|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 26 Mar 13:38
Sky news in 20 minutes.
Post Edited (Fri 26 Mar 13:47)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 26 Mar 14:16
Hell hath no fury like an entitled man scorned
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Fri 26 Mar 14:23
The no saint party.
Ego eck ego.
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 26 Mar 15:07
He`s turning into the George Galloway of the independence movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 26 Mar 15:11
Quote:
Jbob, Fri 26 Mar 14:23
The no saint party.
Ego eck ego.
If only the late Ian St John was still with us. He and Eck could have teamed up to form the Saint and no saint party.......
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 26 Mar 15:22
This is no time for levity, though I imagine Nicola will be levitating at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Fri 26 Mar 15:56
It`s an interesting one. If this new party can get 10% of the regional SNP vote then that would probably increase the number of independence seats by 3 or 4. If they can get 20 or 30% then the independence parties might reach 80/129 seats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:00
It`s a clever move.
Hilariously, all the DM readers are `c*ck-a-hoop` thinking that the Independence vote has just been split in half...
He has launched a LIST ONLY party.
This will most likely win a number of seats from the Tories and Labour, whilst losing practically none from SNP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:28
Aye but then we could be in the horrendous position if having Salmond as kingmaker. I usually just vote snp on both ballots but I might change my list vote to the greens. I`m not enthusiastic about some of their policies but I`d rather see them in the hot seat than Salmond.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:29
It's a win win for independence. Imagine we might have seen the last of Murdo Fraser.
Left SNP on Wednesday and joined ALBA today.
Post Edited (Fri 26 Mar 16:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:32
How many pro-Independence parties are now contending this election? Couldn`t they end up cutting each others` throats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:48
Suppose some will now switch loyalties to the new party.
But what if they try to get their “ring fenced” donations to the SNP Indy fund back? I believe one of Salmond’s candidates was one of the auditors of the books!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:50
As long as everyone votes SNP on the constituency vote, no it won't think it will have any effect as the SNP could possibly win enough seats there alone.
The SNP are spitting blood at the moment but surely its better having a super indy vote rather than relying on the Greens.
And reducing the Unionist vote at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:53
Quote:
Parboiled, Fri 26 Mar 16:48
Suppose some will now switch loyalties to the new party.
But what if they try to get their “ring fenced” donations to the SNP Indy fund back? I believe one of Salmond’s candidates was one of the auditors of the books!
I donated £600 to that fund and believe me when I say that money is long gone
Post Edited (Fri 26 Mar 17:14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 26 Mar 16:53
I reckon Salmond would see the independence movement burn if he could rule over the ashes.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 26 Mar 17:47
"As long as everyone votes SNP on the constituency vote, no it won`t think it will have any effect as the SNP could possibly win enough seats there alone."
There are 129 seats.
73 constituency seats
56 regional (list) seats
It would take a stunning performance to win 65+ constituency seats .
SNP had 59/73 constituency seats plus only 4 regional seats.
- screwed over by the d`Hondt system:
SNP got 41.7% of the regional votes, but received 4 list seats - 7% of the available seats.
Tories got 22.9% of regional votes, but attained 24 seats - 42.8% of seats.
Labour got 19.1% of regional votes, got 21 seats - 37.5% of seats
BUT
Imagine the same regional voting in 2021 (I know it is unlikely to be `same` but just as example)
BUT just under HALF of the SNP regional vote goes to Alba...(i used 20%)
Alba would get more than 30 list seats!!!
(spreadsheet and workings are available)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 26 Mar 20:39
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 26 Mar 16:53
I reckon Salmond would see the independence movement burn if he could rule over the ashes.
You really have to question his motives. I wonder how many women will vote for him after his admission of inappropriate behaviour towards them when he was FM.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Fri 26 Mar 20:52
Isnt Murdo Fraser a Tory?
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 26 Mar 21:00
Quote:
GG Riva, Fri 26 Mar 20:39
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 26 Mar 16:53
I reckon Salmond would see the independence movement burn if he could rule over the ashes.
You really have to question his motives. I wonder how many women will vote for him after his admission of inappropriate behaviour towards them when he was FM.
The only inappropriate behaviour he alluded to was a cuddle in which he apologised for and offered to let the woman work in another department. She accepted apology and continued working for Alex Salmond for a further two years.
This inappropriate behaviour thing has grown arms and legs.
As to this news, for anyone who is independence minded, it is very positive news as far as representation at Holyrood potentially.
I have been at a quandary recently as to my votes.
I was and am still SNP 1 but my 2nd vote has been a real dilemma for me as I know in this area, a vote for SNP on the list vote would be wasted and a unionist elected.
I really don’t like the Greens but before today they probably would have got it only because of their pro Indy stance.
The other pop up Indy parties simply aren’t credible.
This one does so I now know where it is going.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 26 Mar 21:27
I`d say having a `a consensual sexual laison`, his words, with a woman who he was essentially the boss of is inappropriate behaviour for a married First Minister of Scotland. Not illegal though.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 26 Mar 21:38
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 26 Mar 21:27
I`d say having a `a consensual sexual laison`, his words, with a woman who he was essentially the boss of is inappropriate behaviour for a married First Minister of Scotland. Not illegal though.
It is but the only other woman he needs apologising to was his wife.
When you think of all the other affairs that have went on in Westminster and Holyrood, what people are pinning on Alex Salmond is really quite minimal given he was acquitted in court.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 26 Mar 22:34
Since Holyrood opened for business in 1999 there have been three MSPs who constitute a clear and obvious threat to the status quo. The first was Tommy Sheridan whose party as such was small but was gearing up to form a coalition with the SNP at the upcoming election when Sheridan was accused of sexual shenanigans. The BBC later managed to obtain footage of his police interview and that of his wife too, who was accused of adopting IRA anti-interrogation tactics. The subsequent trials effectively ended the SSP as a political player in Scotland so the man who had been partly responsible for the fall of Margaret Thatcher through his high profile anti-poll tax campaign had been eliminated.
The second was Alex Salmond who managed to form a minority government without SSP help in 2007 and then went on to win an overall majority in 2011. This was unsettling but so long as opinion polls suggested support for independence was around 30%, containable. That changed in 2014 when the referendum revealed 45% for independence. Salmond then eliminated himself, allowing his protégé Nicola Sturgeon to take on the fight which she has done effectively enough to be regarded as a threat in her own right. When calls for a second referendum were made Salmond fell victim to the same type of allegations which had done for Sheridan, allegations that placed Nicola Sturgeon in a no-win situation: she could be viewed as either a schemer trying to blacken her ex-boss’s name; or as a friend who had been covering up his activities for years. Once again the BBC had a hatchet job to hand which presumably required some editing when Salmond was found not guilty.
Neat work and a test of the Scottish people’s capacity to judge events soberly and in proportion. I hope we don’t fail the test.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 27 Mar 21:20
The accusations against Salmond are very different from those against Sheridan.
There was never any suggestion that Sheridan acted without the consent of his partner(s).
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 27 Mar 22:28
The allegations against Salmond were proved to be false as he left the court an innocent man.
Unlike his accusers who were found out to be liars.
Surprisingly all worked for the Scottish Government or were senior figures in the SNP.
Furthermore Police Scotland are believed to have had 22 officers investigating Salmond interviewing 400 women taking 700 interviews with nothing untoward found.
The British Establishment fear two Scottish politicians and Sturgeon isn't one of them.
Post Edited (Sat 27 Mar 22:29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 27 Mar 22:29
I agreee,
But by their nature any sexual accusations are very hard to prove or disprove.
In effect you can smear anyone with a sexual allegation and never be proved wrong.
Even if you lose the subsequent legal proceedings you are still guaranteed anonymity. So it`s not unlike a free bet.
Is it not strange that any high profile politician in Scotland succumbs to sexual indiscretion? Is it in our genes, our culture? Or our credibility.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 28 Mar 10:29
But Sheridan's indiscretion wasn't sexual, it was perjury.
If he had copped to being in a non-monogomous relationship I doubt it would have lost him too many votes given the platform he stood on. It would hardly have been seen as hypocrisy. Perhaps he could have even helped to destigmatise his preferred relationship model.
The main difference is that Sheridan could have embraced the accusations. It was more his attempt to cover them up that did for him.
I'm going to this trouble, by the way, because I find it awful that accusations of consensual interactions can be equivicated with accusations of serious sexual assault.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
Post Edited (Sun 28 Mar 10:30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Sun 28 Mar 11:52
All Ladies Be Aware
Party
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 28 Mar 13:55
I think there are a couple of things that should be challenged
The first is that accusing someone of abuse is a “free bet”. Standing up in court can be a traumatic and intimidating experience and one which many victims would be reluctant to undergo. Abusers can rely on this to get away with their crimes. (I think a number of television documentaries on child abuse in Football have been broadcast recently which should illustrate this point).
The second is that if the accused is not found guilty then the victims or witnesses must have been lying. This is not so. A juror must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime – they could be “pretty sure” but without, for example, corroborating evidence there may be just enough residual doubt to render them unable to convict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Sun 28 Mar 18:06
Yep obviously it must be distressing standing up in court accusing a man of trying to rape you when you were not even in the building.Obviously he got away with this charge even if she was pretty sure it was a good story.Perjury perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 28 Mar 18:07
^^^ Good post, MT.
I'll be interested to see if anyone who thinks AS is squeaky clean, will contradict your observations in a convincing, rational manner.
Smoke without fire?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 28 Mar 18:42
Quote:
GG Riva, Sun 28 Mar 18:07
^^^ Good post, MT.
I'll be interested to see if anyone who thinks AS is squeaky clean, will contradict your observations in a convincing, rational manner.
Smoke without fire?
That’s one of the worst things to say in the case of sexual abuse given that I know people personally who were accused of rape and found innocent and locally the accuser known to have lied about it but she remains anonymous and played the system.
Why should you say such a thing as ‘smoke without fire’ or don’t you accept a jury decision?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 28 Mar 18:56
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Sun 28 Mar 18:42
Quote:
GG Riva, Sun 28 Mar 18:07
^^^ Good post, MT.
I'll be interested to see if anyone who thinks AS is squeaky clean, will contradict your observations in a convincing, rational manner.
Smoke without fire?
That’s one of the worst things to say in the case of sexual abuse given that I know people personally who were accused of rape and found innocent and locally the accuser known to have lied about it but she remains anonymous and played the system.
Why should you say such a thing as ‘smoke without fire’ or don’t you accept a jury decision?
Of course there are people who have been accused of rape who have been found innocent because they were not guilty, AAPS. Equally there are others who have been found innocent, because the evidence submitted did not provide conclusive proof of guilt. I thought McCaig's Tower put forward a good argument for the other point of view. I'm not accusing AS of anything - that's why I put a question mark at the end of my post.
I would suggest that Alex Salmond didn't always help himself, as he admits 're his "inappropriate behaviour." The only people who really know what went on are those involved. None of us can be absolutely certain as to who was telling the truth and who wasn't. It's even possible that neither side gave a completely accurate version of events.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 28 Mar 21:18
Quote:
GG Riva, Sun 28 Mar 18:56
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Sun 28 Mar 18:42
Quote:
GG Riva, Sun 28 Mar 18:07
^^^ Good post, MT.
I'll be interested to see if anyone who thinks AS is squeaky clean, will contradict your observations in a convincing, rational manner.
Smoke without fire?
That’s one of the worst things to say in the case of sexual abuse given that I know people personally who were accused of rape and found innocent and locally the accuser known to have lied about it but she remains anonymous and played the system.
Why should you say such a thing as ‘smoke without fire’ or don’t you accept a jury decision?
Of course there are people who have been accused of rape who have been found innocent because they were not guilty, AAPS. Equally there are others who have been found innocent, because the evidence submitted did not provide conclusive proof of guilt. I thought McCaig's Tower put forward a good argument for the other point of view. I'm not accusing AS of anything - that's why I put a question mark at the end of my post.
I would suggest that Alex Salmond didn't always help himself, as he admits 're his "inappropriate behaviour." The only people who really know what went on are those involved. None of us can be absolutely certain as to who was telling the truth and who wasn't. It's even possible that neither side gave a completely accurate version of events.
Even more reason why you shouldn’t say ‘no smoke without fire’ then
He was put on trial and acquitted.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 28 Mar 21:42
^^^ I was asking a question, not making a statement of fact, AAPS. I know he was acquitted, but as MT tried to put across, courts can only convict in cases of absolute certainty, rather than on the grounds of probability, which is how it should be.
Not everyone who is in jail is guilty and not everyone who is guilty goes to jail.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 29 Mar 02:11
We've got not proven in Scotland which was used on one charge against him I believe but the rest were not guilty so I'd guess the jurors must have been fairly sure he was innocent of most charges or they'd have come back as not proven as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 29 Mar 13:29
"courts can only convict in cases of absolute certainty, rather than on the grounds of probability, which is how it should be."
wow.
So we don`t need to prove that someone is guilty, only show that they `probably` done it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 29 Mar 14:27
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Mon 29 Mar 13:29
"courts can only convict in cases of absolute certainty, rather than on the grounds of probability, which is how it should be."
wow.
So we don`t need to prove that someone is guilty, only show that they `probably` done it?
Indeed and it’s a sorry indictment of our court system.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Mon 29 Mar 15:19
Lux, AAPS, which part of "which is how it should be" did you not understand?
It's only in civil cases that a defendant can be found guilty on the grounds of probability.
Perhaps you believe that everyone who is imprisoned is guilty of a crime and everyone who is acquitted is innocent? History is littered with miscarriages of justice.
Eta. I've just realised the 2 posts above this were either sarcasm or a wind up. ☹
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Mon 29 Mar 16:38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 29 Mar 15:24
The not proven verdict is meant to be almost synonymous with the not guilty verdict. Either the jury find the case proven in which case the accused is guilty or they find the case not proven in which case the accused is not guilty.
No doubt some jurors take the view that “not proven” is a proxy for “I think they did it but I’m not sure”, but I don’t believe they should. The main argument for retaining the “Not proven” option seems to be its uniqueness, not its quality.
Were a jury to be split say 7 for guilty, 4 for not proven and 4 for not guilty, what would happen? Or 3, 6, 6?
GG can answer for himself [edit - and has] but I interpreted his comment that criminal convictions should still continue to be based on there being no reasonable doubt rather than “on the balance of probabilities” which is a civil standard of proof. On this last point, let’s not forget that David Goodwillie and David Robertson were ruled to have committed rape in civil proceedings [edit] after the Crown Office decided not to prosecute.
Post Edited (Mon 29 Mar 15:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 29 Mar 16:38
My misinterpretation GG - which is unlike you, you`re normally at pains to be very clear on your meaning...
Having just read your `no smoke without fire` line, I read and picked up on...
"rather than on the grounds of probability, which is how it should be."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Mon 29 Mar 16:41
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Mon 29 Mar 16:38
My misinterpretation GG - which is unlike you, you`re normally at pains to be very clear on your meaning...
Having just read your `no smoke without fire` line, I read and picked up on...
"rather than on the grounds of probability, which is how it should be."
Ha ha, no worries, Lux. I've just edited my post, thinking you and AAPS were taking the pith...😄
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Mon 29 Mar 16:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 29 Mar 17:42
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Mon 29 Mar 15:24
The not proven verdict is meant to be almost synonymous with the not guilty verdict. Either the jury find the case proven in which case the accused is guilty or they find the case not proven in which case the accused is not guilty.
No doubt some jurors take the view that “not proven” is a proxy for “I think they did it but I’m not sure”, but I don’t believe they should. The main argument for retaining the “Not proven” option seems to be its uniqueness, not its quality.
Were a jury to be split say 7 for guilty, 4 for not proven and 4 for not guilty, what would happen? Or 3, 6, 6?
GG can answer for himself [edit - and has] but I interpreted his comment that criminal convictions should still continue to be based on there being no reasonable doubt rather than “on the balance of probabilities” which is a civil standard of proof. On this last point, let’s not forget that David Goodwillie and David Robertson were ruled to have committed rape in civil proceedings [edit] after the Crown Office decided not to prosecute.
I don't think I agree with that and although there is no definition of Not Proven, there has been a fair bit research and guidance on it:
"While there is no common law or statutory definition of “not proven,” the vital point is that it has exactly the same effect as a not guilty verdict; it counts as an acquittal.
The difference is that the verdict of “not guilty” is thought to mean that the ac-
cused definitely did not commit the crime, that is, it is a positive declaration of
innocence, whereas the verdict of “not proven” is thought to imply solely that
the accused’s guilt has not been conclusively demonstrated.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=lcp
It also ties in with the findings in research undertaken by the SG:
[Url]https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-jury-research-fingings-large-mock-jury-study-2/pages/8/#:~:text=1)%20that%20juries%20should%20return,prove%20this%20beyond%20reasonable%20doubt.
Not proven also statistically occurs slightly more than average in relation to sex offences with anecdotal evidence that a victim can be believable but there has been a lack of corroborating evidence.
Ultimately not proven is an acquittal so any permutation of jurors believing someone is guilty, not guilty or not proven will result in either a not guilty or not proven verdict.
If they were simply interchangeable it's highly likely Not Proven would have been revoked by now as there have been reviews as to whether it should continue to exist and it simply wouldn't be needed if it really meant the same as not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Mon 29 Mar 17:53
Is it not the case that someone found Not Guilty cannot be retried for the same alleged crime, whereas someone found Not Proven, can be retried in the event of new evidence coming to light?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 29 Mar 18:08
From the SG article:
In fact, the legal position regarding retrial following an acquittal verdict is now slightly more complex than this direction implies. Since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force, the prosecution can apply for permission to re-prosecute following an acquittal, although only in limited circumstances (primarily where either the acquitted person has subsequently admitted to committing the offence or, in serious cases, where fresh evidence has arisen that substantially strengthens the case against them).[99] Analysis of the deliberations indicated that a small number of jurors in this study were aware of these provisions. The important point, however, is that such an application for re-prosecution can be made regardless of whether the verdict is not guilty or not proven. There is thus no difference between the two acquittal verdicts in relation to the possibility of retrial.
So long story short it's the same criteria whether it's Not Proven or Not Guilty which is probably a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 29 Mar 18:26
I suppose that what we are trying to get to here is whether we`d vote for Alex Salmond though, not whether the court found him guilty.
When deciding whether or not to vote for somebody we take more than the court`s verdict into account and we assess the candidate`s character and policies.
My personal assessment of Alex Salmond is that he has the policies but he lacks in character. I had this view of him before the recent accusations though and couldn`t bring myself to vote SNP while he was leader.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 29 Mar 18:27
There's no argument there. The court acquitted him of all charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 29 Mar 21:39
I'm not saying I approve of AS just in case this looks like I'm backing him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
