having a WhatsApp group - he couldn't even use the messages as defence but the fact it existed was pretty much a key part in him being innocent of everything apart from one not proven. The thing with this enquiry too is it isn't supposed to be a retrial of Salmond - it is suppposed to be into the failings of the procedures in place that failed the accusers, and Salmond, in the first place. For me its pretty telling that the accusers, who remain annoynimous but widely acknowledged are current or previous SNP/Government, are sticking with party lines whereas if they really felt wronged by the procedure, although slightly perverse, they'd be on the same side as Salmond on this. Like Watergate the actual incident is pretty dull but the cover-up is explosive one way or another. It has definately flagged up that the institutes of Scotland are too cosy and their needs to be clearer lines of seperation particularly as the Lord Advocate is actually on the government - this wasn't the case prior to NS as I understand. Medium to long term I think this will result in a second Independence Party because its simply not realistic or healthy for one party to monopolise the independence vote - it's just not healthy for democracy.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 27, 2021 13:04:08 GMT
Probably not But if it does enough to stop the snp getting a overall majority in may’s election Than jobs a good un in my eyes To me the biggest question still lies with by blocking the publishing of evidence and not allowing salmond to give his full evidence What are they hiding The redacted paragraphs point to the meeting happening 4 days before that NS basically wiped out of her diary and should have minuted. The reason it was supposedly retracted was because it could identify an accuser but the Spectartor thought they had cleared that. The Crown office said it couldn't be published at the last minute and the Lord Advocate has said it wasn't his decision. Basically the 'conspiracy' is if that meeting took place NS actually knew about it for months as part of the code is that first minister needs to be notified or that the Civil Service just cracked on without authority. The way I read it is NS was concentrating on winning over women as they were less favourable to Independence and SNP in general. When MeToo came along and they didn't have a process in place to discipline Salmond she shat herself and allowed them to start rewriting it to avoid negative press. From there it grew arms and legs particularly as some in the background saw it as an opportunity to finish Salmond - her husband hates him! They spent an absolute fortune on two sets of legal advice on the new procedure and both said it was unlawful but they still cracked on to the last minute. When they pulled it finally someone leaked the rape allegations to the press and then Murrell's alleged to have got the COPS involved to pressure the police into conducting a fishing exercise. They tried to get him via Moorov principle but fucked it up by having a WhatsApp group - he couldn't even use the messages as defence but the fact it existed was pretty much a key part in him being innocent of everything apart from one not proven. The thing with this enquiry too is it isn't supposed to be a retrial of Salmond - it is suppposed to be into the failings of the procedures in place that failed the accusers, and Salmond, in the first place. For me its pretty telling that the accusers, who remain annoynimous but widely acknowledged are current or previous SNP/Government, are sticking with party lines whereas if they really felt wronged by the procedure, although slightly perverse, they'd be on the same side as Salmond on this. Like Watergate the actual incident is pretty dull but the cover-up is explosive one way or another. It has definately flagged up that the institutes of Scotland are too cosy and their needs to be clearer lines of seperation particularly as the Lord Advocate is actually on the government - this wasn't the case prior to NS as I understand. Medium to long term I think this will result in a second Independence Party because its simply not realistic or healthy for one party to monopolise the independence vote - it's just not healthy for democracy. Thanks for that very informative As you said it’s the coverup that’s telling If as she said there’s no smoking gun Then why the redaction of the evidence If nothing else she and the snp have handled it poorly And the first chinks have appeared in her armour If this results in a split and formation of a new nationalist party Do you think it would be amicable enough for the not to fight the same seats and thus losing them to opposition parties
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 27, 2021 14:44:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 27, 2021 16:55:14 GMT
The Scots really don't want to be part of the direction the Tories are taking the country in.
All this Salmond Sturgeon stuff is just a sideshow which will be as damaging electorally for the SNP come May as 130,000 dead people have been to the Tories, ie not much.
They'll probably come up with some fudge which allows both Sturgeon and Salmond to emerge with pride and reputations largely intact.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 27, 2021 17:27:40 GMT
Probably not But if it does enough to stop the snp getting a overall majority in may’s election Than jobs a good un in my eyes To me the biggest question still lies with by blocking the publishing of evidence and not allowing salmond to give his full evidence What are they hiding The redacted paragraphs point to the meeting happening 4 days before that NS basically wiped out of her diary and should have minuted. The reason it was supposedly retracted was because it could identify an accuser but the Spectartor thought they had cleared that. The Crown office said it couldn't be published at the last minute and the Lord Advocate has said it wasn't his decision. Basically the 'conspiracy' is if that meeting took place NS actually knew about it for months as part of the code is that first minister needs to be notified or that the Civil Service just cracked on without authority. The way I read it is NS was concentrating on winning over women as they were less favourable to Independence and SNP in general. When MeToo came along and they didn't have a process in place to discipline Salmond she shat herself and allowed them to start rewriting it to avoid negative press. From there it grew arms and legs particularly as some in the background saw it as an opportunity to finish Salmond - her husband hates him! They spent an absolute fortune on two sets of legal advice on the new procedure and both said it was unlawful but they still cracked on to the last minute. When they pulled it finally someone leaked the rape allegations to the press and then Murrell's alleged to have got the COPS involved to pressure the police into conducting a fishing exercise. They tried to get him via Moorov principle but fucked it up by having a WhatsApp group - he couldn't even use the messages as defence but the fact it existed was pretty much a key part in him being innocent of everything apart from one not proven. The thing with this enquiry too is it isn't supposed to be a retrial of Salmond - it is suppposed to be into the failings of the procedures in place that failed the accusers, and Salmond, in the first place. For me its pretty telling that the accusers, who remain annoynimous but widely acknowledged are current or previous SNP/Government, are sticking with party lines whereas if they really felt wronged by the procedure, although slightly perverse, they'd be on the same side as Salmond on this. Like Watergate the actual incident is pretty dull but the cover-up is explosive one way or another. It has definately flagged up that the institutes of Scotland are too cosy and their needs to be clearer lines of seperation particularly as the Lord Advocate is actually on the government - this wasn't the case prior to NS as I understand. Medium to long term I think this will result in a second Independence Party because its simply not realistic or healthy for one party to monopolise the independence vote - it's just not healthy for democracy. A picture paints a thousand words... What Salmond is up against. (Assuming that isn’t some photoshopped image!).
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 27, 2021 17:31:59 GMT
The Scots really don't want to be part of the direction the Tories are taking the country in. All this Salmond Sturgeon stuff is just a sideshow which will be as damaging electorally for the SNP come May as 130,000 dead people have been to the Tories, ie not much. They'll probably come up with some fudge which allows both Sturgeon and Salmond to emerge with pride and reputations largely intact. You may well be right. The commentators up here though think it is quite significant... This is not a civil war in the SNP. This is more vicious and more visceral
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Feb 27, 2021 18:04:10 GMT
The redacted paragraphs point to the meeting happening 4 days before that NS basically wiped out of her diary and should have minuted. The reason it was supposedly retracted was because it could identify an accuser but the Spectartor thought they had cleared that. The Crown office said it couldn't be published at the last minute and the Lord Advocate has said it wasn't his decision. Basically the 'conspiracy' is if that meeting took place NS actually knew about it for months as part of the code is that first minister needs to be notified or that the Civil Service just cracked on without authority. The way I read it is NS was concentrating on winning over women as they were less favourable to Independence and SNP in general. When MeToo came along and they didn't have a process in place to discipline Salmond she shat herself and allowed them to start rewriting it to avoid negative press. From there it grew arms and legs particularly as some in the background saw it as an opportunity to finish Salmond - her husband hates him! They spent an absolute fortune on two sets of legal advice on the new procedure and both said it was unlawful but they still cracked on to the last minute. When they pulled it finally someone leaked the rape allegations to the press and then Murrell's alleged to have got the COPS involved to pressure the police into conducting a fishing exercise. They tried to get him via Moorov principle but fucked it up by having a WhatsApp group - he couldn't even use the messages as defence but the fact it existed was pretty much a key part in him being innocent of everything apart from one not proven. The thing with this enquiry too is it isn't supposed to be a retrial of Salmond - it is suppposed to be into the failings of the procedures in place that failed the accusers, and Salmond, in the first place. For me its pretty telling that the accusers, who remain annoynimous but widely acknowledged are current or previous SNP/Government, are sticking with party lines whereas if they really felt wronged by the procedure, although slightly perverse, they'd be on the same side as Salmond on this. Like Watergate the actual incident is pretty dull but the cover-up is explosive one way or another. It has definately flagged up that the institutes of Scotland are too cosy and their needs to be clearer lines of seperation particularly as the Lord Advocate is actually on the government - this wasn't the case prior to NS as I understand. Medium to long term I think this will result in a second Independence Party because its simply not realistic or healthy for one party to monopolise the independence vote - it's just not healthy for democracy. A picture paints a thousand words... What Salmond is up against. (Assuming that isn’t some photoshopped image!). The auld hag will be on again on Monday; Och stay twa EU metres apart jst noo, itsnay safe to meet indoors without full Scottish PPE.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 27, 2021 19:32:26 GMT
They're getting good at this.... Retractions and apologies are never as impactful as the original statement Of course. It's a cracking little trick that they pull......
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 27, 2021 19:37:25 GMT
The Scots really don't want to be part of the direction the Tories are taking the country in. All this Salmond Sturgeon stuff is just a sideshow which will be as damaging electorally for the SNP come May as 130,000 dead people have been to the Tories, ie not much. They'll probably come up with some fudge which allows both Sturgeon and Salmond to emerge with pride and reputations largely intact. You may well be right. The commentators up here though think it is quite significant... This is not a civil war in the SNP. This is more vicious and more visceralProbably newspaper talk at most, but you never know. He's had his say, now it's Sturgeon's turn. Unless Salmond produces a recording of the meetings that prove she lied and misled parliament, it's just he said she said at the moment. And as much as Salmond may be right, this kind of thing often just looks like ex leaders enjoying their moments back in the sun and settling a few old scores.
|
|
|
Post by hoffgreen on Feb 27, 2021 19:52:09 GMT
According to the SNP Scotland is just ya know a little bit too white. Diversify ya bigots!
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 27, 2021 20:19:19 GMT
The redacted paragraphs point to the meeting happening 4 days before that NS basically wiped out of her diary and should have minuted. The reason it was supposedly retracted was because it could identify an accuser but the Spectartor thought they had cleared that. The Crown office said it couldn't be published at the last minute and the Lord Advocate has said it wasn't his decision. Basically the 'conspiracy' is if that meeting took place NS actually knew about it for months as part of the code is that first minister needs to be notified or that the Civil Service just cracked on without authority. The way I read it is NS was concentrating on winning over women as they were less favourable to Independence and SNP in general. When MeToo came along and they didn't have a process in place to discipline Salmond she shat herself and allowed them to start rewriting it to avoid negative press. From there it grew arms and legs particularly as some in the background saw it as an opportunity to finish Salmond - her husband hates him! They spent an absolute fortune on two sets of legal advice on the new procedure and both said it was unlawful but they still cracked on to the last minute. When they pulled it finally someone leaked the rape allegations to the press and then Murrell's alleged to have got the COPS involved to pressure the police into conducting a fishing exercise. They tried to get him via Moorov principle but fucked it up by having a WhatsApp group - he couldn't even use the messages as defence but the fact it existed was pretty much a key part in him being innocent of everything apart from one not proven. The thing with this enquiry too is it isn't supposed to be a retrial of Salmond - it is suppposed to be into the failings of the procedures in place that failed the accusers, and Salmond, in the first place. For me its pretty telling that the accusers, who remain annoynimous but widely acknowledged are current or previous SNP/Government, are sticking with party lines whereas if they really felt wronged by the procedure, although slightly perverse, they'd be on the same side as Salmond on this. Like Watergate the actual incident is pretty dull but the cover-up is explosive one way or another. It has definately flagged up that the institutes of Scotland are too cosy and their needs to be clearer lines of seperation particularly as the Lord Advocate is actually on the government - this wasn't the case prior to NS as I understand. Medium to long term I think this will result in a second Independence Party because its simply not realistic or healthy for one party to monopolise the independence vote - it's just not healthy for democracy. Thanks for that very informative As you said it’s the coverup that’s telling If as she said there’s no smoking gun Then why the redaction of the evidence If nothing else she and the snp have handled it poorly And the first chinks have appeared in her armour If this results in a split and formation of a new nationalist party Do you think it would be amicable enough for the not to fight the same seats and thus losing them to opposition parties I think they would tolerate each other to begin with as they'd be competing for different votes. There's 120 odd MSPs and the first 70 odd are voted via FPTP. The second vote is for a party and is proportional representation and adds a further 56 MSPs. Due to SNP winning 59 in the first vote they only got 4 on the list. A new party getting 20% of the list vote could get 10+ MSPs in comparison. Medium term they'd end up competing and probably end up fireworks but it'd go tactical voting Union Vs Nationalist anyway. For me I'm a bit suspicious the SNP aren't more supportive of a competitor as it would cement a majority rather than relying on the Greens.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 27, 2021 20:32:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 27, 2021 20:37:15 GMT
According to the SNP Scotland is just ya know a little bit too white. Diversify ya bigots! I voted for them but he's an absolute bellend. From memory there's 2 Asian MSPs so proportional share would be 4 so it's hardly appartide South Africa. Would imagine the most underrepresented demographic is English folk as proportionality they should have 12. SNP have actually bumped BAME to the top of some regional lists and disabled folk to others. Folk who failed to get nominated internally are suddenly advertising their disabilities like dyslexia, diabetes and mild tourrets to get to the top of list vote.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 28, 2021 10:14:43 GMT
Largely irrelevant, for the reasons we've discussed before. It doesn't matter who leads each of the individual Unionist parties, (Ruth Davidson I'll perhaps make an exception for) it's still just independence versus Westminster in most Scots' eyes. So it splits the Unionist vote in precisely the same way that the non Tory vote is split in England, with the same overall result, albeit fairer representation through the Scots' more sensible electoral system.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 28, 2021 10:29:38 GMT
Largely irrelevant, for the reasons we've discussed before. It doesn't matter who leads each of the individual Unionist parties, (Ruth Davidson I'll perhaps make an exception for) it's still just independence versus Westminster in most Scots' eyes. So it splits the Unionist vote in precisely the same way that the non Tory vote is split in England, with the same overall result, albeit fairer representation through the Scots' more sensible electoral system. Not at all. SNP have swept up a lot of Labour votes in recent years. There are a number of reasons for this, mostly down to Labour’s ineptitude in Scotland, but it certainly isn’t the case that all of these people see independence as their top priority. It’s possible a significant number of these former Labour voters could decide to return to Labour now it is under new leadership, particularly if they are unhappy with the state of the SNP currently. We will see.
|
|