The Scottish Politics Thread

[Slick]

Look over there!

Jesus.

[Tattie]

Look over there!

Jesus.

Is that directed at me?

So just because of the ongoing Salmond fiasco I am not allowed to criticise the Tories pathetic leaflet?

FWIW I have met Salmond a couple of times, at golf events, and even though I found him to be pleasant enough company, it was very apparent that his ego is the size of a fairly large planet, a major issue in this current shambles I think.

Also, as stated many times before, just because I'm a supporter of independence, doesn't mean I blindly support the SNP and all of their policies and individuals.

[GogLais]

Just wondering what the Scots' opinion is regarding the fact that Sturgeon's husband is Chief Exec of the SNP. Not a thinly veiled dig at the party, I could easily imagine voting for them if I lived in Scotland.

[Tattie]

Just wondering what the Scots' opinion is regarding the fact that Sturgeon's husband is Chief Exec of the SNP. Not a thinly veiled dig at the party, I could easily imagine voting for them if I lived in Scotland.

On here it will be split between some saying it's a scandal and dictatorial and some saying they see no issue with it. Personally, I can see how it could theoretically be problematic but don't really think it's a big deal. If it were to become an issue then I would fully support change.

Oh, and despite what some on here would have you believe, the SNP government are generally highly regarded and thought of as doing a pretty decent job, certainly not perfect but no government is or can ever be. Nicola Sturgeon is also very popular. Cue insults and cries of derision from the usual suspects but polls and election results don't lie.

[GogLais]

Just wondering what the Scots' opinion is regarding the fact that Sturgeon's husband is Chief Exec of the SNP. Not a thinly veiled dig at the party, I could easily imagine voting for them if I lived in Scotland.

On here it will be split between some saying it's a scandal and dictatorial and some saying they see no issue with it. Personally, I can see how it could theoretically be problematic but don't really think it's a big deal. If it were to become an issue then I would fully support change.

Oh, and despite what some on here would have you believe, the SNP government are generally highly regarded and thought of as doing a pretty decent job, certainly not perfect but no government is or can ever be. Nicola Sturgeon is also very popular. Cue insults and cries of derision from the usual suspects but polls and election results don't lie.

Fair enough.

[Tattie]

Just wondering what the Scots' opinion is regarding the fact that Sturgeon's husband is Chief Exec of the SNP. Not a thinly veiled dig at the party, I could easily imagine voting for them if I lived in Scotland.

On here it will be split between some saying it's a scandal and dictatorial and some saying they see no issue with it. Personally, I can see how it could theoretically be problematic but don't really think it's a big deal. If it were to become an issue then I would fully support change.

Oh, and despite what some on here would have you believe, the SNP government are generally highly regarded and thought of as doing a pretty decent job, certainly not perfect but no government is or can ever be. Nicola Sturgeon is also very popular. Cue insults and cries of derision from the usual suspects but polls and election results don't lie.

Fair enough.

It's only my opinion, no doubt soon to be ridiculed, and maybe it is a much bigger deal.

[fishfoodie]

I'm just wondering, exactly what Salmond thinks he can get out of this ?

If he thinks he can work his way back into any position in the SNP; he should be sectioned immediately !

If he thinks he can improve the public perception of him; he's delusional; because it's as good as it will get !

If he's just out for spite; & wants to fling shit at all of those, that he blames for his current situation; he's going about it the right way; but he can't expect them to stand around & let him do so; without them returning the favor !

It all just looks like the actions of an embittered, & now irrelevant man. He'd be better served doing a, "Jeremy Thorpe", & taking the "Not Guilty" verdict, ( that a lot of people people think was a gift); & making the most of it to rehabilitate his reputation.

[tc27]

I'm just wondering, exactly what Salmond thinks he can get out of this ?

Maybe just revenge? Salmond believes the SNP leadership (including the FM's husband) and the highest levels of the Scottish government orchestrated a conspiracy to destroy his reputation and to send him to prison. He probably feels quite salty about it.

Its an incredibly serious charge and one assumes he has some evidence for it (otherwise making the claim very much in public naming names opens him up to all kinds of liabilities).

Sturgeon is giving her side of events this week under oath .....

[fishfoodie]

I'm just wondering, exactly what Salmond thinks he can get out of this ?

Maybe just revenge? Salmond believes the SNP leadership (including the FM's husband) and the highest levels of the Scottish government orchestrated a conspiracy to destroy his reputation and to send him to prison. He probably feels quite salty about it.

Its an incredibly serious charge and one assumes he has some evidence for it (otherwise making the claim very much in public naming names opens him up to all kinds of liabilities).

Sturgeon is giving her side of events this week under oath .....

that's what it feels like; & if that's the case, he's an idiot.

However salty he feels; it still comes down to his word, against the word of multiple women.

If he pursues this same line, he just comes across as more of a cunt, & as you say, leaves himself open to ruin in the Courts.

There's salty; & there's cretinous; & he's looking the latter.

[Slick]

Look over there!

Jesus.

Is that directed at me?

So just because of the ongoing Salmond fiasco I am not allowed to criticise the Tories pathetic leaflet?

FWIW I have met Salmond a couple of times, at golf events, and even though I found him to be pleasant enough company, it was very apparent that his ego is the size of a fairly large planet, a major issue in this current shambles I think.

Also, as stated many times before, just because I'm a supporter of independence, doesn't mean I blindly support the SNP and all of their policies and individuals.

It's just such a classic response. Someone starts a conversation about SG/SNP and the answer is "look at what the Tory's are doing" whatever the question. It's the same thing all over social media etc.

And this is just classic as well:

Oh, and despite what some on here would have you believe, the SNP government are generally highly regarded and thought of as doing a pretty decent job, certainly not perfect but no government is or can ever be. Nicola Sturgeon is also very popular. Cue insults and cries of derision from the usual suspects but polls and election results don't lie.

Shut down the conversation before it even begins.

I actually like Nicola Sturgeon, I think she is a good politician but more importantly I think she is a good person who does things with the best intentions. But to say the SNP is highly regarded is just blind following. A good chunk of their supporters will happily tell you they are just a means to independence. Their record is really poor, really poor, across any number of areas and you really have to look the other way and take a deep breath before saying they are doing a pretty decent job. In a normal country any one of their failings would see them under severe pressure, that's the massive problem we have in Scotland.

[Slick]

I'm just wondering, exactly what Salmond thinks he can get out of this ?

Maybe just revenge? Salmond believes the SNP leadership (including the FM's husband) and the highest levels of the Scottish government orchestrated a conspiracy to destroy his reputation and to send him to prison. He probably feels quite salty about it.

Its an incredibly serious charge and one assumes he has some evidence for it (otherwise making the claim very much in public naming names opens him up to all kinds of liabilities).

Sturgeon is giving her side of events this week under oath .....

that's what it feels like; & if that's the case, he's an idiot.

However salty he feels; it still comes down to his word, against the word of multiple women.

If he pursues this same line, he just comes across as more of a cunt, & as you say, leaves himself open to ruin in the Courts.

There's salty; & there's cretinous; & he's looking the latter.

I think he genuinely feels he has been hard done by but that he is pushing it this far is certainly being driven by ego and revenge. I don't think many people thought he would ride off quietly into the sunshine after stepping down.

It also seems to be a bit of a Scottish trait. For about the last 1000 years we seem to get close to something then start infighting

[Big D]

Just wondering what the Scots' opinion is regarding the fact that Sturgeon's husband is Chief Exec of the SNP. Not a thinly veiled dig at the party, I could easily imagine voting for them if I lived in Scotland.

On here it will be split between some saying it's a scandal and dictatorial and some saying they see no issue with it. Personally, I can see how it could theoretically be problematic but don't really think it's a big deal. If it were to become an issue then I would fully support change.

Oh, and despite what some on here would have you believe, the SNP government are generally highly regarded and thought of as doing a pretty decent job, certainly not perfect but no government is or can ever be. Nicola Sturgeon is also very popular. Cue insults and cries of derision from the usual suspects but polls and election results don't lie.

I don't think that is true at all.

The SNP enjoy a unique set of circumstances that no other party in the world enjoy. They have a group of people that will vote for them because of independence regardless of record, people who would vote for them because "fuck the tories", people who would vote Labour but they are a shambles, and some who would vote Lib Dems but Clegg and their coalition government set them back everywhere. To be honest in many ways I can't see that changing either which is a shame because one of the ways that Scotland could thrive is true electoral competition pushing each other but I can't see that happening, perhaps even in my lifetime, which means the SNP can continue relatively unchecked by the electorate.

Part of the reason I am completely fed up of referendums of any type now is that there are areas where the governments are doing pretty poorly and they are getting away with it due to Brexit/Independence.

[tc27]

I'm just wondering, exactly what Salmond thinks he can get out of this ?

Maybe just revenge? Salmond believes the SNP leadership (including the FM's husband) and the highest levels of the Scottish government orchestrated a conspiracy to destroy his reputation and to send him to prison. He probably feels quite salty about it.

Its an incredibly serious charge and one assumes he has some evidence for it (otherwise making the claim very much in public naming names opens him up to all kinds of liabilities).

Sturgeon is giving her side of events this week under oath .....

that's what it feels like; & if that's the case, he's an idiot.

However salty he feels; it still comes down to his word, against the word of multiple women.

If he pursues this same line, he just comes across as more of a cunt, & as you say, leaves himself open to ruin in the Courts.

There's salty; & there's cretinous; & he's looking the latter.

Firstly its not his word vs multiple women - that happened in the trial. This is about the attempt of named others (Peter Murrel et al) to destroy his standing and potentially send him to prison

If he's correct to any degree its real banana republic stuff and it will do public life immense good if those responsible are exposed and forced to resign. It might be he's lying (but it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do for soemones who's not dumb). To me the behaviour of the SG and the SNP leadership makes it look like the guilty party - the attempt to supress this has being frantic.

The other matter is wether Sturgeon lied to Parliament about the meeting with Salmond - remember McLeish resigned as FM for failing to declare a sub let of his office.....

[Biffer]

I love the way that people portray a minority government as unopposed.

[robmatic]

I love the way that people portray a minority government as unopposed.

But have you seen the opposition.

[Tichtheid]

Firstly its not his word vs multiple women - that happened in the trial. This is about the attempt of named others (Peter Murrel et al) to destroy his standing and potentially send him to prison

Well... it kind of is about his word v that of multiple women, if it's not them he is referring to as the "others I am not allowed to name for legal reasons" then who is it?

He has admitted acting wholly inappropriately towards certain women, albeit the court found him not guilty of acting illegally, don't you think that he seems to be saying they are part of a conspiracy against him?

The other matter is wether Sturgeon lied to Parliament about the meeting with Salmond - remember McLeish resigned as FM for failing to declare a sub let of his office.....

The "lies to parliament" seem to be about a meeting on the 29th of March 2018 with Aberdein and another four days later with Salmond. She stated the first she heard of the affair was at the meeting in April, but has had to be reminded that she was told about the allegations at the first meeting.

Sturgeon claims to have had the second meeting with Salmond himself override the first in her memory, as she had told parliament that was the first she'd heard of it.

The second incident she could be accountable for is that at the second meeting, which was at her house, no minutes were taken, thus some are claiming this was a breach of the ministerial code. However she claims she met Salmond in her own home in her capacity as leader of the party and she was "meeting a friend of 30 years standing".
If true there is no need for minutes.

The second incident is unprovable, the first will boil down to the decision of committee that hears the evidence and who they believe, or who they choose to believe..

[SaintK]

Maybe just revenge? Salmond believes the SNP leadership (including the FM's husband) and the highest levels of the Scottish government orchestrated a conspiracy to destroy his reputation and to send him to prison. He probably feels quite salty about it.

Its an incredibly serious charge and one assumes he has some evidence for it (otherwise making the claim very much in public naming names opens him up to all kinds of liabilities).

Sturgeon is giving her side of events this week under oath .....

that's what it feels like; & if that's the case, he's an idiot.

However salty he feels; it still comes down to his word, against the word of multiple women.

If he pursues this same line, he just comes across as more of a cunt, & as you say, leaves himself open to ruin in the Courts.

There's salty; & there's cretinous; & he's looking the latter.

Firstly its not his word vs multiple women - that happened in the trial. This is about the attempt of named others (Peter Murrel et al) to destroy his standing and potentially send him to prison

If he's correct to any degree its real banana republic stuff and it will do public life immense good if those responsible are exposed and forced to resign. It might be he's lying (but it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do for soemones who's not dumb). To me the behaviour of the SG and the SNP leadership makes it look like the guilty party - the attempt to supress this has being frantic.

The other matter is wether Sturgeon lied to Parliament about the meeting with Salmond - remember McLeish resigned as FM for failing to declare a sub let of his office.....

So what happens if it goes completely tits up for the current SNP leadership. Does the baton get passed on to a Sturgeon supporter or is there a coup and "friends of Salmond take over?

[Slick]

Firstly its not his word vs multiple women - that happened in the trial. This is about the attempt of named others (Peter Murrel et al) to destroy his standing and potentially send him to prison

Well... it kind of is about his word v that of multiple women, if it's not them he is referring to as the "others I am not allowed to name for legal reasons" then who is it?

He has admitted acting wholly inappropriately towards certain women, albeit the court found him not guilty of acting illegally, don't you think that he seems to be saying they are part of a conspiracy against him?

The other matter is wether Sturgeon lied to Parliament about the meeting with Salmond - remember McLeish resigned as FM for failing to declare a sub let of his office.....

The "lies to parliament" seem to be about a meeting on the 29th of March 2018 with Aberdein and another four days later with Salmond. She stated the first she heard of the affair was at the meeting in April, but has had to be reminded that she was told about the allegations at the first meeting.

Sturgeon claims to have had the second meeting with Salmond himself override the first in her memory, as she had told parliament that was the first she'd heard of it.

The second incident she could be accountable for is that at the second meeting, which was at her house, no minutes were taken, thus some are claiming this was a breach of the ministerial code. However she claims she met Salmond in her own home in her capacity as leader of the party and she was "meeting a friend of 30 years standing".
If true there is no need for minutes.

The second incident is unprovable, the first will boil down to the decision of committee that hears the evidence and who they believe, or who they choose to believe..

It does have the air of a classic government "put your hands up at the beginning and take a bit of flak" at the start, instead of trying to squirm out of it and make it worse.

Sturgeon's claims are just not credible but I'm not one for demanding resignations. In saying that she and SG have to acknowledge that this is not cool and commit to more transparency across the board.

[Tichtheid]

Sturgeon's claims are just not credible but I'm not one for demanding resignations. In saying that she and SG have to acknowledge that this is not cool and commit to more transparency across the board.

I think the second claim, that the meeting at her house was in her capacity as leader of the party and as a friend is credible, if the meeting had been in her office then her claims would be less believable.

The first that the meeting with Aberdein was overridden by the second with Salmond himself is less believable, but what would be the point of deliberately misleading parliament about when she first heard the whole story?

I'm a little unsure of the timeline, the meetings were late March and early April 2018, and the inquiry where she is accused of lying about when she first heard the story was June 2020, is that correct?

[Big D]

I think the second claim, that the meeting at her house was in her capacity as leader of the party and as a friend is credible, if the meeting had been in her office then her claims would be less believable.

The first that the meeting with Aberdein was overridden by the second with Salmond himself is less believable, but what would be the point of deliberately misleading parliament about when she first heard the whole story?

I'm a little unsure of the timeline, the meetings were late March and early April 2018, and the inquiry where she is accused of lying about when she first heard the story was June 2020, is that correct?

I am not sure what is supposed to have been the content of these meetings but if the meeting at her house discussed the assault allegations then it is a national issue not party one. They were allegations about the person in the highest political office in the land committing criminal offences.

Allegations against any minister during their time in office is a national issue, hiding that as party issue would be nonsense.

[Biffer]

I love the way that people portray a minority government as unopposed.

But have you seen the opposition.

It could be argued that if you vote for a party that thinks Holyrood is secondary, then you’ll get second rate representatives.

[tc27]

I mean - what justification can there be for this? Its brazen corruption of the process to defend the FM! Absolutely no defence this is about protecting the complainers anymore.

[Biffer]

I mean - what justification can there be for this? Its brazen corruption of the process to defend the FM! Absolutely no defence this is about protecting the complainers anymore.

What are the ‘other things’ in that section?

[Tichtheid]

I think the second claim, that the meeting at her house was in her capacity as leader of the party and as a friend is credible, if the meeting had been in her office then her claims would be less believable.

The first that the meeting with Aberdein was overridden by the second with Salmond himself is less believable, but what would be the point of deliberately misleading parliament about when she first heard the whole story?

I'm a little unsure of the timeline, the meetings were late March and early April 2018, and the inquiry where she is accused of lying about when she first heard the story was June 2020, is that correct?

I am not sure what is supposed to have been the content of these meetings but if the meeting at her house discussed the assault allegations then it is a national issue not party one. They were allegations about the person in the highest political office in the land committing criminal offences.

Allegations against any minister during their time in office is a national issue, hiding that as party issue would be nonsense.

This is all about process, that is what Salmond's entire argument hangs on. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks should or shouldn't be the case.

I think it would be very difficult to prove that Sturgeon was acting as FM, given the location and lack of formal procedure.

[tc27]

Biffer - I am not sure some people are going through the redacted and original version line by line as we speak.

But what we do know id the Crown office asked for redactions that at least stop the committee asking Nicola Surgeon difficult questions about the ministerial code (because they can only ask about offically published material).

Ive made this point many times but if this was happening with the UK government it would be the political story of the decade.

[TheNatalShark]

Ive made this point many times but if this was happening with the UK government it would be the political story of the decade.

I've not followed this affair at all as it involves, along with the shroud, the most mind numbingly boring thing to me - private dramas and agendas.

But from my very limited view point, is that really an actual non-hyperbolic view? Is it something that people who find it utterly dull to read about should pay attention to, because the consequences if not are...? Asking in honest intentions, if not clear. My perspective is it is a bog standard lie, fuck up and shush up. Very little impact vs day to day politic.

[Slick]

I mean - what justification can there be for this? Its brazen corruption of the process to defend the FM! Absolutely no defence this is about protecting the complainers anymore.

What are the ‘other things’ in that section?

[tc27]

Ive made this point many times but if this was happening with the UK government it would be the political story of the decade.

I've not followed this affair at all as it involves, along with the shroud, the most mind numbingly boring thing to me - private dramas and agendas.

But from my very limited view point, is that really an actual non-hyperbolic view? Is it something that people who find it utterly dull to read about should pay attention to, because the consequences if not are...? Asking in honest intentions, if not clear. My perspective is it is a bog standard lie, fuck up and shush up. Very little impact vs day to day politic.

A sex scandal involving the former PM being accused of raping people in Downing Street. Then following the acquittal that former PM then accuses the current PMs inner circle and party leadership of orchestrating the whole affair.

PM implicated in multiple alleged breaches on the ministerial code (all resigning offences).

Finally a months long effort to stymy the Parliamentary committee looking into the affair which eventually fails - but then as a last gasp getting the prosecutor (supposed to be independent of the government) to redact parts of the evidence relating to ministerial code breaches so the enquiry cant ask the PM about it (no hazard of having to make statements under oath).

Its banana republic stuff and I would confidently say it would be up a huge story with non stop coverage.

[Jasonstry]

https://order-order.com/2021/02/23/reda ... arliament/

[Big D]

I think the second claim, that the meeting at her house was in her capacity as leader of the party and as a friend is credible, if the meeting had been in her office then her claims would be less believable.

The first that the meeting with Aberdein was overridden by the second with Salmond himself is less believable, but what would be the point of deliberately misleading parliament about when she first heard the whole story?

I'm a little unsure of the timeline, the meetings were late March and early April 2018, and the inquiry where she is accused of lying about when she first heard the story was June 2020, is that correct?

I am not sure what is supposed to have been the content of these meetings but if the meeting at her house discussed the assault allegations then it is a national issue not party one. They were allegations about the person in the highest political office in the land committing criminal offences.

Allegations against any minister during their time in office is a national issue, hiding that as party issue would be nonsense.

This is all about process, that is what Salmond's entire argument hangs on. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks should or shouldn't be the case.

I think it would be very difficult to prove that Sturgeon was acting as FM, given the location and lack of formal procedure.

I care very little for politics and most politicians, the idea that the serving first minister can be told about sexual assault/harassment/misconduct of their predecessor whilst in office is not credible. It wouldn't be credible for a Lib Dem, Labour, Tory or Green FM either. As soon as it was clear what the conversation was about it should have been stopped and due process followed.

Can you imagine if it came out that David Cameron had these sorts of allegations against him and Bawjaws defence was "ach I was at home out of hours and it is a party matter". Or indeed "I might have been told on the train but I forgot".

Politicians aren't in 9-5 roles, when something as serious as sexual assault allegations against a FM is discussed, the FM should act as the FM rather than pal or leader of the party.

Now, if the laws/rules allow for that then fine but they should be changed.

[Tichtheid]

.....

Now, if the laws/rules allow for that then fine but they should be changed.

Perhaps they should be, but as things stand either Sturgeon is telling the truth about the capacity in which she met Salmond in her own home, or she is not. The burden of proof on that is on the accuser.

I'm genuinely trying to be neutral when I say this is very difficult to prove, unless there is something written or recorded that states nefarious reasons for that meeting being off the record.
Those that despise the SNP and the independence movement are supporting a guy they have vilified for years, decades even, they are making political capital out of this for their own ends.

Guido Fawkes ffs!
The editor of the Scottish Sun!

The other group supporting Salmond come from his own inner circle, but the claim from all is the Scottish Government, the leadership of the SNP, the Crown office and Procurators Fiscal, the women in the court case and probably several others are all involved in a conspiracy against Salmond.

[Wylie Coyote]

Not wishing to divert attention from the Salmond/Sturgeon scandal but BBC Alba has a documentary on Charles Kennedy this evening which could be interesting viewing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sld8

The 2015 GE campaign against him apparently gets some coverage, a particularly inglorious example of what Scottish politics has become since 2014.

[Biffer]

Not wishing to divert attention from the Salmond/Sturgeon scandal but BBC Alba has a documentary on Charles Kennedy this evening which could be interesting viewing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sld8

The 2015 GE campaign against him apparently gets some coverage, a particularly inglorious example of what Scottish politics has become since 2014.

Lots of papers this morning screaming Kennedy was hounded to his death by the SNP. Kennedy died because he was an alcoholic.

[TheNatalShark]

A sex scandal involving the former PM being accused of raping people in Downing Street. Then following the acquittal that former PM then accuses the current PMs inner circle and party leadership of orchestrating the whole affair.

PM implicated in multiple alleged breaches on the ministerial code (all resigning offences).

Finally a months long effort to stymy the Parliamentary committee looking into the affair which eventually fails - but then as a last gasp getting the prosecutor (supposed to be independent of the government) to redact parts of the evidence relating to ministerial code breaches so the enquiry cant ask the PM about it (no hazard of having to make statements under oath).

Its banana republic stuff and I would confidently say it would be up a huge story with non stop coverage.

Thanks, appreciate the share. Hopefully the process manipulation can be dealt with (honestly don't give a crap about Salmond). I'll try to separate comm investigation from Salmond.

Perhaps I'm thinking of what the press should report on Vs what they actually do. Settling personal vendettas against out of job slimes is below: blithely sectioning off parts of country, shutting down parliament to game executive decisions and openly speaking of rewiring future government above the law; in my political scandal/banana monarchy stakes.

[Woddy]

.....

Now, if the laws/rules allow for that then fine but they should be changed.

Perhaps they should be, but as things stand either Sturgeon is telling the truth about the capacity in which she met Salmond in her own home, or she is not. The burden of proof on that is on the accuser.

I'm genuinely trying to be neutral when I say this is very difficult to prove, unless there is something written or recorded that states nefarious reasons for that meeting being off the record.
Those that despise the SNP and the independence movement are supporting a guy they have vilified for years, decades even, they are making political capital out of this for their own ends.

Guido Fawkes ffs!
The editor of the Scottish Sun!

The other group supporting Salmond come from his own inner circle, but the claim from all is the Scottish Government, the leadership of the SNP, the Crown office and Procurators Fiscal, the women in the court case and probably several others are all involved in a conspiracy against Salmond.

That doesn't matter and I think she'd be a fool to argue it as it would show her disdain for her overarching duties as FM.

It's a bit like PC (or PM or FM, doesn't really matter) Bob meeting his mate Geoff in the pub:

Bob - ah, Geoff, how are you?
Geoff - really upset Bob. I'm going to do somehting bad and illegal.
Bob - Geoff, as your friend, I'd say that's a bad idea. Don't do it.
Geoff - I'm going to do it anyway.
... [Geoff rips off Withanal's head, comes to attention of authorities that Bob might have known about it and done something]

Bob - ach now look, Geoff told me that in my capacity as his friend, not as PC (or PM or FM), I had no moral, legal or other obligation to do anything...

It just doesn't wash.

[Paddington Bear]

Something of a Streisand effect to the redaction...

[Big D]

.....

Now, if the laws/rules allow for that then fine but they should be changed.

Perhaps they should be, but as things stand either Sturgeon is telling the truth about the capacity in which she met Salmond in her own home, or she is not. The burden of proof on that is on the accuser.

I'm genuinely trying to be neutral when I say this is very difficult to prove, unless there is something written or recorded that states nefarious reasons for that meeting being off the record.
Those that despise the SNP and the independence movement are supporting a guy they have vilified for years, decades even, they are making political capital out of this for their own ends.

Guido Fawkes ffs!
The editor of the Scottish Sun!

The other group supporting Salmond come from his own inner circle, but the claim from all is the Scottish Government, the leadership of the SNP, the Crown office and Procurators Fiscal, the women in the court case and probably several others are all involved in a conspiracy against Salmond.

That may be part of the case but that doesn't mean they aren't correct. Similarly people who followed his every word for a decade plus are now determining he is a liar and not to be listened to. It works both ways.

The colour of rosette she wears is irrelevant considering the type of allegations Salmond was being subject to. Over the last couple of years I have decided that the fairest way to establish whether I am being fair to NS is to compare to what I'd think if any other leader did it, with the easiest comparison being BawJaws. There are significant questions to be asked and in any other party in any other democracy this would be a far bigger story.

[Slick]

On another note, that statement on COVID restrictions was pretty underwhelming...

[Blackmac]

.....

Now, if the laws/rules allow for that then fine but they should be changed.

Perhaps they should be, but as things stand either Sturgeon is telling the truth about the capacity in which she met Salmond in her own home, or she is not. The burden of proof on that is on the accuser.

I'm genuinely trying to be neutral when I say this is very difficult to prove, unless there is something written or recorded that states nefarious reasons for that meeting being off the record.
Those that despise the SNP and the independence movement are supporting a guy they have vilified for years, decades even, they are making political capital out of this for their own ends.

Guido Fawkes ffs!
The editor of the Scottish Sun!

The other group supporting Salmond come from his own inner circle, but the claim from all is the Scottish Government, the leadership of the SNP, the Crown office and Procurators Fiscal, the women in the court case and probably several others are all involved in a conspiracy against Salmond.

It maybe doesn't help that Sturgeon's version of the truth bears little relation to her hubby's version. It's hard to reconcile the claim that it was purely a party matter with the fact he wasn't asked to be present and his initial statement that he left because he thought it was SG business.

[Tichtheid]

Those that despise the SNP and the independence movement are supporting a guy they have vilified for years, decades even, they are making political capital out of this for their own ends.

That may be part of the case but that doesn't mean they aren't correct. Similarly people who followed his every word for a decade plus are now determining he is a liar and not to be listened to. It works both ways.

I'm not convinced this works both ways, the ones making the most noise about it outside of Salmond himself are the ones with something to gain politically, they want to see an end to Sturgeon's political career and an end to the movement for independence, that isn't too difficult to see, and the reasoning is as plain as can be seen in the polls.

The second category are perhaps not quite saying he is a liar and not to be listened to, perhaps it's that Salmond has a score to settle and he's going to damn well settle it, whatever the fallout and however useful it proves to others.

I have no way of knowing what was in the minds of Salmond or Sturgeon when they met at her house, if either of them thought it was a meeting with the FM, surely one of them would have mentioned that minutes should have been taken?
Salmond had been though enough inquiries over procedure during his own tenure to make it difficult to think he would have overlooked that, but he would have been under tremendous stress, so it's possible it just didn't occur to him.