NPR

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:56 pm Look over there!

Jesus.

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:48 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:53 pm

Tattie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:48 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 pm 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.

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

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:10 pm

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 .....

Tattie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:17 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:56 pm 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.

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.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:23 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:10 pm

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.

Tattie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:48 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 pm 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.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:23 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:10 pm

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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:43 am I love the way that people portray a minority government as unopposed.

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:23 am


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

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.....

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:23 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:23 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:10 pm

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.....

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:23 am


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..

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:28 am
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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:43 am 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?

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:46 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:43 am I love the way that people portray a minority government as unopposed.

But have you seen the opposition.

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:42 pm 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.

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:19 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:43 am 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.

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:00 pm Ive made this point many times but if this was happening with the UK government it would be the political story of the decade.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:43 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:42 pm 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?

TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:33 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:00 pm 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.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:44 pm

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:19 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:43 am 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.

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:13 pm .....

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

Wylie Coyote wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:27 pm 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.

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:06 pm 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.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:25 pm

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:13 pm .....

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.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:25 pm

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:13 pm .....

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.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:25 pm

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:13 pm .....

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.

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:45 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:25 pm
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.