DAFC.net
Home 23 September 2021 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 10:47

Who have you got?

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 12:06

What worries me is that the man who fought so hard to gain independence might be the same man that derails the second attempt

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 12:48

Yes, that irony struck me as well. Alex Salmond spent most of his adult life campaigning for an independent Scotland yet finds himself in a position whereby by defending himself, he might cause serious problems for Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister.

An alternative viewpoint, one that the Daily Express in its `Corbynite` treatment of Nicola Sturgeon seems blissfully unaware of, is that NS is not as committed to full independence as is Alex Salmond and that they should really be backing her in their unionist cause.

At the moment the Daily Express is enjoying the potential fallout from yesterday`s decision to release `private` emails since anything that weakens Nicola Sturgeon in their eyes must be good. They might change tack very quickly if Alex Salmond was to make a return to front line politics.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 18:25

Alex Salmond won't be derailing a further referendum it will be the people who tried to jail him who'llbe doing it.

The present agenda is being driven by them and the MSM are now on the case.

Post Edited (Sat 23 Jan 21:19)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 21:29

Salmond won`t be making a return to frontline politics. He was found not guilty of the charges he faced but his character flaws were there for all to see. I reckon when Salmond lost the last referendum he thought that was the independence movement finished for a generation. He didn`t have the imagination to forsee the subsequent snp surge though he quickly got back on board that particular train to secure a Westminster seat. He also couldn`t have predicted that brexit would actually happen which is the only reason that independence is closer than it has ever been. I think it really sticks in his craw that it might be Sturgeon that could deliver it but she is a far better political operator than he was and, let`s face it, a classier individual.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 22:24

`A classier individual.`
I have not a clue what that means. I think it probably means you don`t like the idea of Scottish independence and have tried to personalise it.

Nicola Sturgeon has never yet been put under personal attack as has Alex Salmond: every boxer looks good on the front foot.

The emails are very damaging to Sturgeon`s husband and may reflect badly on her. She has hoisted her petard to the fashionable cause of sexual harassment only to find it has rebounded upon her. She has made a massive misjudgement from her feminist Holyrood bubble, full of female mediocrities, and is about to be called to account. I don`t think she`s up to it.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 23:21

No just because I don`t like Salmond doesn`t mean I`m against Scottish independence. I don`t pay my party dues each month because I dont want Scottish independence. That`s like me saying that because you seem critical of Sturgeon that you must be against the idea of Scottish independence as she represents the best chance of that being achieved. Without her the polls wouldn`t show support for independence being over 50%, of that I have no doubts.
I think because you like Salmond it means you are willing to overlook the personal failings of his that were clearly illustrated in the trial.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sat 23 Jan 23:45

From my perspective both Sturgeon and Salmond are lower middle class mediocrities without any real vision of what a good Scotland would look like. They could be married to each other, or at least be brother and sister. Neither of them can inspire a greater vison other than a saltire on what we already have. What jobs did they ever have?

The advantage that Salmond, or one of his followers might have, is that he recognises what I have written in the last paragraph and sees independence as a route to something better. Sturgeon, from what I can gather, sees independence as the final outcome. After that we settle down to couthy politics with a few jobs for her favourites and Sunday Post politics for life.

Which is why no one will be manning barricades in the event of Johnson refusing to acknowledge a second referendum. Neither Sturgeon nor Salmond are up to the task.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sun 24 Jan 00:41

`lower middle class mediocrities`? What`s class got to do with it? Would you prefer a working class or upper class mediocrity? Some of the stuff you come out with on here, sammer, is unintelligible to me.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Sun 24 Jan 09:53

Wow sammer wow.

Your comments re class are classless.

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Sun 24 Jan 11:43

Although class shouldn't come into it, I think Sammer has a point.

Neither Salmond nor Sturgeon have given a great vision for Scotland's future. The best we've seen is talk of being a producer of renewable energy. We already do this and currently have a failing renewable manufacturing industry, including bifab, which has been terribly handled by the Scottish Government. Let's not mention Ferguson yards either. Or Prestwick...
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sun 24 Jan 13:52

All politics is class based in so far as a government regulates the distribution of accumulated wealth (or power) amongst its people. This is as true in the present day UK where a TV presenter will be paid more than a nurse, as it was in the USSR where an industrial worker could be paid more than a doctor.

I can see why people took offence at my description of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond so I should have made it clearer that it was their limited outlook I was criticising, not their social position per se. Successful political figures have always come from every strata of society but have had the capacity to think outside their comfort zone. I don’t see signs of this with either Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond.

In an independent Scotland who will own the land? Will our taxation system be along Scandinavian or Singaporean lines? In education, will private schools continue to exist, have charitable status and will religious schools still be state funded? Will we continue to be a member of NATO? Will the former UK monarch continue to be Head of State? Will we have a separate currency or adopt the Euro if accepted back into the EU?

I can understand the SNP preferring to avoid some of these issues in order to gather broad support for independence. Votes matter. But in the event of a second referendum being ignored by the UK government it won’t just be a matter of what people voted for that matters, but what they are prepared to dig in and fight for. I doubt that a vision of ‘politics as normal’ (except with a Scottish flavour) will inspire enough people to rally round the idea of Scottish independence. Already Gordon Brown (who as a young man asked the very question ‘Who owns Scotland) is being wheeled out with the softer option of Devo Max being placed on the table.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: pacifist  
Date:   Sun 24 Jan 19:16

I don`t think it matters. I think Scotland realises that it`s not about individuals, it`s about what we decide is best for us and future generations. What all the opinion polls say is that below age groups from about round 50 years down to the teens the majority for Independence gets bigger. There is only one way this is going

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sun 24 Jan 19:54

Sammer, if you didn`t mean Sturgeon and Salmond`s social position then you shouldn`t have used the words `lower middle class`. For someone who usually chooses his words very carefully that was a very strange error. You sound like Boris Johnson disowning what he wrote about Muslim women by saying they were `only words`. That was pretty rich coming from a man who takes pleasure in demonstrating his vast vocabulary and has made a good living from writing words.

When it comes to the next independence referendum I hope both sides are required to explain their respective positions and the benefits accruing from them but if they take their lead from the Brexit referendum Johnson and his cronies will give out as little information as possible and throw around a few slogans and blatant lies. So far it looks like the UK side will simply follow the 2014 formula of Project Fear backed up as you suggest with some `big beast` from yesteryear promising something that wasn`t delivered last time. I think Scottish voters won`t be so gullible next time.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sun 24 Jan 22:30

Poorly worded I agree Eck, although I’d just returned from a lively discussion in a bar (they are open over here) with an Irishman, A Swede and a South African in which we voiced concern over the limited pool from which most modern politicians are drawn. There seem to be very few from blue collar backgrounds (which gave us Ernie Bevin, Nye Bevan, Jim Callaghan) or even blue blooded families (from which came Hector Munro and Tam Dalyell.) This is not limited to the SNP obviously and was commented on about 10 years ago by Keating and Cairney in a study at Aberdeen University:

‘’One aim of devolution in Scotland was to create a political class more representative of the country as a whole.
In practice devolution has accelerated trends towards a professional background in Scottish representatives. There has been a significant increase in representativeness by gender; but not by social or occupational background. A professional Scottish political class is in the making……
Politics itself is increasingly a profession, with a defined career path and few possibilities for interrupting it or for entering late.’’

I don`t agree that the Scottish people were gullible, it`s more a case that these professional politicians failed to put across the case for independence in convincing language. Populists like Trump, Farage and Johnson have been taking advantage of the narrow core of thought and expression within that professional class.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 12:31

Surely it’s up to us the Scottish electorate to dictate the future roadmap by electing parties that present the vision we like to the Scottish Parliament once independence has been achieved?

What if I want independence but don’t like the one vision that would be presented by the snp just now?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 25 Jan 14:55

``What if I want independence but don’t like the one vision that would be presented by the SNP just now?``

I‘m pretty sure you would vote for independence anyway then, as you describe, support whatever party best met your idea of how the country should be governed in future.

The SNP has spent almost 20 years trying to broaden its appeal and demonstrate its competence as a party of government, so has steadily won a majority round to the idea of independence. That’s the first part completed.

The next stage would be to actually win a referendum and secede from the UK, a process which will face considerable opposition. On grounds of national security alone- losing control of what were UK waters and perhaps a permanent seat on the UN Security Council as well- England can be expected to fight tooth and nail for the status quo.

Without a clearer vision of what independence means- as you suggest it is pretty much a blank sheet of paper at present- how many of those who voted for independence will still be convinced after a few years of carrot and stick from Westminster? Will the rallying call from the SNP then ring as hollow as that of the Brexiteers, a group who knew fine well what they didn’t want but never spelled out what was in place up ahead?

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Sat 20 Feb 07:07

Looks like Salmond will get his chance in public at the committee this week. Surely if any of his allegations are proven then Sturgeon and Murrell's position is untenable?

The media coverage or lack for it for one the biggest stories in Scottish political history is incredible.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Sun 21 Feb 13:30

Quote:

Parnott, Sat 20 Feb 07:07

Looks like Salmond will get his chance in public at the committee this week. Surely if any of his allegations are proven then Sturgeon and Murrell's position is untenable?

The media coverage or lack for it for one the biggest stories in Scottish political history is incredible.


Far too much coverage in my opinion.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 14:31

It seems the Crown Office agreed with you on too much coverage.

I thought if you have nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear....🤪
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 19:10

So news reporting salmond won`t now appear due to redactions of vital parts of statement including his meeting with Nicola sturgeon. Just adds more flames to the fire.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 19:24

Quote:

dafc, Tue 23 Feb 19:10

So news reporting salmond won`t now appear due to redactions of vital parts of statement including his meeting with Nicola sturgeon. Just adds more flames to the fire.


Salmond is acting like a complete idiot. Lost all respect for him, which wasn't much to begin with to be fair. Always thought he was part of the reason the Yes group lost the independence referendum.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 19:31

How do you square off the governments position if Salmond is acting like an idiot? The deliberate removal of his evidence means the committee cannot question Sslmond or Sturgeon on it and cannot refer to it in their judgement. If his evidence is poor then let him make a fool of himself surely. Or was he about to uncover a substantial plot of corruption against him from the highest level of government?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: donj  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 20:45

Salmond was definitely conspired against and they have no intention of letting him show how badly he was treated.Even his heavily redacted document has been not allowed until it basically says nothing against anybody and a chance that if he said one thing that upset them he could end up in court.Only an idiot would land himself in that position so obviously he has withdrawn.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 21:01

He has now offered to appear on Friday so where that does leave your theory, donj? How anyone can make sense of all this is beyond me. The conduct of the actual enquiry has been a farce with evidence being made public and then withdrawn and members of the committee writing articles about the enquiry while it`s still in progress.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 21:45

Wouldn't trust Salmond as far as I could throw him and I'm unlikely to be able to pick him up.

Despite being MP and MSP in the Moray area for many years he was not much liked.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 22:37

Perfect, you don't trust him. Let him speak and then tie his testimony in knots with facts and evidence or counter evidence.

Nobody generally runs or hides when they are in the right. This is corruption as it's never been seen before in my lifetime and is extremely sinister.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Tue 23 Feb 23:19

Politics is a filthy business close up and this spectacle of Chiefs of Staff, Compliance Officers, Lord Advocates and Crown Agents squabbling over legal minutiae can only have undermined the Holyrood Parliament. We seem to be paying for a lot of people with fancy titles to scheme against each other, which is probably what politics largely is, but better kept out of public view.

Sturgeon and her husband seem to have behaved like Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, albeit with their gender roles reversed. Salmond is King Duncan, the trusting leader who promoted the career of his assassin and paid with his political life. In the background hover a coven of witches, female SPADS and such like who remain nameless but who can call upon the dark forces of the media to control destiny.

The problem Sturgeon has is that Salmond was not knifed effectively by either the media or the legal system. He is not the ghost at the banquet, Salmond is actually at the banquet in person. Her husband will be sleepwalking and washing his hands before long.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 09:42

Banquet Sammer?

Cannibal buffet hopefully.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 14:14

Watched some of the Covid briefing today. Sturgeon usually bats away any questions the journos try to sneak in on non covid issue, like the Salmond case, but not this time.

At one point she said that "women complained, and although Salmond was cleared of any criminality that doesn`t mean his behaviour didn`t happen"

Is that libel?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 14:53

No because she didn`t state it in writing. I suspect it isn`t even slanderous though as if it were Salmond wouldn`t hesitate to sue.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 15:31

It was in writing, I had the subtitles on ... I could take a photo of it and blackmail her. Watch this space.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 15:33

She should now lose the right to grandstand every day.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 16:32

Would the opposition object to these daily briefings if she was performing badly at them? It`s not as if the questions are being asked by `friendly` journalists. In fact, most of them are pretty hostile.

Should the English, Welsh and Northern Irish briefings be stopped as well?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 16:38

I think in Scots Law the term ‘slander’ covers both spoken and written offences, although the latter presumably caries a higher penalty.
Subtitles are interesting because since they are only fleetingly observed they would probably come under ‘slander’ in English law, even although they can be seen. There was a case many years ago when someone flew an offensive message overhead carried by a plane and that was deemed ‘slander’ rather than ‘libel.’
Sturgeon’s comments would hardly pass any test for prosecution since she is making what she believes to be a fair comment on the evidence as known to her. Even if that evidence turned out to be wrong, she is still covered by the fair comment defence so long as she had reason to believe that evidence to be correct at the time of her comment.

Thus endeth the legal niceties. What Sturgeon is suggesting is that the jury reached the wrong verdict. Sturgeon has been exposed ever since the jury verdict went against her. If Salmond had been found guilty then any subsequent enquiries about how Holyrood dealt with the complaints would have been academic, barely worth media coverage.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 17:41

`Sturgeon has been exposed ever since the jury verdict went against her.`

I didn`t realise she was in the dock. The media love to personalise these issues but I thought you would be more careful, sammer.

On the question of slander/libel didn`t Salmond admit certain inappropriate behaviour but the prosecution were unable to prove it amounted to criminality? That`s probably all Sturgeon was referring to but it isn`t such a good story is it?



Post Edited (Wed 24 Feb 18:06)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Wotsit  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 18:14

Sturgeon clearly has some reason to believe that the lower threshold of evidence in a civil case (balance of probability vs beyond reasonable doubt) will make Salmond think twice about going to court.

I really doubt that she would have said it otherwise since she is not, as far as I can tell, a stupid or compulsive person.


"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 21:54

Wee Eck, Wotsit,

I am in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with you both. Never a good sign on a blog. Although, I never suggested Sturgeon was in the dock...yet. Her husband maybe.

I think there were forces within the Holyrood Parliament that wanted a split within the SNP. If either Salmond or Sturgeon have allowed this to happen then they will pay a penalty.

To me, they both look naive people. Did they not read the history of liberated countries? If they are they best we have, then we shall not attain independence.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 22:06

Can someone clarify the issue?

Someone reports Salmond for inappropriate behaviour, it ends up in court, he is found "not proven", he's now upset his name was released?

What has that got to do with Sturgeon and her husband? Presumably anyone could have leaked his name?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Wed 24 Feb 22:15

We will attain independence sammer but perhaps not in our life time

There are forces within ... designed and constructed by the Tory party to disrupt misinform and confuse

Divide and Conquer

Where`s Mel Gibson when we need him :)

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Thu 25 Feb 22:43

jake89 - in brief from what I have read.

Initial allegations raised.
Salmond asks Sturgeon to help remediate issues.
Sturgeon initially agrees then backtracks
Salmond advises process flawed and raises JR.
Criminal proceedings raised
Salmond wins JR costing taxpayer 600k
Salmond found not guilty at trial
Committee set up to review JR failures.
Evidence to committee blocked continuously
Senior SNP advisors implicated in plot
Salmond testifying tomorrow
Get the popcorn out.

Im sure Ive missed loads but its too complicated.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 09:14

Ah yes Buspasser, that film ...

First saw it at the flicks and when that kilt lifting was going on I felt the missus’s hand on my knee. Fair took me back to our back row courting so it did.

When it was shown on the telly I had to leave the room for my own safety

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 13:21

That`s quite an opening salvo from Salmond. He`s making it clear his evidence is not about him: two courts have already ruled in his favour. His evidence is in respect of the Scottish government`s failures, particularly the Holyrood and Crown apparatus which has so far, he claims, admitted no failings.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 16:35

Ironically, Salmond is playing into the hands of Westminster and the British press. By undermining Sturgeon, he is undermining the case for independence. Salmond's evidence will generate apocalyptic headlines in tomorrow's papers and the temperature will reach fever pitch over the next week or so.

Independence will be stone dead and the man who campaigned so passionately for it is holding the smoking gun.....



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 16:57

Do you blame him GG?

The governments position based on what he has laid out so far is incredible. To me he seems poised, measured in tenure so far. Its a point of principal. I believe in many things but would I go to jail over them? Eh no.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 17:42

To be fair to Salmond, who has been found not guilty on the charges, it was not him who started the fight.

What`s still not clear to me is the reason for the enthusiasm with which the SNP pursued these charges against Salmond. I can understand that maybe Nicola Sturgeon has a commitment to women`s rights but there seem a number of people in her entourage- including her husband- whose reported comments amount to relish. Was Salmond a highly objectionable man who made enemies within his own party? Or was he in some way a threat to the present leadership?

The decision to make the complaints a criminal matter looks like a failed attempt to paper over the cracks in the initial investigation. It looks like a gamble which failed.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 17:56

This is bombshell stuff. And he appears to have all the evidence. It is still an utter disgrace that evidence has not been allowed to be submitted to this enquiry.
That in itself casts a huge shadow which simply never go away. Government coverup.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 18:04

Quote:

Parnott, Fri 26 Feb 16:57

Do you blame him GG?

The governments position based on what he has laid out so far is incredible. To me he seems poised, measured in tenure so far. Its a point of principal. I believe in many things but would I go to jail over them? Eh no.


I'm not apportioning blame to anyone - just pointing out the irony that Alex Salmond has potentially dealt a fatal blow to the very political cause he dedicated so much of his career to.

Is he planning to oust Sturgeon, so he can attempt a comeback?



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 18:19

Salmond won`t ever make a political comeback. His reputation is tarnished beyond repair.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: shrek par  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 19:03

Appears to be going for a scorched earth policy with this one.

Admin.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 19:51

Agreed GG

So how wronged must you feel.to throw away your whole lifes work?


That tells you everything for me.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 20:22

Westminster rides out scandals like this ever so often and no one bats an eyelid. Only recently Priti Patel was found in breach of the ministerial code but the Tories just ignored it as they`re now doing with the charges of corrupt awards of contracts for PPE.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 20:31

Parnott he threw away his life work with his, self admitted, unacceptable behaviour towards female colleagues.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 20:46

This is huge in terms of Scottish politics and the future of Nicola Sturgeon,
we have the last 2 FM of Scotland effectively going head to head. Nicola will have lost a lot of trust just on today’s showing, added the failure of government to produce evidence like the legal advise to the committee just adds idea of corruption and a cover up within the SNP

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 20:55

Not being funny but don't we need to hear both sides of this story before we pass judgements. So far as far as I can see salmond has made allegations but says he can't currently provide the evidence.

Let's hear what sturgeon has to say about it next week.

I have to finish with this comment. It all sounds a bit fishy to me. 😁
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 21:10

.net has previous for coming to conclusions without hearing both sides! The Dom Thomas situation was the most recent example.

From what I heard this afternoon I don`t think Salmond is after Sturgeon`s head, it`s more Murrell, Wolfe and a few senior officials he`s after. There are obviously a few members of the Committee who are after Sturgeon`s head though. It will be interesting to hear her version of events.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 21:20

If Salmond threw away his life`s work with unacceptable behaviour towards women then where would that leave Boris Johnson? The police were called to a domestic just before he ousted Theresa May from office. Last I heard he was running the UK.

From what I read of today`s events Salmond gave a very good account of himself. He quite smartly did not call for Nicola Sturgeon to resign even if she had breached the ministerial code, although he was invited to do so. He was booted out of the SNP years ago and came back and left for Westminster and came back. I think this case has reinvigorated him.

I can`t see Murrell, Evans or Wolffe surviving this. If Sturgeon really does believe in fighting for independence she could sack the first two and invite Salmond back inside the tent.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 21:35

If we are using Boris Johnson as the standard bearer of moral behaviour then let`s just call quits on the game now.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 21:59

It`s not about morality. It`s a case of what damages a person politically and what doesn`t.

Johnson can survive most scandals because he presents himself as a scandalous, Falstaff type person. Lying on a bed with a woman not his wife would probably do him little harm politically. It might harm Salmond who has an air of the presbytery about him but I doubt it would finish his career.. It`s hard to judge.

Maybe telling that Johnson`s severest criticism has come from supporters who feel he is being too cautious and listening to scientists overmuch. Sturgeon on the other hand has been praised for doing exactly that. So it`s not exactly fair, but the public have different expectations of different politicians: what can break one career might make another.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Fri 26 Feb 22:15

That`s why I say politically he is finished. I`m quite willing to believe the jury got it right when they cleared him but the behaviour he admitted to, while pretty low key stuff, still doesn`t isn`t going to fit any sort of persona that is going to get him elected in Scotland.
Sturgeon won`t need to sack Mundell if it got to that stage as he would surely resign. If Sturgeon had to fire her husband that would be politically damaging to her. Her opponents would use the line that `if she is willing to shove her own husband under the bus to save her career what would she do to the rest of us".
Of course that could be countered by saying that` nothing will stop her making the right decision regardless of the personal cost` but it would be a cloud over the only individual who could lead a successful independence referendum campaign.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 08:24

Quote:

Parnott, Fri 26 Feb 19:51

Agreed GG

So how wronged must you feel.to throw away your whole lifes work?


That tells you everything for me.


I wouldn't be so sure about your contention that an angry man only equates to a wronged man.. In my experience, plenty of people can be equally furious when they are found out/caught doing something wrong.

I'm not suggesting this is necessarily the case with Alex Salmond, but as others have pointed out and by his own admission, his behaviour hasn't always been on a par with that expected of a national leader.

My feelings are that he regards any misdemeanors he committed as minor and that his political opponents (and former political allies) have tried to throw him under a bus. This explains his anger even though he's not exactly whiter than white.



Not your average Sunday League player.


Post Edited (Sat 27 Feb 09:27)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Andrew283  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 09:05

The coverage of this vs the scandals from the Tory side tells you everything you need to know about the media in this 'Union'. It's the build up to the election and the MSM are gagging for any reason to destroy the Independence movement
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 11:27

Instead of attempting to deflect to other parties issues. We should agree all issues like what is going on with Salmond and sturgeon should be scrutinised like it is by parliament and the media. Otherwise scotlsnd politicians are no better than westminsters. And this issue is just one sxample and SNP refusing information requests from this committee is evidence of a cover up, just like the cover ups by Westminster parties.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 11:55

That was an embarrassment to Scotland yesterday.

The Libdem guy, who I previously thought was intelligent, wasted questions and time by repeatedly wandering off the remit.

The Tory woman who meandered all round the houses, up the garden path, lost herself and everybody else en route.

The SNP mouse in the corner could barely read a question out, inarticulate language mangler. Her surname is Watt, some wag I read dubbed her middle name “twenty”. At least fifteen too many I would say.

Gawd help us

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 12:25

On the other hand, Andy Wightman, ex-Green and now independent, seemed very well-informed and familiar with the legal system. Somehow though he seemed to have got hold of a letter no other member of the Committee had seen. How did that happen?

I don`t think the media have done much of a job explaining the process. How are MSPs able to question Nicola Sturgeon in Parliament on her evidence before she has appeared in front of the Committee? How are members of the Committee able to write articles in the media about the hearing before it publishes its conclusions?
The fact that they all have a political agenda was pretty obvious from the questions they raised.

One of the big questions seemed to be whether Salmond and Sturgeon`s meeting on 2 April was government business or SNP party business. If government business, as Salmond claimed, it should have been reported to Parliament under the ministerial code. Would the meeting not have been minuted, especially if Salmond thought it was government business? You would think he would have insisted on it.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: CAPar  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 14:10

Genuine question that might have an easy answer but how could it be government business when Salmond isn't part of the Scottish or UK government? He's not even a member of either parliament.

Does that not immediately make it SNP party business? Or is the challenge that it's government business because the allegations are from when he was in government?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 14:38

That occurred to me too, CAPar. Andy Wightman suggested that maybe it was neither Government nor SNP business but a HR matter.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Wotsit  
Date:   Sat 27 Feb 14:43

Is it not that the allegations were allegedly fanned or leaked by sitting ministers?


"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sun 28 Feb 10:58

Just heard a lawyer on Radio Scotland say that the reason some of the evidence Salmond says he holds can`t be released to the Committee is that to do so would breach a law passed by the SG when he was FM! I think it was the evidence he said his lawyers would be happy to pass on if the Committee approached them direct but apparently that would be illegal too. Salmond seemed to be saying the SG`s refusal to disclose the evidence was part of the conspiracy against him.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Sun 28 Feb 13:33

Salmond presented well I thought. Not going to comment on the detail as who knows what the truth is re the whole caboodle.

Not sure that Sturgeon will appear as assured. Can see her resigning and walking away.

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: charlie1  
Date:   Sun 28 Feb 15:12

No confidence motion against John Swinney next week over his refusal to give documents to review team
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Sun 28 Feb 18:21

Regardless of outcome we ain`t heard last of this. Salmond was very plausible saying the documents should have been produced under the relevant acts, and available for the parliamentary committee. He then says he solicitors can provide them.
One way or another these documents will appear now or in future leaked.
Then along with evidence that the parliament has requested on numerous occasions and also rejected by swinney, what are they hiding?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 28 Feb 21:37

The Scottish government are now prepared to accept the documents from AS lawyers, redact before handing them over to the committee.
Couldn't make it up. On 60 occasions the committee have been denied information from the SG.

Plenty information on the Wingsoverscotland.com website for anyone interested.
Also check out the Gordon Dangerfield and Ian Lawson blogs
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Mon 1 Mar 18:35

So SG now to post legal advice on Salmond case after VONC against John Swinney at the 3rd attempt.

The rumours suggest the advice will show the case was doomed to failure but the SG continued hoping the criminal charges and trial (that they were fanning the flames of) would take over.

Bonkers if anywhere close to the truth.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 18:45

Oh Jings ... from Aunty :-

Nicola Sturgeon is facing calls to resign after new documents raised further questions about her involvement in the Alex Salmond saga.

The government has published emails showing it continued a legal fight with Mr Salmond despite its lawyers advising it was likely to lose.

Further evidence from two other witnesses has also called into question Ms Sturgeon`s version of events.

Ms Sturgeon is to face a Holyrood inquiry into the affair on Wednesday.
The Scottish Conservatives said there was "no longer any doubt that Nicola Sturgeon lied to the Scottish Parliament and broke the ministerial code on numerous counts."

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 19:12

Surely it`s up to the Committee to complete its investigation and publish its conclusions? This has happened all the time with this investigation, people reaching conclusions and expressing opinions before the process has been completed.



Post Edited (Tue 02 Mar 19:22)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 19:25

Sturgeon is toast with egg on her face.
Wouldn’t be surprised if she jumped before she gets grilled

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 19:33

She`s entitled to her day in court just like anybody else. I can`t see why the Tories think it`s a good idea to call for her resignation before the Committee reaches its conclusions. Ross seems to think acting as a hard man will win his party some votes.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 21:22

Quote:

wee eck, Tue 2 Mar 19:33

She`s entitled to her day in court just like anybody else. I can`t see why the Tories think it`s a good idea to call for her resignation before the Committee reaches its conclusions. Ross seems to think acting as a hard man will win his party some votes.


The committee already had her guilty before it started. It's a farce with politically motivated questions rather than seeking the truth.
Jackie Bailey was foaming at the mouth earlier when she wasn't getting the answers she wanted.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parnott  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 22:10


The committee already had her guilty before it started. It's a farce with politically motivated questions rather than seeking the truth.
Jackie Bailey was foaming at the mouth earlier when she wasn't getting the answers she wanted.


The committee was mostly SNP / Green. The dispute between Salmond & Sturgeon was SNP v SNP. The two senior witnesses who have contradicted her version of events are ex SNP. The SG position is untenable trying to invoke a procedure unlawfully to the point their own counsel threatened to resign.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 22:21

I've supported independence since 1975 so this is a bit hard to swallow, but if she was prepared to have an innocent man jailed hell mend her.

She now has to fight to cover her corruption and that of her co-conspiritors .

But she'll soon be toast.

Bye Bye Nikla

Post Edited (Tue 02 Mar 22:25)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Tue 2 Mar 23:51

And so we had won after all. That`s what Winston Churchill said after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour had dragged the United States into the Second World War. I imagine unionists will be thinking the same now. If it should transpire that Nicola Sturgeon has to resign eight weeks before the elections then there will be every chance that the snp will fail to get a majority of seats and with it a mandate from the people for another referendum. Even if they do without Sturgeon fronting the independence campaign then I can`t see enough of the undecideds being persuaded.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 08:15

Quote:

Tenruh, Tue 2 Mar 22:21

I've supported independence since 1975 so this is a bit hard to swallow, but if she was prepared to have an innocent man jailed hell mend her.

She now has to fight to cover her corruption and that of her co-conspiritors .

But she'll soon be toast.

Bye Bye Nikla


Salmond was acquitted. Yes. But actually innocent not so sure
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 09:16

Quote:

moviescot, Wed 3 Mar 08:15

Quote:

Tenruh, Tue 2 Mar 22:21

I've supported independence since 1975 so this is a bit hard to swallow, but if she was prepared to have an innocent man jailed hell mend her.

She now has to fight to cover her corruption and that of her co-conspiritors .

But she'll soon be toast.

Bye Bye Nikla


Salmond was acquitted. Yes. But actually innocent not so sure


"I'm no Saint." - Alex Salmond.

I rest my case, m'lud.

Of course, it was a serious error of judgement to push on with the case, when the "evidence" against him was so flimsy.

I think Nicola Sturgeon will wriggle her way out of this avoidable mess, but her reputation will be damaged and someone else will take the rap.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 09:44

From this mornings committee meeting :-

Ms Sturgeon says Mr Salmond asked her to read a letter he had received from the Scottish government`s permanent secretary about the sexual harassment complaints made by two individuals.

It made clear they were being investigated under the procedure adopted during 2017 and set out the details of what he was alleged to have done.

"Reading this letter is a moment in my life that I will never forget," the first minister says.

Ms Sturgeon says that although Mr Salmond denied the allegations, he gave his account of one of the incidents - which he said he had apologised for.

What he described constituted in my view deeply inappropriate behaviour on his part, perhaps another reason why that moment is embedded so strongly in my mind.

Ms Sturgeon points out that at the time Mr Salmond was giving her his account privately, his chief of staff Geoff Aberdein and Duncan Hamilton - a former SNP MSP and lawyer for Mr Salmond - were doing the same with her chief of staff.

"Again, this would seem unnecessary if she and I had known everything in advance."

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 09:47

GG, just to clarify, and I`m not saying you are necessarily confused with this, but the case that the Scottish Government were advised that would lose wasn`t the Salmond rape case. It was Salmond`s civil case against the Scottish Government.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 09:56

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Wed 3 Mar 09:47

GG, just to clarify, and I`m not saying you are necessarily confused with this, but the case that the Scottish Government were advised that would lose wasn`t the Salmond rape case. It was Salmond`s civil case against the Scottish Government.


Ah cheers, TOWK. I was indeed baŕking up the wrong tree. ☹



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 13:15

Judging by the latest reports an obvious credibility gap is opening up regarding Nicola Sturgeon`s evidence.

When Alex Salmond gave her his account of his interactions with female staff these are moments that changed her life and are embedded in her memory. Yet when she is asked about dates and her knowledge of what was said at meetings her recollections are quite vague. `Not so far as I am aware` is often bureaucratic code for blaming an underling.

In the short term I think Nicola Sturgeon will survive but long term the damage has been done. When offered the choice between launching an inquiry into sexual harassment claims that were judged non criminal, or keeping a united front to fight for independence, she chose the former. `Sisterhood first, Saltire second` makes her an easy target of the Tory media and SNP members who have grown to doubt her commitment to independence.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 14:15

Recess at 2pm. The last hour has been a litany of ‘Not to my best recollection,’ ‘I was not made aware,’ ‘That’s not my understanding,’ and the like. The best came last when Nicola Sturgeon was confronted with the legal advice to drop the case against Salmond as the ‘least worst option.’ In her opinion this was advice which she considered ‘optimistic’ and likely to see the government win the judicial review. Oh dear.

Less well known to me was the reluctance of female witnesses to become part of a criminal trial. In other words they were quite happy to testify in a Holyrood inquiry with no legal implications but not so happy to enter the High Court. That should have given cause for concern about allegations Nicola Sturgeon described as ‘shocking’ about an hour ago. The decision to push ahead with a police investigation seems to have been taken over their heads. Sisters sacrificed on the altar of Sisterhood is how it looks to me.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 14:26

You obviously don`t rate her, sammer, as evidenced by previous posts as well as your latest one. Since when was she presented with making a choice between independence and investigating a harassment claim? If she survives this why would it harm her? The opposition have been presented with an open goal and, if they fluff it, I don`t see how they`ll get a better chance farther down the line.

Salmond had the field to himself last week and made the most of it but she has exposed that he wasn`t subjected to any rigorous questioning on his evidence and his claims of conspiracy. Regardless of politics Sturgeon has shown today why she is the most accomplished performer, not only in Scotland, but in the UK. Can you imagine any of the Scottish opposition leaders or, God forbid, Boris Johnson, dealing with this enquiry as impressively?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 14:34

Quoting this from the BBC,
"The first minister declined to intervene in the complaints process. This is despite Mr Salmond saying she had indicated she would. “Maybe,” Ms Sturgeon says, "I did it too gently and gave him an impression that I did not intend." "

Why would Salmond have wanted the First Minister to intervene? Surely if that was the indication given he would have refused to allow his political connections to hinder any investigation? I wonder if he was questioned on that last week?

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 14:56

I`m with wee eck on this one

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 15:26

Meanwhile the media trying to do a "Corbyn " on her!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 15:35

I am not convinced Nicola Sturgeon is a person who will progress an independent Scotland, but as regards the inquiry I am only able to go by the updates appearing on news sites regarding her evidence. Far from being accomplished, she is repeatedly claiming loss of memory or good intentions behind actions that failed. Her claimed reading of the legal advice was simply preposterous.

We do have accomplished political performers in Scotland. Anytime I was at meetings where Margo McDonald spoke I left impressed, and I could say the same for Tommy Sheridan in his poll tax or anti-Iraq war days. I read Salmond’s evidence last week and I recall George Galloway’s performance at the US Congress in 2005. Nicola Sturgeon’s performance so far today does not even put her on their radar.

She has allowed her party to be split over a minor issue, one that did not lead to criminal conviction. The unionists are having a field day and can even quote long standing independence fighters like Salmond and Jim Sillars to back their anti SNP agenda. If that’s accomplished leadership then Davie Moyes is a better manager than Alex Ferguson.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 16:20

So you haven`t even been watching proceedings today?!!!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 16:49

As I said earlier, I am reliant on news updates. Of course it would be better to be able to draw inferences from her personal presentation but the words alone are painting a clear enough picture.

Q: Baillie picks out advice from Dunlop that says “it makes little sense to continue to defend the indefensible”. She asks Sturgeon if it would not be better for the complainers if the case had been conceded at that time.

A: Dunlop’s advice read in the whole was that there was a “credible” argument to be made, responds the first minister. It was still for better for the complainants at that stage to proceed, argues Sturgeon.
{that`s `credible` as in `indefensible.`}


Q: McMillan asks if there has been a judicial review where the government has been told it was going to lose but then won.

A: Sturgeon answers that she cannot go into details of legal advice.
{no detail was asked for. I think her answer is clearly `No.`}


Q: Cole-Hamilton questions the credibility of Sturgeon’s assertion she does not remember the 29 March meeting very well given that her colleague of 30 years planning to resign would have been monumental.

A: Sturgeon reiterates that it’s the 2 April meeting that was the one that sticks with her and it may have “obliterated” her memory of the 29 March meeting.
{entering Joe Biden territory here}

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 17:18

Where are you getting your news feeds from? Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express?

It`s interesting that none of the accomplished performers you cite is involved in frontline politics now. They were all great orators but they were mavericks, like Corbyn, and would never have provided unity or leadership.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 17:23

Sammer - your mask has slipped and you`re being rediculous now.

Galloway had an uncontested rant at the Senate while telling everyone what a great stand-up guy Saddam Hussein was.

Self publication and grand-standing?
Not many better than Galloway, but `political performer`? Behave min.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 17:33

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 18:03

Quote:

BigJPar, Wed 3 Mar 17:33

Quote:

Tenruh, Tue 2 Mar 22:21

I've supported independence since 1975 so this is a bit hard to swallow, but if she was prepared to have an innocent man jailed hell mend her.

She now has to fight to cover her corruption and that of her co-conspiritors .

But she'll soon be toast.

Bye Bye Nikla


Do you believe he was innocent?
I certainly don't


I don't even think Salmond believes he was innocent. He basically said himself that he had behaved inappropriately. Not enough for a criminal conviction but a civil case against him by the women could be bad news for him
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 19:50

Quote:

moviescot, Wed 3 Mar 18:03

Quote:

BigJPar, Wed 3 Mar 17:33

Quote:

Tenruh, Tue 2 Mar 22:21

I've supported independence since 1975 so this is a bit hard to swallow, but if she was prepared to have an innocent man jailed hell mend her.

She now has to fight to cover her corruption and that of her co-conspiritors .

But she'll soon be toast.

Bye Bye Nikla


Do you believe he was innocent?
I certainly don't


I don't even think Salmond believes he was innocent. He basically said himself that he had behaved inappropriately. Not enough for a criminal conviction but a civil case against him by the women could be bad news for him


Well until that happens he is innocent, unless someone can prove me wrong ?

No didn't think so .

Post Edited (Wed 03 Mar 20:14)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 21:03

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 22:30

Wee Eck and Luxembourg Ppar,

Mavericks, yes they appeal to me obviously. I could march behind McGahey but never Miliband. I could march behind Margo McDonald for an independent Scotland but never Sturgeon. I would take that as read. When I say ‘march’ I am anticipating what will be required to make- not take as oven ready- an independent Scotland. It won’t come from the centre.

Independence is not about protecting your pension- which Sunak will be coming for soon. It’s not about wangling jobs for your offspring- they’ve all they’ve but disappeared. University education is on the cusp.

My feed was from The Guardian , the most feminist paper in the European media which has long been supportive of Sturgeon’s petit bourgeois fetishes on gender politics. Did you want to object to anything that was reported, or wish to contradict my analysis? I heard nothing. She struggled throughout to answer a straight question. Her answers were pathetic and I believe she broke down at one point emotionally. Golda Meir never did that, nor Margo McDonald nor even Margaret Thatcher. If you can`t take the heat, retire to the kitchen.

Galloway was opposing Saddam Hussein before it was fashionable to do so but came on the wrong side of history. He exposed, in a way that has never been fully reported, US support for the Iraqi side in its war with Iran. That was his greatest crime. For all that, Saddam was better for the Iraqi people before or anything after since. Even Galloway acknowledges that, and Galloway in Baghdad would have been imprisoned. Galloway understands the brutality of politics in a way that the SNP don’t. They think it’s about lawyers, social workers and teachers having a natter round a table, discussing gender issues.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Wed 3 Mar 23:44

Let`s remind ourselves of Galloway opposing Saddam Hussein.
https://youtu.be/IIy_GmvUElE

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 07:10

Galloway has also recently become a puppet for the Chinese government. He love dictatorships does George.
Here he is denying the existence of re-education camps in Xinjiang. Then bizarrely saying these camps are just for terrorists.
https://youtu.be/qzKHEwk6-7c

He also appeared on CGTN the Chinese state broadcaster a few weeks back when they lost their ofcom broadcasting license claiming the UK is a dictatorship.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 07:29

So sammer you are more concerned with personalities than causes?

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 07:32

Galliway is now a self serving egomaniac who has become a caricature.

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 09:35

That`s a good description of Galloway, Jbob, but I must admit I did enjoy his rant in the US Senate.

Back on topic, I think Sturgeon is a lot tougher a cookie than sammer gives her credit for but assessing her performance from a newsfeed is a bit like assessing a footballer from a radio commentary. Saying she `broke down` is a gross exaggeration. There were a couple of occasions when there was a catch in her voice as she described her relationship with Salmond but I actually wondered if she was doing it in a calculated way to invoke a bit of sympathy from the audience.



Post Edited (Thu 04 Mar 09:59)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 10:05

Would love to see Johnson surviving 8 hours of questioning, he can't answer a question during his once a week Westminster appearance!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Andrew283  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 14:08

Even the Times has admitted she's come out of this strongly. Wonder what the next plan to sabotage the election by the Tories will be?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 15:23

This will backfire on the anti Scotland Unionist Parties in Scotland......as we will find out in May.......

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Wotsit  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 17:04

They think it’s about lawyers, social workers and teachers having a natter round a table, discussing gender issues.

That, in a nutshell, is what politics should be.

Open and free discussion among those who have something to say on a topic.

I imagine, therefore, that a discussion about gender issues would definitely include teachers, lawyers and social workers.

Especially social workers who see the sharp end of "gender issues" every day as they deal with cases of domestic abuse, child rape and FGM.

I`d far rather it was done that way than some middle-aged career politicos trying to get their heads around those issues in some smoke-filled room out of the public eye, then telling us what we must do in their wise and mysterious opinion.

The old left in this country and, I suspect many more, has a real bee in its bonnet about gender equality which is weird. The fact that there hasn`t been a single woman leader of UK Labour when the Tories have had two women as PM should be an embarrassment to a party which preaches tolerance and inclusiveness.



Post Edited (Thu 04 Mar 17:04)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: ipswichpar  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 17:08

Sturgeon Vs Davidson isn't a scrap I would like to have to try and split up. First Minister's questions weren't for the faint of heart
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 18:21

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 20:58

She should walk. It’s a total Scandal if she hangs around. She is up to her neck in it, stop digging. Guilty as sin.
She wore red to hide her red neck. Still documents missing as well, I wonder why.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBA  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 21:17

Quote:

dafc, Thu 4 Mar 20:58

She should walk. It’s a total Scandal if she hangs around. She is up to her neck in it, stop digging. Guilty as sin.
She wore red to hide her red neck. Still documents missing as well, I wonder why.


How anyone could watch her testimony and come to that conclusion is totally baffling to me. Although I'm guessing your post isn't exactly impartial.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 21:36

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Thu 4 Mar 22:48

Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Thu 4 Mar 20:58

She should walk. It’s a total Scandal if she hangs around. She is up to her neck in it, stop digging. Guilty as sin.
She wore red to hide her red neck. Still documents missing as well, I wonder why.

Firstly she has been found to have done nothing wrong.. so far. So if you want her to walk then let’s be fair. She should walk after Patel Hancock and Johnston , to name but a few.....

But that does not suit your bitter and twisted OO , Labour voting , I have been brain washed by the U.K. media agenda now does it ?

We will see who the Scottish electorate believe come May.....

Another 7000 signed up to join the SNP today alone.....tick tock....🤓

Latest poll Yes 53% Yes , with a 7 point lead.

It seems that the sensible people in Scotland somewhat disagree with your ramblings dafc.....are you surprised? You shouldn’t be.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Andrew283  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 00:23

Quote:

dafc, Thu 4 Mar 20:58

She should walk. It’s a total Scandal if she hangs around. She is up to her neck in it, stop digging. Guilty as sin.
She wore red to hide her red neck. Still documents missing as well, I wonder why.


😂😂
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 00:44

Desperado - All corrupt politicians should go, like all those you have mentioned. We would probably end up with not a lot of them left though.
Sturgeon has now joined these esteemed policitians you mentioned, took her a while but she got there. It was only a few years ago you were all supporting a Salmond blindly, and even sturgeon says she knew his behaviour was not acceptable years and years before all this but let it continue as she was used to it, and admitted witnessing numerous occasions his behaviour and again done nothing. Is that someone we should trust, not for me.
Will she win the election? absolutely, but that says far more about the people voting blindly. If your happy to vote for someone like her fair enough.
But don`t dont change the subject like all brain washed SNP supporters, win at all costs and blame everyone else,and keep changing subject. Oh look what they done though! You sound like a paranoid Celtic or rangers fan.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBA  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 07:23

Quote:

dafc, Fri 5 Mar 00:44

Desperado - All corrupt politicians should go, like all those you have mentioned. We would probably end up with not a lot of them left though.
Sturgeon has now joined these esteemed policitians you mentioned, took her a while but she got there. It was only a few years ago you were all supporting a Salmond blindly, and even sturgeon says she knew his behaviour was not acceptable years and years before all this but let it continue as she was used to it, and admitted witnessing numerous occasions his behaviour and again done nothing. Is that someone we should trust, not for me.
Will she win the election? absolutely, but that says far more about the people voting blindly. If your happy to vote for someone like her fair enough.
But don`t dont change the subject like all brain washed SNP supporters, win at all costs and blame everyone else,and keep changing subject. Oh look what they done though! You sound like a paranoid Celtic or rangers fan.


Word vomit.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 08:25

So breaking the ministerial code (allegedly) has now morphed into `corruption`? Remarkable.

I can`t help contrasting the way James Hamilton is going about his business with the way the Holyrood inquiry was conducted. Does anyone know what stage he is at, who he has interviewed, what evidence has been submitted? The Holyrood inquiry was conducted in the full glare of the media with evidence disclosed there before it was examined by the Cpommittee, Committee members expressing their views while it was still sitting, questions raised on a factional basis etc. It was doomed from the start.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Alf  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 10:00

Newly released Scottish Government legal advice appears to contradict Alex Salmond’s claim of a plot to delay a civil case.
https://t.co/xtHMmslF0W
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: QPR_Par  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 12:33

I’m astonished at the level of blind loyalty to Sturgeon. It doesn’t seem to matter that Salmond was found not guilty of criminal behaviour by a jury which contained a majority of women and had a female trial judge.

13 charges were brought against him, many of which took place in public places and yet the prosecution could not produce one single independent witness.

They did produce a witness who saw Salmond brush the hair from a woman’s cheek even though this wasn’t one of the charges. This witness also said he was unaware of any policy against female staff working with Salmond at Bute House.

One accuser acknowledged she had been in contact with another before making her allegations. The accuser she spoke to was the woman who claimed she had been raped after a dinner at Bute House with an unnamed Scottish actor.

The defence produced a friend who blew this out the water as the friend had gone in the accuser’s place as the accuser had broken her arm. The actor’s description did not match the accuser and made no mention of a sling or cast. Records also showed she was not at Bute House.

I don’t believe for one Sturgeon is telling the whole truth here.

Post Edited (Fri 05 Mar 12:34)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 12:41

Quote:

QPR_Par, Fri 5 Mar 12:33

I’m astonished at the level of blind loyalty to Sturgeon. It doesn’t seem to matter that Salmond was found not guilty of criminal behaviour by a jury which contained a majority of women and had a female trial judge.

13 charges were brought against him, many of which took place in public places and yet the prosecution could not produce one single independent witness.

They did produce a witness who saw Salmond brush the hair from a woman’s cheek even though this wasn’t one of the charges. This witness also said he was unaware of any policy against female staff working with Salmond at Bute House.

One accuser acknowledged she had been in contact with another before making her allegations. The accuser she spoke to was the woman who claimed she had been raped after a dinner at Bute House with an unnamed Scottish actor.

The defence produced a friend who blew this out the water as the friend had gone in the accuser’s place as the accuser had broken her arm. The actor’s description did not match the accuser and made no mention of a sling or cast. Records also showed she was not at Bute House.

I don’t believe for one Sturgeon is telling the whole truth here.


I don't believe that Salmond is telling the whole truth either. Just because Salmond was found not guilty doesn't mean he is innocent. Lot of guilty people have been found innocent with either a poor prosecution or good defence lawyers. In this case I think we had both.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: QPR_Par  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 13:29

I’m pretty certain that neither is telling the whole truth either, I have an open mind on it but that doesn’t explain the blind loyalty to Sturgeon.

As for your view on the verdict, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. Yes there have been times when the wrong verdict has been reached but that’s usually after new evidence or suppressed evidence has come to light.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 13:52

Blind loyalty to Surgeon from who ? She will have followers/supporters who will never hear a bad word spoken about her for sure, but there are many within the SNP and the wider Yes movement who would happily see her resign.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 14:05

I don’t really care about sturgeon tbh... I think she is an able politician who has led the snp party will, but the snp is nothing more than a means to an end for me and the only vehicle that can deliver independence for Scotland... which is far far bigger than sturgeon, salmon or any other personalities or politicians in that Parliament
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 15:13

Salmond`s guilt or otherwise is not in question here - he is a self-admitted sleaze - but continually referring back to his behaviour is simply a smokescreen to detract from the actual case in hand.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Alf  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 15:30

Quote:

QPR_Par, Fri 5 Mar 13:29

I’m pretty certain that neither is telling the whole truth either, I have an open mind on it but that doesn’t explain the blind loyalty to Sturgeon.

As for your view on the verdict, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. Yes there have been times when the wrong verdict has been reached but that’s usually after new evidence or suppressed evidence has come to light.


Why did Salmond apologise for his unacceptable behaviour? What was unacceptable?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: QPR_Par  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 16:09

Quote:

Alf, Fri 05 Mar 15:30

Why did Salmond apologise for his unacceptable behaviour? What was unacceptable?


Why are you quoting me, where did I say his behaviour was acceptable?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Alf  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 16:34

You made a big speach how innocent Salmond is, he wasn't found guilty, but he has admitted that his behaviour was unacceptable
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 16:43

Wee Eck warned me earlier in the week not to place too much weight on news updates from the inquiry since it was like judging a football match by listening to a radio commentary. He might even have added like a radio commentary by the late David Francey, a man who could make a goalless draw at Boghead on a murky winter day sound like the Trojan war.

So now the live theatre has ended, what is wider public view? I think Sturgeon will be castigated by the committee, particularly over not following legal advice, but I don`t think she has much to fear. Blather about ministerial codes means little to the wider public, especially since one charge was about whether something was said one day or three days later. I think there is a perception that there was indeed an agenda to `get` Salmond but initially Sturgeon`s instincts were to be supportive and helpful, so she can hardly be seen as the prime mover. Any subsequent moves against Salmond can be seen as her commitment to ensure women`s rights.

In the short term she is in the same position as Stevie Crawford, a leader who has to achieve a good outcome in the next few months. Only after that will there be any need to assess the position of leadership.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 16:56

Well colour me pink and dip me in ketchup, I agreed with a couple of Sammer`s points :-/


Sturgeon can also claim that she went after Salmond so hard to prove that `even her besties` are not exempt from the full force of the law, and should be held to account.

What doesn`t sit right is the collusion between some senior SNP members and the alleged complainers, sounded like an agenda to settle old scores and remove him as a future threat to the leadership or direction of the party...

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: QPR_Par  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 17:04

Quote:

Alf, Fri 05 Mar 16:34

You made a big speach how innocent Salmond is, he wasn't found guilty, but he has admitted that his behaviour was unacceptable


That wasn’t the post you quoted though. I’m not a spokesman for Alex Salmond’s nor do I have access to his personal thoughts and motivations. Why do you need me to tell you what was unacceptable? Isn’t it obvious?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 17:24

"What doesn`t sit right is the collusion between some senior SNP members and the alleged complainers, sounded like an agenda to settle old scores and remove him as a future threat to the leadership or direction of the party.."

This has puzzled me from the outset; the enthusiasm with which some pursued the charges against Salmond. I don`t think at the time- that may have changed since- that Salmond was contemplating a return to front line politics.

I don`t know Salmond obviously but it may be that he is a particularly unpleasant man to work alongside. All leaders make enemies- that comes with the territory- but I am wondering if the depth of hostility to Alex Salmond came from years of colleagues having to suffer his behaviour. Once he was out of power they took their revenge.

Their problem is Salmond is no weaker than when they launched their actions. If anything, his batteries have been recharged. A few heads will likely have to roll after the inquiry reports, but courtiers` for the most part.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 5 Mar 18:55

I see that further evidence has been released which even the unionist papers seem to acknowledge show that there was no conspiracy against Salmond as he has suggested.
Salmond isn't without criticism here and neither are the SG or Sturgeon. But it looks like it might all end up being a damp squib.

Oh and 9000 new SNP members so far since Sturgeon's evidence. Doing something right....
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 21:13

So, wholly in keeping with the unprofessional way this committee has been conducted, its conclusion that Nicola Sturgeon misled it has been mysteriously `leaked`. I see the BBC were quick off the mark with a special Panorama programme broadcast at 8 pm with interviews with members of the Committee.

Sky News have a bit more detail but I think it`s a bit premature to comment on it until we have the final report which isn`t going to be published until next Tuesday I understand.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dafc  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 21:24

Time to go. Oh maybe have another committee to hopefully come up with a different solution.
More faces than the toon clock.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 21:28

There already is another inquiry into NS being conducted by an Irish QC but it doesn`t sound as if you`re interested in that or the full report of the committee. What a surprise.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 22:35

We`ll find out soon enough but with Sturgeon removed from the helm I think the snp may find it exceptionally difficult to win a majority in May.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 23:12

I think this verdict`s a bit of a cop-out. Apparently they`ve not said she `knowingly` misled them which may let her off the hook. It all seems very technical and hinges on whether she said she`d help Salmond or not when she obviously didn`t!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 23:24

If Sturgeon gets re-elected we'll end up with the most corrupt government Scotland’s ever had
Power Corrupts
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 23:32

More corrupt than the parcel of rogues in 1707?
That would take some doing.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 18 Mar 23:41

Quote:

wee eck, Thu 18 Mar 23:12

I think this verdict`s a bit of a cop-out. Apparently they`ve not said she `knowingly` misled them which may let her off the hook. It all seems very technical and hinges on whether she said she`d help Salmond or not when she obviously didn`t!


It was always going to be a cop-out when it was a parliamentary inquiry. The only problem here is the SNP government selected the committee members
3 SNP , 1 Green , 4 Yoon, & the chair with the casting vote SNP also.

Whatever could go wrong?

There should have been only one conclusion alas the wheels came off tonight and wee Nick has been found out.
And they say a weeks a long time in politics well for the present FM it would appear just 7hrs is even longer.

The problem faced with now is if she does re-sign she loses control and all will be exposed.

Post Edited (Fri 19 Mar 06:47)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parplod  
Date:   Fri 19 Mar 10:42

It’s hardly a surprise with 4 SNP v 5 others. The SNP members were clearly hand picked as the most probing question they asked was at the level of “Can you confirm your first name is Nicola?” This meant that the questioning of Jackie Baillie, Murdo Fraser and Andy Wightman could be construed as being out to get her.
The forthcoming Hamilton inquiry outcome will be more relevant as to the FM’s future.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Fri 19 Mar 20:32

Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 18 Mar 23:24

If Sturgeon gets re-elected we`ll end up with the most corrupt government Scotland’s ever had
Power Corrupts


The most corrupt Government Scotland has ever had currently resides in WM...

Has NS told a couple of porkies or been economical with the truth? Almost certainly. She is a politician after all.

It pales into insignificance compared to the out and out brazen corruption and cronyism currently on display in WM.

I want Scotland to be independent and frankly don’t care if people find this current mob in Holyrood as “ Corrupt “.

They are amateurs compared to WM.

So NS and Scot gov have to be whiter than white eh ? While Boris and his Merry band can get away with what the heck they like......with no scrutiny.

The big difference here is if we ever see independence then we can kick corrupt governments and politicians out.

If we don’t ( see independence) we can’t !

It’s a no brainer.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 19 Mar 21:08

It's OK though desperado it's perfectly fine to break the law as long as you only do it in a limited and specific way.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 07:34

Think you’ve completely missed what desperado is saying

Even if she has done something officially wrong (which I’m not sure she has but will see the non partisan results soon enough)... its headline news for weeks and weeks and with thinks like Davis’ intervention, nobody can deny this minor thing is now being used in an attempt to discredit the whole party and its cause

Meanwhile down the road, the Parliament that we’re dependent on and the Parliament we’re all supposed to think is the one that should guide us is a damn worse (cash/contracts to donors, cabinet members found guilty of breaking ministerial code, etc), but that all seems to just float away.

This isn’t whataboutery, but merely pointing out that there is evidently two very different measures and in turn expectations being applied to the two different Parliaments - and it does make you wonder why that would be the case?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 09:45

Well said, DBP. I notice Johnson wasn`t prepared to say that Sturgeon should resign presumably because it would open up claims of hypocrisy in relation to Westminster.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 12:23

Trial by media.

There's an apparent lack of disgust at Johnson misusing party funds to buy a sofa worth more than a house in Brucefield. Or spending millions on a needless briefing facility. Or refusing to divulge contract details when it's suggested BILLIONS have been gifted to shady company directors.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 12:45

"Even if she has done something officially wrong (which I’m not sure she has but will see the non partisan results soon enough)... its headline news for weeks and weeks and with thinks like Davis’ intervention, nobody can deny this minor thing is now being used in an attempt to discredit the whole party and its cause"

It was my attempt at sarcasm - the SNP have been under more pressure for resignations than the UK Gov was for deliberately considering a policy that would have broken international law. Then there are the other infractions if the ministerial code which don't seem to be pursued with the same vigour as anything the SNP may or may not have done.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 14:22

Trying to do a Corbyn on NS, meanwhile DRoss sticks his nose in a parliament that he has no jurisdiction in, pity he's not so vocal down Westminster!

Plenty to get his teeth into down there, he along with Starmer are doing themselves no favours, just waiting on Gordon Brown sticking his head above the parapet.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 15:26

Quote:

londonparsfan, Fri 19 Mar 21:08

It's OK though desperado it's perfectly fine to break the law as long as you only do it in a limited and specific way.


I got the sarcasm, if it's any consolation, lpf. If other posters don't know you or your leanings, they may take anything you post literally. That's why I tend to go overboard with the 😉😃☺🤔☹ and😩.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 19:10

Potentially another big scandal involving the snp is bubbling away ready to explode if what I`m hearing is true.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 21:00

Cheers GG! You can't say that and not spill the beans mate.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 20 Mar 22:47

It`s maybe much ado about nothing lpf which is why I`m reluctant to spread what may be essentially fake news. It regards party finances and I`m sure the rumours (which I stress could well be baseless) will soon be well circulated.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: QPR_Par  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 01:21

If it’s about ring fenced money TOWK, then there’s already plenty on the subject on Wings Over Scotland. In fact there was an update on Friday where they are saying Murrell is doing a Masterton and refusing to hand over the books.

What I find hilarious is those alleging the plot against Salmond were labelled conspiracy theorists when the only examples of this behaviour that I’ve seen are from the Sturgeon camp.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 08:43

Yeah that`s the gist of it but with the added rumour of members of the parties finance committee resigning for not getting full access to the accounts.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 09:21

Here's more information but need a help to activate

https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/03/21/where-is-the-loot/
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 09:31

Click here

All sounds quite fanciful. Wouldn't believe anything related to Wings either. We'll soon find out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 09:39

Hope you're right Jake, I've got 5 years worth of monthly payments in the ringfenced Indy2 fund.

Post Edited (Sun 21 Mar 09:47)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 10:55

Those monthly contributions have also been used to fund several election campaigns in those five years.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 12:47

Quote:

Tenruh, Sun 21 Mar 09:21

Here's more information but need a help to activate

[Url]https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/03/21/where-is-the-loot/


Cheers tenruh and TOWK, Jake I'll take a look and
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 12:48

Sorry hadn't realised that's Jake's link was the same 😂

Post Edited (Sun 21 Mar 12:48)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Sun 21 Mar 20:14

I'll still take the credit 😅
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 16:41

Ministerial code NOT breached!

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 16:41

No breach of the ministerial code according to the Hamilton report.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 16:44

Nicola Sturgeon has been cleared of breaching the ministerial code over her involvement in the Alex Salmond saga.

Superb now lets move on win the May elections by a landslide and go for Indy ref 2

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 16:59

The unionist papers should make interesting reading tomorrow!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 17:12

Well pleased with that. Politicians can be a slippery bunch, but if she had been forced to resign in the middle of a pandemic and just before an election, it would have been disastrous for Scotland.

Sturgeon's handling of the pandemic has been vastly superior to that of those clowns in Westminster.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: dd23  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 17:14

You’re right GG, disastrous is the word. I despair of all the ridiculous attacks she’s been under through the lying and illegal leaking of info to the press. She’s Scotland’s biggest asset. How she has coped through the past year is remarkable.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 17:16

It’ll be mentioned and quickly forgotten (but I’m sure they’ll try to leave a lingering doubt if at all possible)... they’ll see it as potential damage done to Scotland independence prospects and I’m sure they’ll pile into something else (guilty or not) to discredit the snp, or the Scottish people’s ability to manage themselves, like every other country seems to be able to do

Post Edited (Mon 22 Mar 17:16)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 18:10

Haha - the Daily Mail is imploding 🤣

Ye ragin’?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 18:36

It's completely right that all decisions made by our politicians should be scrutinised, but it does feel like some are scrutinised far more than others, particularly by the media. Women in particular seem to be scrutinised far more than men.

Let's not even mention the Daily Mail. Scum paper for scummy people. The online version is sheer click-bait for idiots.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 18:50

DRoss no happy at all, he'll be on the phone to Roothy!🤣🤣🤣🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 19:01

I think The Linesman was too quick in putting his flag up.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 19:13

I see Willie Rennie is saying her resignation is still "a live issue".
It`s over Willie.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Andrew283  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 19:22

What next for the Yoons to target? Did an SNP minister get caught putting 3 sugars in their tea? Scandal waiting to happen
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 21:08

Next will be party funds as Tenruh mentioned. Then it'll be something else.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 23:00

For the first time in over a year NS is not in the top three stories in the Daily Express online. Up till now, had you lived in say Kent or Salisbury, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Scottish electorate were about to rise en masse and throw off the yoke of Scottish nationalism in much the same way the decent folk of England did with their unelected Brussels bureaucrats. According to the DE Sturgeon was on a knife edge, was running a banana republic, and has been plotting to destroy the UK all her life. Everyday either she, or Blackford in Westminster, is ridiculed, shut down, shut up, ripped to shreds, silenced, exposed as a charlatan for all the world to see.

Yet incredibly, the SNP vote appears to remain pretty much the same. An astonishing state as affairs, as baffling as the failure of the English football team to reach any major final despite having the greatest league in the history of football and Harry Kane.

The word ‘lingering ‘was used a few posts back and this was probably the intention from the outset when the pressure ramped up on Sturgeon. There is no Saint Nicola and she is not quite the astute politician some make out if she can allow herself to be attacked on two fronts. I hope after the SNP do well in May’s elections that an olive branch will be offered to the Salmond supporters inside the SNP so that a united front can be presented to English flag waving intransigence.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Mon 22 Mar 23:54

In football parlance Sturgeon who was 1-2 dien at halftime has back to win 3-2.
A late winner by Hamilton.

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 07:30

Quote:

wee eck, Mon 22 Mar 19:01

I think The Linesman was too quick in putting his flag up.


I'd have been more than happy to advise him on exactly where he should have put his flag, eck. ☺



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 08:13

The Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints will formally publish its full report at 8am, more than two years after it was first established.

The cross-party inquiry was set up after a successful judicial review by Alex Salmond resulted in the Scottish government`s investigation being ruled unlawful and "tainted by apparent bias" in 2019.

Committee members have held 14 public evidence sessions, questioning a range of witnesses about the development of the complaints policy that was used unlawfully, the handling of the allegations, Mr Salmond`s successful judicial review and the ministerial code.

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 08:28

Looks like it's now 1-1 in the Sturgeon - Salmond final. With an upcoming vote of no confidence coming up, who will win?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 08:41

Think you missed out the bit busspar about the majority of committee members using the opportunity to attack her personally and inflict as much damage as they could.

It’s not like they didn’t have anything to gain if they could throw enough mud!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 09:25

Agreed DBP ...... Belated Happy Birthday ....:)

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Mr Mac  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 09:57

Quote:

jake89, Tue 23 Mar 08:28

Looks like it's now 1-1 in the Sturgeon - Salmond final. With an upcoming vote of no confidence coming up, who will win?


The 5 stooges on the committee have hit the post; the BBC report states:
"The committee says the report from James Hamilton, published yesterday afternoon, is the "most appropriate" place to address the question of whether or not the first minister has breached the ministerial code."

I note that Jackie Baillie and Murdo Fraser have both now denied being the source of the leak......

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 10:13

The media must know who leaked part of the report but will they share it with the public? No chance.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parplod  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 11:05

Having gone through the 192 page report - only marginally duller than 90 minutes of Pars TV - the only criticism of note is aimed at Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary. Her individual failing is equal to the corporate failing with regard to the Judicial Review.
It is sad to read of the evidence taken from Ms A and Ms B last Monday when they spoke of how it felt to have their experiences discussed via social media posts by Committee Members along strict party lines.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 11:32

Hamilton not happy his repot has been redacted to make parts of it unintelligible.
The rest is a lesson in fence sitting.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 12:57

`Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 2 Mar 19:25

Sturgeon is toast with egg on her face.
Wouldn’t be surprised if she jumped before she gets grilled`

That worked out well for you!😊😂🤣

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 16:34

2-1 Nicola :)

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Andrew283  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 16:39

Current polling has Scot Cons down 6 seats in the upcoming elections too. This really hasn't gone to plan for them has it 😂
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 16:43

From Aunty :-

During the debate Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said he wished everyone`s focus had remained on the "extremely serious issue" which launched this entire process.

What we have seen since has been a "deliberate, systematic and cynical exploitation of the matter for motives which are all too apparent today," he says.

He says the fous should be on how it affects victims of harassment and "those who want to call it out".

Mr Harvie says members of the inquiry committee pre-judged the evidence by making multiple pronouncements during the course of its work.

He says those MSPs had committed a "disgraceful betrayal of trust" of the original complainants, and that what should have been a serious inquiry had "descended into farce".


Mr Sarwar says he lodged an amendment to the motion being debated which "recognised the gravity of the government’s failures and demanded that someone takes responsibility, whilst also calling out the shameless game-playing by the Conservatives".

He regrets that the amendment was rejected, which leaves the chamber with a "binary choice".

He says he does not have confidence in the way the government handled the Alex Salmond complaints, or its record in office.

But he also has no confidence in a Tory party which "seeks to use this awful episode in our country’s history in the futile and vain pursuit of a cheap political scalp".

He says Labour cannot support a motion designed "purely at dividing our country and our politics still further".

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 17:06

Patsy and his greasy greens managed a massive 1% of the votes cast in Scotland at the last GE. They are Holyrood second vote SNP puppets and don’t even pretend otherwise

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 17:33

I actually thought Harvie summed it up rather well

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 17:33

And your point is called?

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 17:59

It didn`t matter what the Greens did. Only the Tories supported the motion and the SNP voted against it. Labour abstained and possibly the LibDems too.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 18:00

Quote:

Buspasspar, Tue 23 Mar 17:33

I actually thought Harvie summed it up rather well



Agreed - well said Harvie and here’s hoping the electorate see exactly what the other parties are made of and they get their comeuppance in May
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 18:10

Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Tue 23 Mar 17:33

And your point is called?

Its called my opinion jbob which I am entitled to .. sorry if it differs from yours :)

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 18:33

Busspass I`d hazard that JBob wasn`t replying to your post.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 23 Mar 18:48

If that is the case towk then .... sincere apologies to jbob

Just to add to wee ecks post even if labour and the lib dems had voted yes N.S. would still have won the vote

edited to add I actually think jbob meant to post caller not called :)



Post Edited (Tue 23 Mar 18:50)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 09:26

Easily confused at our age.

A while ago I grabbed a card oot of my wallet and headed off to to the cash point, about a mile away, nice day to get some steps in. Spotted someone even older than me tottering to the same location, smoothly overtook, and with a triumphant flourish produced my...go on have a guess!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 11:59

SNP Membership card?

Bus Pass?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 12:48

Quote:

Parboiled, Wed 24 Mar 09:26

Easily confused at our age.

A while ago I grabbed a card oot of my wallet and headed off to to the cash point, about a mile away, nice day to get some steps in. Spotted someone even older than me tottering to the same location, smoothly overtook, and with a triumphant flourish produced my...go on have a guess!


Freshly baked Victoria sponge.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 14:35

Bus pass it wuz. Well done, but lose a point for Snipper card...

And I`m a fairy cake man mysel but keep it quiet

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 17:19

Looks like Wee Ecks off to court.

This cannot stand. I have therefore taken legal advice and will shortly be instructing my lawyers to bring proceedings in the Court of Session arising as a direct result of the conduct of the Permanent Secretary. I hope it is the only legal action that I am required to take.
I have complete faith in the outcome of that Court process, coming as it does with all the proper powers of recovery of documents and thus the ability to properly interrogate those individuals responsible, the absence of which so restricted the Parliamentary Committee.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 17:56

Here we go again :-
From Aunty

Alex Salmond says he accepts the findings of the two reports this week.

That is not insignificant. Remember he said he was sure Nicola Sturgeon HAD broken the ministerial code. He now accepts the finding of the independent adviser that she didn`t.

It is not clear exactly what Mr Salmond`s legal action will entail. But it does mean he will be taking a government he once led to the highest civil court in the land once again. That is significant too.

Ultimately, Mr Salmond says he now wants to move on and urges the country to do the same. But his legal action - and a complaint to police - mean there will still be updates to this story in the months to come.

Mr Salmond also said he would make a complaint to the police about how the story of the initial allegations against him appeared in the Daily Record newspaper in August 2018.

A previous Information Commissioner`s Office (ICO) investigation into the leak found no "hard evidence" that it came from the government - but said it had "some sympathy" to the view that it had.

The inquiry was told that the ICO was the appropriate agency to investigate such matters, and would have reported any issues to the Crown Office if they had been found.

I smell schoite

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 18:00

The Right Honourable Alex Salmond. What a man and politician. Dignified and determined.
We aint see the last of him and his bonnets – that’s for sure. And this will mean that Lesley Evans and the gang will have to testify in a proper court – ooh err!
He shoots he scores. (Unlike the Pars)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 18:09

Does this mean he`s abandoned his conspiracy theory and is now laying his alleged persecution at the door of one woman?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 18:32

Any conspiracy theory's will be revealed in a court of law, [ UNREDACTED] of course.

Tongues loosen when things fall apart
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 19:06

He is coming across as deranged with revenge his soul agenda

This from a man who has admitted his indiscretions toward the female species but was proven not guilty due to a total coo`s erse from the S.G.

To prolong his desire for revenge we are now back in court plus a complaint to the polis

This should ensure that the ramifications drag on well into May to coincide with the elections

Welcome into the Tory fold Lord Salmond of Linlithgow your ermine robe awaits just hope we have one to fit you

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 19:18

The wee toon coonsil have had their chance to get to the truth and now the big boys are getting [ UNREDACTED] evidence to look over.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 19:51

Less than a week ago you were telling us `wee Nick` had been `found out` by the `wee toon coonsil`. Now you`re disparaging them! Have you always been a secret admirer of Alex Salmond?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: parsfan  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 20:00

Quote:

Buspasspar, Wed 24 Mar 19:06

This from a man who has admitted his indiscretions toward the female species but was proven not guilty due to a total coo`s erse from the S.G.


He was found not guilty due to none of the allegations standing up in court. Nothing to do with the way the government went about things.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 20:10

Quote:

wee eck, Wed 24 Mar 19:51

Less than a week ago you were telling us `wee Nick` had been `found out` by the `wee toon coonsil`. Now you`re disparaging them! Have you always been a secret admirer of Alex Salmond?


Yip, he single handedly took a deadbeat party to where they find they are now.

Unfortunately they have filled the void that was "Labour in Scotland" the party which could get a monkey elected and we know how that ended.
Power has corrupted
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 21:27

So was it the `wee toon coonsil` when he was FM and why has support for independence increased since he moved on?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 21:55

Quote:

wee eck, Wed 24 Mar 21:27

So was it the `wee toon coonsil` when he was FM and why has support for independence increased since he moved on?


It's always been the wee coonsil he knew it. But managed to get indy1 off the back of the SNP success in 2011
The growth of the SNP since 2014 was mainly due to the collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland caused by their involvement with the Tories in the BT group.

Of course you already know that.

The SNP failed to manage the influx of new members since 2014 and will pay the price for that.

Post Edited (Wed 24 Mar 21:56)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 22:11

You have a habit of expressing opinions as if they were facts. It`s quite common in politics I think, as when politicians tell us what the electorate are thinking. Nothing is ever that clear-cut as the last week has proved.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Wed 24 Mar 23:26

"Unfortunately they have filled the void that was "Labour in Scotland" the party which could get a monkey elected and we know how that ended."

And yet even then Salmond lost his Westminster seat to Tory Colin Clarke.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 06:41

Comment not for you bus pass.
No worries

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 06:49

TOWKs, you had a better example nearer home.

Roger Mullen won the Kirkcaldy constituency in 2015 by a 10,000 landslide but when he tried to defend the seat in 2017 he was beaten by the Labour candidate, surprisingly the winner won it by securing a few hundred more votes than the previous labour candidate secured in the 2015 election.

Now there's many reasons why candidates lose their seats, but it's generally believed that the SNP in the 2015 election never had a strong manifesto, no mention of "Independence " for example,
Local SNP branches in Kirkcaldy were also going through a period of in-fighting so not a great campaign on the ground,and unfortunately it was raining that day. (Thats a fact Wee Eck)
Regarding the AS seat in 2015, some of everything from above was in play along with the believe his seat was a safe seat.But the data coming in told a different story and the party didn't move quick enough to get the activists in the constituency on the ground.

Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 08:43)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 17:01

Quote:

Tenruh, Wed 24 Mar 18:00

The Right Honourable Alex Salmond. What a man and politician. Dignified and determined.
We aint see the last of him and his bonnets – that’s for sure. And this will mean that Lesley Evans and the gang will have to testify in a proper court – ooh err!
He shoots he scores. (Unlike the Pars)


This has to be a windup. Salmond is an appalling individual who thinks/thought it is/was OK to make unwelcome advances on females who worked for him, believing he could act with impunity because he was FM. This is not my personal opinion, it's a fact to which he himself confessed when he admitted "I'm no saint", trying to excuse his behaviour by blaming it on the alcohol he had consumed.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 18:25

Agreed, and what we are seeing with his continuation of this nonsense is further evidence of this ego at play

Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 18:26)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 18:58

I listened to a podcast today where BBC political reporters interviewed Andy Wightman, the `independent` member of the Holyrood committee. He was asked if there was any evidence of a concerted plot against Salmond and he said there wasn`t but he could see how some communications could be misconstrued to suggest there was one.

He was asked if he had been responsible for the leak and said no. I`ve now seen or heard three members deny leaking - Wightman, Baillie and Fraser. Assuming it wasn`t an SNP member that only leaves Alex Cole-Hamilton and the Tory lady, Margaret Mitchell.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 19:04

I will be very surprised if it was the Tory wee eck :)

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 19:21

Would not be surprised if it was Alex Cole-Hamilton. Comes across as a horrid individual.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 20:28

"Salmond is an appalling individual who thinks/thought it is/was OK to make unwelcome advances on females who worked for him, believing he could act with impunity because he was FM. This is not my personal opinion, it`s a fact to which he himself confessed when he admitted "I`m no saint", trying to excuse his behaviour by blaming it on the alcohol he had consumed."

I`m not sure that`s correct. As I read it, he accepted that one of the incidents described in court did happen, where he and someone else were drinking while working late. Obviously inappropriate but I`m not sure it fits what you`ve said.

The prosecution evidence was widely reported but the defence evidence has hardly been mentioned. I could only find one blogger who reported it - Craig Murray - and even though I often find him to be a bit of a fanny, it was useful to hear the other side which was not reported elsewhere. Most people seem to have made up their minds on his behaviour based on hearing only one side of the story, which seems unreasonable to me.



Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 20:39)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 20:41

Quote:

wee eck, Thu 25 Mar 18:58

I listened to a podcast today where BBC political reporters interviewed Andy Wightman, the `independent` member of the Holyrood committee. He was asked if there was any evidence of a concerted plot against Salmond and he said there wasn`t but he could see how some communications could be misconstrued to suggest there was one.

He was asked if he had been responsible for the leak and said no. I`ve now seen or heard three members deny leaking - Wightman, Baillie and Fraser. Assuming it wasn`t an SNP member that only leaves Alex Cole-Hamilton and the Tory lady, Margaret Mitchell.


Why would you assume it wouldn't be an SNP member who made the leak?
Big assumption on your part surely

Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 20:52)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 20:51

Quote:

Socks, Thu 25 Mar 20:28

"Salmond is an appalling individual who thinks/thought it is/was OK to make unwelcome advances on females who worked for him, believing he could act with impunity because he was FM. This is not my personal opinion, it`s a fact to which he himself confessed when he admitted "I`m no saint", trying to excuse his behaviour by blaming it on the alcohol he had consumed."

I`m not sure that`s correct. As I read it, he accepted that one of the incidents described in court did happen, where he and someone else were drinking while working late. Obviously inappropriate but I`m not sure it fits what you`ve said.

The prosecution evidence was widely reported but the defence evidence has hardly been mentioned. I could only find one blogger who reported it - Craig Murray - and even though I often find him to be a bit of a fanny, it was useful to hear the other side which was not reported elsewhere. Most people seem to have made up their minds on his behaviour based on hearing only one side of the story, which seems unreasonable to me.



The "I'm no saint" incident happened one evening .The incident was reported by the female the following day,
AS accepted responsibility for his behaviour and his apology was accepted.

Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 21:38)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 21:13

Be careful about how much detail you post here. I`ve probably read the same info as you, but given how contempt of court around this case is being prosecuted, I was deliberately very vague in what I said above. I too feel frustrated that many people are unaware of that side of the court proceedings in the criminal case, but it probably isn`t worth yourself or this website risking a contempt charge by giving enough info that might make someone identifiable.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 21:17

`Why would you assume it wouldn`t be an SNP member who made the leak?
Big assumption on your part surely`


I did consider whether an SNP member could have sprung the leak but it`s difficult to see what the motive would be. I`m sure you`re going to tell us though.

Also, I don`t know if there would be any opportunity for a clerk to have access to the Committee`s deliberations.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 21:39

Clutching at straw's now Eck.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 21:43

Quote:

Socks, Thu 25 Mar 21:13

Be careful about how much detail you post here. I`ve probably read the same info as you, but given how contempt of court around this case is being prosecuted, I was deliberately very vague in what I said above. I too feel frustrated that many people are unaware of that side of the court proceedings in the criminal case, but it probably isn`t worth yourself or this website risking a contempt charge by giving enough info that might make someone identifiable.


Cheers Socks, edited, But must stress I've no idea who any of the alphabets are...

Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 21:45)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Thu 25 Mar 22:32

I`m not clutching at anything but I`d be interested to hear your theory as to why an SNP member would spill the beans. You`re not usually so reticent.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Fri 26 Mar 06:26

Quote:

Socks, Thu 25 Mar 20:28

"Salmond is an appalling individual who thinks/thought it is/was OK to make unwelcome advances on females who worked for him, believing he could act with impunity because he was FM. This is not my personal opinion, it`s a fact to which he himself confessed when he admitted "I`m no saint", trying to excuse his behaviour by blaming it on the alcohol he had consumed."

I`m not sure that`s correct. As I read it, he accepted that one of the incidents described in court did happen, where he and someone else were drinking while working late. Obviously inappropriate but I`m not sure it fits what you`ve said.

The prosecution evidence was widely reported but the defence evidence has hardly been mentioned. I could only find one blogger who reported it - Craig Murray - and even though I often find him to be a bit of a fanny, it was useful to hear the other side which was not reported elsewhere. Most people seem to have made up their minds on his behaviour based on hearing only one side of the story, which seems unreasonable to me.



I didn't follow the court case very closely myself, Socks and perhaps my condemnation of Salmond was coloured by my contempt for men who attempt to kiss, cuddle or fondle women, or pinch their rears, without any encouragement. What is clear now is that the case should never have gone to court, given the flimsy evidence, making it a criminal waste of public money.

None of this excuses Alex Salmond's behaviour. While it may have been relatively minor compared to serial rapists and other sexual predators, it was still inappropriate and most unbecoming for a man holding the most powerful position in the land. Whether he behaved in this appalling manner once, twice, or 10 times is irrelevant.

A man in his position must ensure his behaviour is always beyond reproach.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Fri 26 Mar 07:02

Quote:

GG Riva, Fri 26 Mar 06:26

Quote:

Socks, Thu 25 Mar 20:28

"Salmond is an appalling individual who thinks/thought it is/was OK to make unwelcome advances on females who worked for him, believing he could act with impunity because he was FM. This is not my personal opinion, it`s a fact to which he himself confessed when he admitted "I`m no saint", trying to excuse his behaviour by blaming it on the alcohol he had consumed."

I`m not sure that`s correct. As I read it, he accepted that one of the incidents described in court did happen, where he and someone else were drinking while working late. Obviously inappropriate but I`m not sure it fits what you`ve said.

The prosecution evidence was widely reported but the defence evidence has hardly been mentioned. I could only find one blogger who reported it - Craig Murray - and even though I often find him to be a bit of a fanny, it was useful to hear the other side which was not reported elsewhere. Most people seem to have made up their minds on his behaviour based on hearing only one side of the story, which seems unreasonable to me.



I didn't follow the court case very closely myself, Socks and perhaps my condemnation of Salmond was coloured by my contempt for men who attempt to kiss, cuddle or fondle women, or pinch their rears, without any encouragement. What is clear now is that the case should never have gone to court, given the flimsy evidence, making it a criminal waste of public money.

None of this excuses Alex Salmond's behaviour. While it may have been relatively minor compared to serial rapists and other sexual predators, it was still inappropriate and most unbecoming for a man holding the most powerful position in the land. Whether he behaved in this appalling manner once, twice, or 10 times is irrelevant.

A man in his position must ensure his behaviour is always beyond reproach.


Repeat Repeat Smear
Repeat Repeat Smear
Repeat Repeat Smear
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Fri 26 Mar 07:50

I didn't follow the court case very closely myself, Socks and perhaps my condemnation of Salmond was coloured by my contempt for men who attempt to kiss, cuddle or fondle women, or pinch their rears, without any encouragement. What is clear now is that the case should never have gone to court, given the flimsy evidence, making it a criminal waste of public money.

None of this excuses Alex Salmond's behaviour. While it may have been relatively minor compared to serial rapists and other sexual predators, it was still inappropriate and most unbecoming for a man holding the most powerful position in the land. Whether he behaved in this appalling manner once, twice, or 10 times is irrelevant.

A man in his position must ensure his behaviour is always beyond reproach.

Repeat Repeat Smear
Repeat Repeat Smear
Repeat Repeat Smear

Are you claiming Salmond's behaviour towards women was impeccable at all times then, in spite of his candid "I'm no saint" admission, Tenruh?



Not your average Sunday League player.


Post Edited (Fri 26 Mar 07:51)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Fri 26 Mar 09:11

Quote:

GG Riva, Fri 26 Mar 07:50

I didn't follow the court case very closely myself, Socks and perhaps my condemnation of Salmond was coloured by my contempt for men who attempt to kiss, cuddle or fondle women, or pinch their rears, without any encouragement. What is clear now is that the case should never have gone to court, given the flimsy evidence, making it a criminal waste of public money.

None of this excuses Alex Salmond's behaviour. While it may have been relatively minor compared to serial rapists and other sexual predators, it was still inappropriate and most unbecoming for a man holding the most powerful position in the land. Whether he behaved in this appalling manner once, twice, or 10 times is irrelevant.

A man in his position must ensure his behaviour is always beyond reproach.


Repeat Repeat Smear
Repeat Repeat Smear
Repeat Repeat Smear

Are you claiming Salmond's behaviour towards women was impeccable at all times then, in spite of his candid "I'm no saint" admission, Tenruh?

Claim what claim? Where did I make any defence of AS towards women ?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Fri 26 Mar 12:23

Apologies if I've misunderstood your previous post, Tenruh. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant with the "Repeat, repeat, smear" comment and who it was referring to?



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Fri 26 Mar 14:25

Salmond launches new independence Party to stand on the list vote..."ALBA"

Post Edited (Fri 26 Mar 14:58)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 06:35

Quote:

GG Riva, Fri 26 Mar 12:23

Apologies if I've misunderstood your previous post, Tenruh. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant with the "Repeat, repeat, smear" comment and who it was referring to?


Was referring to you.Not content writing it once you go on and put the boot into Salmond a second and third time.

That said how exciting was yesterday's announcement and if it clears out most of labour,tory and Libdem seatwarmers bring it on.
Keep up the good work GG

Repeat Repeat Smear

Post Edited (Sat 27 Mar 06:36)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 09:18

I wonder if Salmond has his name right at the top of thse party lists? Of course he has, got to get his nose back in the trough I guess.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 09:49

Meant to add that GG hasn`t smeared anyone. The only smears he has repeated is the ones Salmond confessed to himself in open court.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 10:21

TOWK, You raging today ? Settle down min it's only politics.
Think Alex has had a better week than wee Nicla though.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 10:37

Nah I never rage about anything on here.
You might be right about Sturgeon not having a good week. The Daily Mail, Express and other right leaning press outlets certainly seem as pleased as you do with the way things have went the past few days. Funny that isn`t it.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 10:43

Quote:

Tenruh, Sat 27 Mar 06:35

Quote:

GG Riva, Fri 26 Mar 12:23

Apologies if I've misunderstood your previous post, Tenruh. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant with the "Repeat, repeat, smear" comment and who it was referring to?


Was referring to you.Not content writing it once you go on and put the boot into Salmond a second and third time.

That said how exciting was yesterday's announcement and if it clears out most of labour,tory and Libdem seatwarmers bring it on.
Keep up the good work GG

Repeat Repeat Smear


As I understand it, a smear is an attempt to damage a person's reputation by making false claims against him/her. Perhaps you could point out exactly which part of my earlier post this applies to? I have many female relatives and friends who have expressed their impressions of Alex Salmond - I wouldn't dream of posting what they think of him on here. What you don't seem to grasp is that certain positions in life demand much higher standards of behaviour than others - doctors, teachers, clergy etc. Sadly, some politicians don't appear to believe they should belong to that group, but they do.

I do hope yesterday's announcement pans out as you think it will - the opposition parties you list are a complete waste of taxpayers money. My fear is that the new party may cost the SNP votes and compromise their chances of gaining a parliamentary majority. I really don't understand why Alex Salmond is making a comeback after standing down. Nicola Sturgeon has handled the position of FM rather well, so if it ain't broke, what is he trying to fix?



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 11:28

Quote:

GG Riva, Sat 27 Mar 10:43

Quote:

Tenruh, Sat 27 Mar 06:35

Quote:

GG Riva, Fri 26 Mar 12:23

Apologies if I've misunderstood your previous post, Tenruh. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant with the "Repeat, repeat, smear" comment and who it was referring to?


Was referring to you.Not content writing it once you go on and put the boot into Salmond a second and third time.

That said how exciting was yesterday's announcement and if it clears out most of labour,tory and Libdem seatwarmers bring it on.
Keep up the good work GG

Repeat Repeat Smear


As I understand it, a smear is an attempt to damage a person's reputation by making false claims against him/her. Perhaps you could point out exactly which part of my earlier post this applies to? I have many female relatives and friends who have expressed their impressions of Alex Salmond - I wouldn't dream of posting what they think of him on here. What you don't seem to grasp is that certain positions in life demand much higher standards of behaviour than others - doctors, teachers, clergy etc. Sadly, some politicians don't appear to believe they should belong to that group, but they do.

I do hope yesterday's announcement pans out as you think it will - the opposition parties you list are a complete waste of taxpayers money. My fear is that the new party may cost the SNP votes and compromise their chances of gaining a parliamentary majority. I really don't understand why Alex Salmond is making a comeback after standing down. Nicola Sturgeon has handled the position of FM rather well, so if it ain't broke, what is he trying to fix?


Apologies for using the wrong wording on your quotes regarding AS Behaviour

The ALBA party are not standing in the constituency vote which the SNP are in line to win all seats therefore giving them a majority before you even count the list votes.

The ALBA party are actually encouraging their supporters to vote SNP in the constituency seats. And although I was an SNP member until Wednesday I was having to think hard about voting for the SNP this election, but now I will.That way it benefits both parties.

One other advantage for 2 independence parties in Scotland is we can clear out the Yoon/English based parties.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 14:09

Great to hear BBC headlining this again today, probably anyone south of the border would struggle to recognise Salmond!🤔

Meanwhile £77k on Patel's eyebrows ain't getting a mention, along with £5K+ being spent in Primark, all on the Home Office credit card, ie Taxpayers money!😡😡😡

Post Edited (Sat 27 Mar 14:10)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 15:32

Quote:

Tenruh, Sat 27 Mar 11:28

Quote:

GG Riva, Sat 27 Mar 10:43

Quote:

Tenruh, Sat 27 Mar 06:35


Apologies for using the wrong wording on your quotes regarding AS Behaviour

The ALBA party are not standing in the constituency vote which the SNP are in line to win all seats therefore giving them a majority before you even count the list votes.

The ALBA party are actually encouraging their supporters to vote SNP in the constituency seats. And although I was an SNP member until Wednesday I was having to think hard about voting for the SNP this election, but now I will.That way it benefits both parties.

One other advantage for 2 independence parties in Scotland is we can clear out the Yoon/English based parties.


No worries, bud. I don't post on here with the express intention of falling out with fellow Pars fans. We have differing views on Alex Salmond. He lost the 2014 Referendum and stood down. I thought that was an error of judgement on his part at the time, as I saw him as the only heavyweight politician in the SNP. NS came across as wee chancer, but she stepped up to the plate. She's very articulate and has provided clear and consistent guidance throughout the pandemic - in sharp contrast to that Bozo in No 10.

AS is yesterday's man, imo. He should not be trying to shoehorn himself back into the political limelight. Folk are going to question his motives and many will come to the conclusion that he's hellbent on scuppering NS's chances of continuing as FM and consequently, the SNP and the Independence movement which he worked so hard to drive through.

Does he really want to cut off his nose to spite his face?



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Sat 27 Mar 19:15

"he`s hellbent on scuppering NS`s chances of continuing as FM and consequently, the SNP and the Independence movement which he worked so hard to drive through."

Emm

Except that

1. His target is not necessarily NS, but more Leslie Evans...

2. Alba going ONLY on list votes will not take many seats (if any) away from SNP, but will take away from Tory & Labour if they can get above 10% of the 2nd votes.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 06:33

Neale Hanvey MP for Kirkcaldy joins the ALBA Party.
Welcome Aboard Neale.

A few more deflections and the party Could be the 4th biggest in Westminster demoting the Libdems.
No 1 but 2 voices for Scotland there now.

Post Edited (Sun 28 Mar 06:37)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 06:59

Quote:

Luxembourg Par, Sat 27 Mar 19:15

"he`s hellbent on scuppering NS`s chances of continuing as FM and consequently, the SNP and the Independence movement which he worked so hard to drive through."

Emm

Except that

1. His target is not necessarily NS, but more Leslie Evans...

2. Alba going ONLY on list votes will not take many seats (if any) away from SNP, but will take away from Tory & Labour if they can get above 10% of the 2nd votes.


Oh come on, Lux. Why quote just part of a sentence of my post? I suggested some people might question his motives and jump to that conclusion. It would appear that Nicola Sturgeon is one of those people:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56548830

I didn't claim that this conclusion is correct nor that I subscribe to it - just putting it out there. If Alex Salmond's return to frontline politics is such good news for the SNP, why is the FM so obviously nervous about it?



Not your average Sunday League player.


Post Edited (Sun 28 Mar 07:00)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 07:20

That's Lynne Anderson the SNP Equalities Convenor now joined the ALBA Party.

ALBA now has 3000+ members joined since
2 pm Friday
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 08:54

Will there be a by-election for Kirkcaldy? Hanvey has a poor reputation. Will Derek Mackay be next to go to Alba? 😂
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 10:06

Quote:

jake89, Sun 28 Mar 08:54

Will there be a by-election for Kirkcaldy? Hanvey has a poor reputation. Will Derek Mackay be next to go to Alba? 😂


No need for a by-election Hanvey stood as an independent candidate, but obviously that's up to him.
How did you forget Margaret Farrier ? Or were you holding off with her for your next post .
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 10:15

If she went to Alba it would be quite the line up of misfits.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 10:27

Quote:

jake89, Sun 28 Mar 10:15

If she went to Alba it would be quite the line up of misfits.


Oh dear, it only takes one , believe me there's plenty more misfits/ careerists out there.

I think the SNP has morphed into what the Labour Party were when they got all the Scottish votes

That's why other independence Parties is a great thing for Scotland.

Post Edited (Sun 28 Mar 10:29)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 11:49

One thing I`ve never understood about UK politics is how a candidate can win a seat under the banner of one party then leave that party and not be required to give up the seat. If I were a constituent I`d feel hard done by.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 11:58

Hanvey isn't a patch on Roger Mullin!

Post Edited (Sun 28 Mar 11:58)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 11:59

To be fair to Hanvey, not that anyone should be, he was elected as an independent candidate because he was suspended by the snp for being an anti semite.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 12:06

I was thinking more about Kenny MacAskill.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 13:27

I think there will be more to follow. Joanna Cherry and Angus McNeil seem sure to join Alba.

Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 14:03

A split in the SNP has seemed inevitable for some time though this is not what I saw coming. It doesn`t seem especially surprising that the SNP leadership are dead against it since it`s obviously a threat to them. Until now they have been the only independence-leaning party capable of winning a substantial number of seats, but probably not any longer. As well as that, Nicola Sturgeon routinely sweeps opponents aside at FMQs, but it`s unlikely she`d do that to Alex Salmond.

The voting system makes this an interesting one. The SDP got 25% of the vote in 1983 but only 6 seats. If this new party gets even 10% of list votes it would likely be enough to win seats in all 8 regions.

If that does come to pass, it`ll be very interesting to see the make-up of the next governement. It`s likely to be another minority SNP government but even a slight reduction in their numbers makes it quite a bit harder for them. Lib Dems maybe become their preferred partners, possibly even Labour? If the numbers do work out such that there`s a big majority for independence in parliament, it wouldn`t really be feasible for them to refuse to work with the SNP unless they dropped any plans for a referendum, as Tavish Scott once did.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 14:21

If the snp can maintain their 59 constituency seats and at least one list and the Greens can maintain their 6 list seats then that`s the majority the snp need. They already do deals with the other parties to get finance bills through parliament. The price the Albas would want to extract from the snp for collaboration would be too high a price for many in the snp.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 14:39

What do you think that price would be?

I don`t see a coalition between the two as very likely either, but mainly because the two leaders have come to despise each other. I don`t think we have any detail yet policies of the new party so it`s hard to say where demands might be if they were to support an SNP government.

Also seems unlikely that Greens will win as many seats this time. They look to be the biggest losers with this and it wouldn`t surprise me (though it would sadden me) if they lost the lot.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 14:56

No I think a good few are considering lending their second vote to the Greens to help stop the Albas doing so well in the list. I know I am.
As for the price of cooperation I think you need to look at the issue that is driving so many of the right leaning section of the snp towards Alba.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Sun 28 Mar 17:38

Just announced Caroline McAllister until today the elected Woman's Convener of the SNP National Executive Committee will stand on the list for ALBA in the West of Scotland
for the Scottish Parliament.

Another strong independence candidate.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 04:19

Quote:

jake89, Sun 28 Mar 08:54

Will there be a by-election for Kirkcaldy? Hanvey has a poor reputation. Will Derek Mackay be next to go to Alba? 😂


Why would there be a by election in Kirkcaldy?
Neale was elected there as an independent with no support from the SNP as he was stitched up with an "anti-semitic" smear over social media posts.

He was basically cleared but undertook equalities training and his suspension lifted.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 08:03

Aye it was a stitch up which is why he apologised unreservedly and said his social media posts were `clearly unacceptable`.
He was suspended mid way through his campaign and so that was the end of his `official` snp support.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 09:14

Eva Comrie is the lady who was heading the SNP but now the ALBA PARTY'S list for Fife and Central Scotland


Constituency vote SNP
List vote ALBA

Archie Gemmill’s goal - everybody knows the one - in Argentina against The Netherlands on 11 June 1978. Jubilation in Scotland, we were no longer the underdogs and maybe, just maybe we were going through this time. That optimism and tartan terrier vision united a country. We need more of that, especially these days, but this time the outcome has to be a win for Scotland.
I’m not here to denigrate or insult the efforts of the SNP -  I have been proud  to campaign for them for decades - because I was playing for the Scottish jersey. That’s why I walked away from the SNP - they appointed me their number one on the Mid Scotland and Fife list - thereby guaranteeing that the only way I would be elected would be if one of their constituency candidates lost. That’s how it works. The more you get on the constituency, the less you get on the list.  The trick is to cover both. Manipulate it. Make it work to create  the very thing that has the Tories trying to recreate Better Together.
It’s not only Alex Salmond who has the Tories and Labour and the Lib Dems talking to each other - they’re just kidding on that they’ve ruled out a super pact - they’ll still be at it behind the scenes - they spotted what we know - you win Independence by winning the constituencies AND the list. But you can’t do that with one party - you need two parties, one on the constituencies and one on the list. 
Now is the time for a strategy that works in Scotland’s interests. The plan, the only fool proof way to get a supermajority of MSPs elected on a democratic vote, an instruction to deliver Independence, is to vote for a different Indy party on the list than the party you vote for in constituencies. 
Now is the time to get Scotland’s strategy, game plan, mapped out - with players from all the teams passing to each other. 
This is our best chance for Independence and may be our last. Are you really going to say to your children, friends, parents, conscience, well, we’re not independent because we don’t like that Alex Salmond?  He’s not immortal - I am.
But if you desire to  see Scotland independent then voting SNP1 ALBA2 is the way to get it. The reason for that is simple - the voting system was designed by the Unionists to prevent one single Independence party having an outright majority. You can try SNP1 and 2 this time if you want but if you do you’re going to find that this 2021 election becomes your Archie Gemmill moment. 
One million SNP votes on the list were wasted in 2016 - they got nobody elected. A million crosses silenced. Like the ‘uh’ in the stadium when the ball just skiffed the bar and sailed over the net. That would have been a goal if it had gone in.
If you want to get rid of Murdo and Annie and Alex Cole Hamilton how’s SNP x 2 going to achieve that?

Post Edited (Mon 29 Mar 10:51)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 10:55

Eva Comrie
Part 2

Alex Cole Hamilton how’s SNP x 2 going to achieve that? It won’t. It will keep them right where they are. So it’ll not be me and that Alex Salmond letting the Tories and the LibDems in, it’ll be you. You might as well hand the ball to the ref and walk off the park.
The ALBA party is not competing with the SNP for your first vote - ALBA positively encourages you to vote SNP1 and increase the size of their vote - aim to make every single constituency in Scotland SNP! If that happened they’d hear me in Boris’ livingroom.
But vote ALBA2 on the list - see those 1 million votes? Suddenly they’re screaming because they count. Roaring like Hampden.
If you vote 1 for SNP and 2 for ALBA we, the people of Scotland, will deliver a supermajority of MSPs chosen with one aim in mind - to achieve Independence for our country. 
And how enormous a message it will be for Boris, and the world, when we deliver an overwhelming contingent of like minded representatives enjoined with the task of negotiating the terms of our departure from the Union. 
No longer will there be any credence given to the line - the trouble with the Scots is they’re always falling out with themselves. Belligerent. Not team players. 
It’s not quite the World Cup, yet, but we’re shooting at an open goal. And the one legged ref (that’s me) has the whistle.
Let us make Independence happen - SNP1 ALBA 2  - Scotland scores!
I am, Yours for Scotland
Eva Comrie
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 11:47

She ignores the fact that other independence parties were formed before ALBA with the same goals and it`s a bit disingenuous to suggest that a supermajority for independence will `deliver an overwhelming contingent of like minded representatives enjoined with the task of negotiating the terms of our departure from the Union`. They`ll probably hate each other.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 12:04

`Archie Gemmill’s goal - everybody knows the one - in Argentina against The Netherlands on 11 June 1978. Jubilation in Scotland, we were no longer the underdogs and maybe, just maybe we were going through this time. That optimism and tartan terrier vision united a country.`

Her football references about Hampden and the like seem to belong a to bygone age. The optimism and `tartan terrier vision` created by Archie`s solo effort united the country for all of....4 minutes!
I assume ALBA wants to hang around a bit longer than that.

sammer
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 12:22

Quote:

sammer, Mon 29 Mar 12:04

`Archie Gemmill’s goal - everybody knows the one - in Argentina against The Netherlands on 11 June 1978. Jubilation in Scotland, we were no longer the underdogs and maybe, just maybe we were going through this time. That optimism and tartan terrier vision united a country.`

Her football references about Hampden and the like seem to belong a to bygone age. The optimism and `tartan terrier vision` created by Archie`s solo effort united the country for all of....4 minutes!
I assume ALBA wants to hang around a bit longer than that.


Well you're still talking about the goal .
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 13:42

Quote:

wee eck, Mon 29 Mar 11:47

She ignores the fact that other independence parties were formed before ALBA with the same goals and it`s a bit disingenuous to suggest that a supermajority for independence will `deliver an overwhelming contingent of like minded representatives enjoined with the task of negotiating the terms of our departure from the Union`. They`ll probably hate each other.


Other Independence parties that also stood against the SNP in constituencies, you mean?

If Alba can get above 20% of the list votes, they will get around 30 seats.

Assuming that the SNP continue to get around 60 constituency seats, that WILL be a ‘supermajority’.

The no.1 aim will be to attain indépendance.
Once that battle has been won, THEN we will see the discussion for the future path of our nation.

They might well ‘hate each other’, just as the Tory/Labour love-in for Better-Together was hardly a sweet relationship.
It’s a means to an end, no more, no less.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 13:54

Realistically, I`m sure the main aim of the other independence parties was to win some list seats. 20%+ of the list vote for ALBA seems very optimistic.

She talks about both parties negotiating the terms of departure from the union together. That would be the tricky bit. There will be little trust between the parties.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 14:27

"Realistically, I`m sure the main aim of the other independence parties was to win some list seats."
Realistically, that was their best chance of seats, however, none of them campaigned for SNP`s 2nd votes directly in this manner,

Simply, "Want Independence?, vote SNP1, Alba2"


20% was my guessed number, based on half of the SNP vote.

"One million SNP votes on the list were wasted in 2016 - they got nobody elected."

"The ALBA party is not competing with the SNP for your first vote - ALBA positively encourages you to vote SNP1"

As I said, I completed a spreadsheet extrapolation of the 2016 vote based on just under half of the SNP 2nd vote (41.7%) going to Alba.

Under the d’Hondt system, 20% of the vote with zero constituency seats would give 30+ list seats.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Mon 29 Mar 17:14

ALEX ARTHUR, the Commonwealth Gold Medallist and former WBO Champion of the World will make a sensational switch from the arena of boxing to enter the ring as an Alba Party Candidate for the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections.
Days after the launch of Alba, and following a number of political defections, the party has started to unveil what it promises will be an impressive slate of new candidates across Scotland, as Alba reignites the Yes movement in its quest for a supermajority for Independence.
“Amazing” Alex Arthur, is the latest big hitter to join the ranks of the Alba Party, and was one of Scotland’s most successful sportsmen, before establishing himself as a leading media commentator and inspiring coach to young athletes.
He won a gold medal for Scotland at the 1998 Commonwealth games, before being crowned WBO super-Featherweight Champion of the world in 2007.
The Alba party says that Arthur embodies its new approach to politics, harnessing talents from across the country, and bringing a much required focus on the need to invest in grassroots sports and health in Scotland’s communities, as a vital part of recovery from the Covid pandemic.

Post Edited (Mon 29 Mar 17:18)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 07:10

OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE
WORLD RANKED ECONOMIST TO STAND FOR ALBA 
Dr Jim Walker, chief economist at Aletheia Capital is to stand for the new Alba Party in the upcoming Scottish elections. 
A world-ranked economist who topped the Asiamoney poll for 11 years in succession Dr Walker has worked in Asia for many years. He is returning to his native Scotland from Hong Kong to contest the election in Central Scotland for the Alba Party, launched last week by former First Minister, Alex Salmond. 
Jim Walker said
“It is now time that the economic benefits of independence were recast for the post-Brexit age.
The success of small economies in the modern world - and there are many examples - depends on high human capital and access to global markets. 
Scotland should have both. Currently both are in jeopardy.
The task of this next Scottish Parliament is to put the country on the road to prosperity through claiming national independence. 
It is a good thing for the country to shape its economic destiny. No-one will run the Scottish economy better than the people of Scotland who have most invested in the country.
Thus the debate on national independence is not a substitute for concentrating on sustained economic recovery. It is a pre-requisite.”
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Buspasspar  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 08:31

Gaining momentum

We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 12:43

From Iain Lawsons blog today
THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016 IF SNP LIST VOTES WERE FOR ALBA!


So to put it simply instead of there being FOUR SNP LIST MSP’s there would have been 33 ALBA pro Indy MSP’s.
Most important of all, take a look at the Unionists. Instead of there being 24 Tories, there would have only been 12.
Likewise, instead of 21 Labour there would have been only 11.
The Liberals would have lost both their list seats and been reduced to zero
The Greens would have lost all five of their lists seats.
So an overall INCREASE of 24 pro Indy MSP’s
An overall DECREASE of 24 unionist MSP’s
WHAT IS NOT TO LIKE?
NO WONDER THE UNIONISTS ARE PETRIFIED!
Let the system work for us and Independence for a change.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 13:05

NO WONDER THE UNIONISTS ARE PETRIFIED!

There is already a pro indy majority in Holyrood, so NO WE ARE not!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 15:10

I see Mr Walker, the new recruit for Alibaba, called Sturgeon a cow. A cow leading sheep hee hee.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 16:12

And the childish comments continue.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: jake89  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 18:02

Alex Arthur already exposed for some ridiculous comments.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Tue 30 Mar 18:13

`exposed` - lol

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 11:29

"And the childish comments continue."

Do you mean the cow comment from the China based investment guy?

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 12:20

Kerevan the Westminster lockdown selfie eejit joined now. They haven`t even scraped the bottom of the barrel yet.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 13:24

Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 30 Mar 13:05

NO WONDER THE UNIONISTS ARE PETRIFIED!

There is already a pro indy majority in Holyrood, so NO WE ARE not!


Used to just shake my head in despair that so called proud Scots are happy to have all the major decisions made for them by others at Westminster. Now I can officially say they disgust me....

ISP and AFI have now folded so its SNP 1 and Alba or Green 2 for me.

The unionists are petrified by the way and have been since 2013 and will play every dirty trick in the book to thwart independence.

If ALBA succeed in getting 20-30 list votes seats and pro independence parties have a large majority then we are having Indy ref 2 and Parboiled and the rest of the anti Scottish Brit nats can just suck it up...…..

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 15:32

Quote:

Parboiled, Tue 30 Mar 15:10

A cow leading sheep hee hee.


It’s quite clear where the childish comment is - complete with toddler giggle

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 16:04

[Post Deleted] - Reported as abusive
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 16:15

anti Anglophobic ??
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 16:25

Quote:

Parboiled, Wed 31 Mar 16:04

anti Scottish Brit nats - naw, just anti Anglophobic assholes like you.


Applause...
Grammatical nonsense and abuse in just 3 words.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 18:52

ALBA RELEASE CANDIDATES LIST

The new ALBA Party have met their target of standing four candidates in every regional list across Scotland.
ALBA has 18 women and 14 men on the list.
ALBA has six current or former MPs and MSPs on the list
ALBA has seven serving Councillors on the list.
ALBA has three BAME candidates on the list
Party Leader Alex Salmond said“This is a thrilling list with a depth of talent, diversity and experience which I am proud to lead into the election.Five days ago I asked how many would rally to the ALBA standard. The answer comes in this hugely impressive list today.ALBA is set to make a big impact as we seek to build the #Supermajority for independence in the next Scottish Parliament.”
CANDIDATES DETAILS
South Scotland
Cynthia Guthrie 
Corri Wilson 
Suzanne Blackley 
Laurie Flynn 

Lothian
Kenny MacAskill MP 
Alex Arthur 
Christina Hendry 
Irshad Ahmed

Glasgow
Cllr Michelle Fearns 
Ailsa Gray 
Cllr Shahid Farooq 
Lynn McMahon

North East Scotland
Alex Salmond 
Heather McLean 
Cllr Brian Topping 
Dot Jessima

West Scotland
Cllr Chris McEleny 
Cllr Caroline McAllister 
Cllr Ellen McMaster 
Delia Henry

Central Scotland
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh 
Cllr Lynne Anderson 
Dr Jim Walker 
Margaret Lynch

Mid Scotland and Fife
Eva Comrie 
Neale Hanvey MP 
Jim Eadie 
Stephanie Reilly

Highlands and Islands
Kirk Torrance 
Craig Berry 
Josh Robertson 
Judith Reid
ALBA - TOP TEN FOR DIVERSITY
18 women
7 serving councillors
6 current or former parliamentarians
3 BAME candidates
3 candidates with disabilities
2 serving MPs
2 economists
1 Gaelic speaker
1 former champion boxer
1 Former First Minister

KEY STATS 
WOMEN 18 = 56%
MEN 14 = 44%

Post Edited (Wed 31 Mar 18:57)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 19:11

"anti Anglophobic ??"

I stand corrected, He is Anglophobic and anti Scots who aren`t Nats.




Post Edited (Wed 31 Mar 19:40)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 19:25

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh - that must be record, been in more parties than Cherry has chins

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 20:57

Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 31 Mar 19:11

"anti Anglophobic ??"

I stand corrected, He is Anglophobic and anti Scots who aren`t Nats.


Not an Anglophobic bone in my body.

But you are undoubtedly anti Scotland, and therefore anti Scottish.

You are happy for politicians in London to run our affairs , rather than the people who live and work in Scotland, who certainly know what Scotland needs far better than a bunch of right wing fascists that currently run the U.K.

Scotland can do so much better and the only way to give ourselves the chance of a better future is to boot Boris and co into the long grass and become independent.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 22:05

The two million who, like me, voted No were all anti Scottish then?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Wed 31 Mar 23:14

No. Many were duped by WM lies. And many regret voting No and many have changed their minds

But you revel in it , being anti independence, you embrace it. You are the epitome of a Scot who has no faith in their fellow countrymen and women to make a better country, a fairer country for all who live here.

You entrust WM with all our resources, to make all the decisions for us.

They have failed us and are only interested in enriching their friends.

You are anti Scotland. Why else would you not want Scotland to be a normal independent country ? Like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, New Zealand, Croatia and a host of others.

All of the above are doing rather nicely, and so would we.

Brit Nat mentality that you possess in abundance prevents you from wanting the best for your country and happily accepts second best. Being dictated to and ridiculed by the politicians and media of our larger neighbour next door.

Thankfully the Union is in its death throes.

I hope you embrace the newly independent nation of Scotland.

It will make you proud....

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 07:01

Quote:

Parboiled, Wed 31 Mar 19:25

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh - that must be record, been in more parties than Cherry has chins


No ,Graham Campbell the SNP BAME List candidate has been in more parties.
Check him out apparently got 3% of the constituency vote but went straight to the top of the list.
That's what happens when the membership loses control of the NEC.

List vote ALBA
Constituency vote SNP
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 08:59

“.....and many have changed their minds”

That’s not a one way street, and the polls suggest a 50/50 split, with the don’t knows a potential deciding factor.

I’ll give you benefit of the doubt on Anglophobia, though it is rife, but 50% of your fellow citizens this side of the border is an awful lot to hate. So I’m far from being alone, there might even be a few on here given that the referendum result in this area mirrored the National outcome. Some of that silent majority...just keeping heads down.

So away and join the new All Loopy Bam Army, you are just the type they’re hoovering up.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 09:05

Quote:

Parboiled, Thu 1 Apr 08:59

“.....and many have changed their minds”

That’s not a one way street, and the polls suggest a 50/50 split, with the don’t knows a potential deciding factor.

I’ll give you benefit of the doubt on Anglophobia, though it is rife, but 50% of your fellow citizens this side of the border is an awful lot to hate. So I’m far from being alone, there might even be a few on here given that the referendum result in this area mirrored the National outcome. Some of that silent majority...just keeping heads down.

So away and join the new All Loopy Bam Army, you are just the type they’re hoovering up.


Let's get the foreign funded parties out of the Scottish Parliament

List vote ALBA
Constituency vote SNP
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 10:20

I’ll give you benefit of the doubt on Anglophobia, though it is rife, but 50% of your fellow citizens this side of the border is an awful lot to hate. So I’m far from being alone, there might even be a few on here given that the referendum result in this area mirrored the National outcome. Some of that silent majority...just keeping heads down.

So away and join the new All Loopy Bam Army, you are just the type they’re hoovering up.


And you have just proved my point. Just keeping your head down you say, not even considering the merits of being Independent like the countries mentioned above- no not for Scotland......Being Independent and normal?...no...does not makes sense does it? Imagine running you own affairs ? Imagine making decisions in your own country for your own people ? Imagine deciding if you want Nuclear Weapons ? Na none of that thinking for ourselves stuff, not when you can let some others do it for us and more often than not, badly..

What a pathetic attitude to have.....

I don`t hate anyone ( well apart from Boris and his mates ) and I do understand why many folk voted No and may do so again when you consider the bombardment of negativity that we are subjected to.

But I will be clear and unequivocal, people like your self who will not even consider independence and are completely and utterly against self determination and who are willing to just sit back and let the most right wing government in history decide what`s best for us, whilst revelling at the prospect, are beneath contempt....

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 15:36

“Let’s get the foreign funded parties out”

Yes indeed, let’s not even let the Kremlin funded Alba in!

Oh btw Desperado, are you a UDI fan? That’s what this crew of headbangers are hinting at. You gonna hit the streets or cower under your Saltire duvet?

As for Sturgeon, she’s been slagging her one time hero off for months. Now she says she’ll work with him if he apologises to the women complainers. So that’s ok then...

She just doesn’t get it, he’s out to destroy her.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 16:00

Oh btw Desperado, are you a UDI fan? That’s what this crew of headbangers are hinting at. You gonna hit the streets or cower under your Saltire duvet?

UDI don`t be daft, that is for Autonomous regions and does not usually happen peacefully at least.

Scotland is an equal partner in the family of nations - a Country - at least that is what Cameron said in the run up to the Referendum. So no need for UDI. We can withdraw from the Union any time we like, just as England would from the UK if it so desired....they would certainly not ask our permission so why should we ask for theirs ?

I know you cant stomach the thought of your country being thought of as just that, you, for whatever reason prefer Scotland to be a region of the UK aka England.


You for what ever reason, do not want the people of your country making decisions for themselves , you for what ever reason, prefer Scotland to be subservient and grateful for every penny of OUR tax revenues that WM decides to send to us, whilst asking us to doff our bunnets at the same time. You for what ever reason, are happy to see our democratically elected representatives mocked and ridiculed at every turn. You it seems to me would be perfectly happy if WM closed down Holyrood, made it illegal to support independence and imposed direct rule.

As I said, you and your British Nationalist ilk are beneath contempt. Scotlands shame.....

Now away and put some Ver Lynn music on, watch a WW II movie and reminisce about past Glories, when Britannia ruled the waves, maybe even put some OO flute band music on.

Get ready to see your beloved Unionist Parties destroyed on May 6th...…...



Post Edited (Thu 01 Apr 16:01)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 16:17

UDI?

It`s a threat, a banner, a nasty acronym, an often violent ripping apart of a corrupt dictatorship.

But in this case, I suspect a possible false flag to get the rabid unionists all riled up.

What UDI is not, is a genuine policy of any realistic party with a diplomatic plan to go forward.


One of the unionist claims - Spain is going to veto Scotland`s entry to EU - would ONLY actually happen in this case.

Spain has stated quite clearly that they "will not block Scotland`s entry into the European Union if independence is legally achieved."

For the hard of thinking - "Legally achieved" is precisely why Sturgeon has been `banging on` about winning a mandate for a referendum, and not a mandate to declare independence...

Such an independence by UDI would work, and would be recognised by the major bodies (UN, EU etc) but would not be supported by countries that have their own internal secession problems.

Ergo - they only way to achieve the `dream` of rejoining the EU is by successful referendum and agreed split of the UK.
- Not that I actually support rejoining EU!


I do not think that Salmond is after Sturgeon... Ellis is the target, IMHO.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 17:21

Quote:

Parboiled, Thu 1 Apr 15:36

“Let’s get the foreign funded parties out”

Yes indeed, let’s not even let the Kremlin funded Alba in!

Oh btw Desperado, are you a UDI fan? That’s what this crew of headbangers are hinting at. You gonna hit the streets or cower under your Saltire duvet?

As for Sturgeon, she’s been slagging her one time hero off for months. Now she says she’ll work with him if he apologises to the women complainers. So that’s ok then...

She just doesn’t get it, he’s out to destroy her.


You ragin partboiled ?

LIST VOTE ALBA
CONSTITUENCY VOTE SNP

LETS RID SCOTLAND OF BOTH THE
RED & BLUE TORIES ALONG WITH
WILLIE WHO
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 19:27

From today`s Press and Journal;

~~~~Alex Salmond’s hopes of returning to frontline politics and securing a “supermajority” for independence at May’s Holyrood election are doomed, shock new Alba Party polling has suggested.

The Survation poll, carried out exclusively for DC Thomson, found the former first minister’s pro-independence party, Alba Party, to be seriously lagging behind the other major parties – with only 3% of Scots saying they would offer support at the ballot box.

The poll also returned some eyebrow-raising results for Mr Salmond himself, with 71% of Scots saying they viewed the former SNP boss unfavourably – by far the worst result for any mainstream political leader in the UK.

Polling expert Sir John Curtice, speaking on the back of the survey, told us “it looks as though it’s all over for Salmond”.

More than half of Scots polled also held the view that Mr Salmond was “hindering the cause for Scottish independence”, compared with only 17% who said his contribution was helping the independence movement.

More than 1,000 Scottish residents were surveyed for the poll over March 29 and March 30.

The results put the SNP ahead in both constituency and list votes, on 49% and 37% respectively, while the Tories sit on 21% and 18%, Labour 20% and 19%, the Liberal Democrats on 9% and 8%, the Greens on 11% in the list and the Alba Party trailing on 3%.

Polling experts have said the figures translate to a narrow majority for the SNP on 66 MSPs, with Labour in second on 24, Tories on 21, Greens on 11 and Lib Dems on 7.

In terms of individual favourability, Nicola Sturgeon leads the pack with 50% of Scots having a favourable view of the first minister.


In contrast, only 17% of people have a favourable view of Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross and 22% have a positive view of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar.

The standout result, however, is for Mr Salmond, who only racks up 10% favourability – with 71% having a negative view of the former SNP leader.

The closest figure to Mr Salmond in terms of unpopularity is Boris Johnson, who is viewed unfavourably by 56% of Scots.
Polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said: “The headline is that it looks as though it’s all over for Salmond, though he might just get a seat in the north-east himself.

“But this is not what he needs if he is going to get his campaign to take off.

“If other polls come out over the weekend with similar numbers then he ain’t going to get broadcast coverage because the broadcasters will be able to say ‘you’re not a significant player in this election’.”

Prof Curtice said Mr Salmond was failing to cut through among younger SNP voters.

“Among SNP 2019 voters, Sturgeon has 87% favourability, Salmond 12%. He’s not convincing them, he’s not getting his argument across to that key constituency,” he said.

Mr Salmond aside, Prof Curtice said the poll was also “bad news for the Unio

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 19:31

Press and Journal article continued
~~~He said: “Point one to note is that the immediate fallout from the Hamilton inquiry, the parliamentary inquiry and Salmond’s intervention is basically zero, because support for independence is at 50/50, which is what it’s been at for a while.

“Support for the SNP is also down by a statistically insignificant amount. On these numbers the SNP would just get a majority.

“So the attempts to inflict serious damage on the SNP and the independence movement through trying to nail Sturgeon over the parliamentary inquiry has failed.” ~~~~

Still five weeks to go but not a good start for Alba despite the fanfare of publicity and propaganda pumped out over the last six days.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 19:49

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Thu 1 Apr 19:31

Press and Journal article continued
~~~He said: “Point one to note is that the immediate fallout from the Hamilton inquiry, the parliamentary inquiry and Salmond’s intervention is basically zero, because support for independence is at 50/50, which is what it’s been at for a while.

“Support for the SNP is also down by a statistically insignificant amount. On these numbers the SNP would just get a majority.

“So the attempts to inflict serious damage on the SNP and the independence movement through trying to nail Sturgeon over the parliamentary inquiry has failed.” ~~~~

Still five weeks to go but not a good start for Alba despite the fanfare of publicity and propaganda pumped out over the last six days.


Keep the faith TOWKS
The parties not even a week old yet.
LIST VOTE ALBA
CONSTITUENCY VOTE SNP

Both votes SNP gives us Murdo Fraser and a load more Unionists in Holyrood for another 5 years
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 20:19

With nothing but negative press, and repeated claims that Salmond is attacking the SNP & Sturgeon?

5 weeks is a long time in politics...

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 22:30

Oh dear Desperado do keep up.

Cherry, MacNeil, and plenty of others in the SNP have been advocating UDI for a long time. Now the even bampottier element like MacAskill and Kerevan are joining the fray.

Time for berets and pitchforks. Wee Dougie Chapman is a veteran of the Catalonian revolt and could lend you his. Gird you loins and iron your girdle, destiny awaits

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 23:22

Well I may have missed SNP MP’s advocating UDI. Not saying there have not been any. Cherry? Really?

I would be obliged if you could show me a quote.

Just because I am in favour of independence does not necessarily mean I agree with everything they say, and I don’t believe UDI is the way to go when we can just dissolve the Union.

WM has broken the treaty of Union so often that Scotland has every right to just tell them that we are leaving, however garnering enough support is essential.

Getting an Indy majority....again... is the first step. Second step, we have a referendum with or without WM consent. Third step, the inevitable Yes win and bingo....game over.

If you are looking for bampots look no further than your masters in WM. Who have increased poverty, food banks, child poverty, had to be shamed into providing free school meals, offered a derisory pay rise to the NHS and have overseen a rise in serious crime in England.. meanwhile in Scotland it has fallen significantly since SNP came to power. Even you must be happy about that....surely?

Of course for you, British Nationalist bampots are fine, it is only your Scottish versions that need ridiculing.

With regards to your earlier comment about the silent majority, I think you will find that ship has sailed and the silent majority next time will be more likely to vote Yes.

I mean nobody in their right mind could support a government that has so blatantly lied to the British people, broke the law on numerous occasions, shovelled Billions into their friends bank accounts under the pretence of acquiring PPE, and is about to embark on the biggest attack on Scottish democracy in living memory......well you could of course.....

Not long now, just five more weeks.

Is it Tory or Labour for you?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Andrew283  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 23:38

List vote green thanks
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Thu 1 Apr 23:40

Yip prob Green on the list for me too....

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 06:14

SNP 1, Green 2 for me.

Nae way I'll be helping that chancer Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh into Holyrood otherwise I would have considered Alba.

Honestly I think its good to have another pro-Independence party and an alternative vision of an Independent Scotland.

I honestly think anyone claiming the union serves Scotland well or can be saved is on a hiding to nothing - it's time to get the constitution settled and build a Constitutional Republic.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 07:14

Voting SNP & Greens will see us give up on Independence, and getting another batch of crackpot bills going through Holyrood which during the last session seen the removal of protection to woman and freedom of speech etc, keeping all the same troughfers on their inflated wages while Westminster removes more powers from Holywood turning it into a glorified Toon Cooncil.

Alternatively vote below and the single most important policy will be back on the agenda "INDEPENDENCE "
Voting otherwise will once again see the present incumbents promise so much but deliver so little.

CONSTITUENCY VOTE SNP
LIST VOTE ALBA

And hopefully in 10 years time both of these party's will be a footnote in history with Scotland independent.

Post Edited (Fri 02 Apr 07:14)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 08:12

Will probably be snp 1 and 2 for me. If I loved in Glasgow it would be green for the list vote but in Fife I think there could still be room for another snp candidate to get a seat though I`ll have to confirm that before voting. If not then it`s snp 1 green 2.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: donj  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 08:34

This article gives you an idea how voting both works.


https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/04/01/the-both-votes-snp-argument-2/

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 08:46

Based on the 2014 stats, 55% of us voted for the side that won a handsome victory, but you’d never know it looking at this one sided non stop steam of Braveheart bollox.
Don’t be feart, show yourselves!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 08:47

Seems Green it is then.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 08:56

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Fri 2 Apr 08:12

Will probably be snp 1 and 2 for me. If I loved in Glasgow it would be green for the list vote but in Fife I think there could still be room for another snp candidate to get a seat though I`ll have to confirm that before voting. If not then it`s snp 1 green 2.


Couldn't disagree with your choices if I was wanting 5 more years of the same, unfortunately with the UK now out the EU and the Tory landslide I fear our governments powers will be eroded piece by piece.
Two examples to ponder is the erosion of the Barnett formula and the bypassing of the Scottish Parliament to fund the local councils
Just the start with more to follow .
The tories talk more about independence than the previous coalition in the Scottish Parliament (unless they're wanting your vote)

To Wee,To Small, To Stupid Thats what they said about the Scots

CONSTITUENCY VOTE SNP
LIST VOTE ALBA
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 08:58

Don`t see how increasing the green vote can hinder the cause but then the reason many are thinking about voting for Alba has nothing to do with independence.

We all hate poverty, war, and injustice.
Unlike the rest of you squares.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 09:31

Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 2 Apr 08:46

Based on the 2014 stats, 55% of us voted for the side that won a handsome victory, but you’d never know it looking at this one sided non stop steam of Braveheart bollox.
Don’t be feart, show yourselves!



You are the epitome of a brain washed Britnat and you are brim full of ....cringe..


Imagine not wanting your country to be normal.

I would have great difficulty in explaining that to folk in other normal independent countries, explaining why it is better for Scotland and Scotland alone to be ruled , badly from afar...

In fact in the years since the referendum I have tried to explain to various nationalities who were curious why there was a No vote and none of them have managed to grasp the mentality that would be required to refuse the chance we had.

When we vote Yes next time you can explain to folks from afar the folly , the madness of voting to be a normal independent country in your typical angry Britnat gnashing of teeth way, I am sure they will understand......not

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 10:16

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Fri 2 Apr 08:58

Don`t see how increasing the green vote can hinder the cause but then the reason many are thinking about voting for Alba has nothing to do with independence.


Why do you think NS said yesterday she wasn't interested in a supermajority but would be fine with small majority, which in effect means more unionist seats?

Beggers believe that the leader of the SNP prefers working with Unionists rather than Independence parties.

CONSTITUENCY VOTE SNP
LIST VOTE ALBA
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 10:28

Could it be that she doesn`t fancy working with someone who has been determined to undermine her for the last year and is apparently still pursuing legal action against her government?

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 11:05

I’m not angry Despers, just having a laugh.

Better check your fire extinguisher is working though, the wisps of smoke coming oot your hooter a sure sign of imminent spontaneous combustion.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Tenruh  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 11:15

Quote:

wee eck, Fri 2 Apr 10:28

Could it be that she doesn`t fancy working with someone who has been determined to undermine her for the last year and is apparently still pursuing legal action against her government?


If you've nothing to fear you've nothing to hide.

The three legal actions which so far AS has had to contest have been won by him.

The most expensive one cost the government in excess of£512,000 . His costs in defending this illegal action was in excess of £585,000.

The action's he is now pursuing is on recommendations that the two inquiries found unanswered mainly due to the Scottish Government's negligence in supplying the evidence required.

But let's get positive Wee Eck and fight for independence together, this might be our last chance....

CONSTITUENCY VOTE SNP
LIST VOTE ALBA
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 11:33

All I`m saying is that it would be difficult to work with someone who was suing you. It would be naive to think otherwise.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: desparado  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 11:43

Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 2 Apr 11:05

I’m not angry Despers, just having a laugh.

Better check your fire extinguisher is working though, the wisps of smoke coming oot your hooter a sure sign of imminent spontaneous combustion.


Zzzzzz.

Currently chilled out sitting on a beach, watching the waves rolling up onto the golden sands, palm trees swaying gently in the very welcome breeze, beautiful ladies, sun shining, 35 deg, with a cold drink in hand....and good company of course. An Englishman and an Ozzy, both of whom are very much in favour of an independent Scotland.

I tried to explain to them both rationally that there really are people like you in Scotland, they find it hard to believe. I took the liberty of showing them a couple of your childish posts......The Ozzies reply was top drawer. I could not post it on here though, but I am sure you can imagine.....

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 13:06

Good a good Aussie joke.
Guy walks into a bar, sees an attractive young lady “ Hi Sheila, fancy a sh*g?”
“ Wow, you sure know how to get a girl into bed you smooth talking bastard” says she ...
Redneck tinny swillers..

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 13:13

Oh Despers..there’s a lot of English people in favour of Scottish Indy, and I can’t really blame them.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 13:33

A lot of them live in Scotland...

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: donj  
Date:   Fri 2 Apr 13:47

I actually had a cousin who had the chat up line of `Any chance of a loan of a ride till Friday.I`ll pay you back then.`.Surprisingly it occasionally worked.Admittedly we grew up in Methil where language was a bit less refined in those days.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sturgeon v Salmond
Topic Originator: Parboiled  
Date:   Sat 3 Apr 13:28

Rumours of Indy fund missing loot. Maybe Ali Baba Eck can uncover if there has been any thieving and by how many - forty?

No smoke without fire says a me. Har har!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


Rows: 1
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email:
© 2021-- DAFC.net