Jump to content
Dawnrazor

Salmond wins his judicial review.

Recommended Posts

Space Mackerel
2 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

You started talking about people looking silly.

 

So I thought I'd mention some of your public meltdowns :) 

 

I think I'll give up asking.

 

Enjoy living in an independent Scotland. Or a united Ireland, whatever you choose¬† ūüôā

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2

I have no idea what this means. It might be yet another attempt to belittle independence supporters suggesting that they are supporting the man and not capable of understanding the issue.

           I am belittling nobody. People are free to do what they want. I just think the way this has been run on social media by                 some prominent independence supporters are painting this as a "vindication" of Salmond. Not saying you are CD. But               this is being painted as something which it isn't. 

 

 

 

The coverage of the case stated that the case was dismissed because the Scottish Government accepted procedural errors in the process and agreed to have the JR dismissed. The substantial hearings never proceeded. Roddy Dunlop QC, Scottish Government's Counsel, said the government did not accept the other elements of the claim; in particular disclosure of the documents produced regarding the testimony of the claims. They said they were nugatory given the process was held to be improperly conducted and that this was enough.

 

Lord Pentland accepted this point.

 

See Phillip Sim's Twitter feed on the coverage from the court room for that.

 

This is true and that is why i challenged your previous comment when you said Salmond's case "fell" The other elements of his case were never considered and so they never "fell".

           Legally they did fall. They fell because they agreed to dismiss the case. They could have refused to settle the case.        They could have said "no", we're pushing ahead and getting a decision. He didn't as it was joint motion to dismiss. Therefore, his case fell. 

 

Unfortunately, we do not know what the other elements of his claim were. Mr Salmond's team wouldn't release his legal pleadings and we only have his own word that the craves he agreed to have dismissed were slum dunk wins. Given he has been vindicated, why not reveal what the remedies he sought were?

 

 

 

His legal team requested it. If court proceedings from the ongoing investigation are brought then he will likely have sight. But otherwise this raises a big question around the complainants rights and those in other situations which may arise in other events if they are disclosed. 

 

His legal team may well have requested it but this does not mean that Salmond was "desperate" to see them. As i said previously and you have now repeated he would be able to see all documentation if a case is made against him.

Why ask for it then? 

  12 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

Pardon? Was it not shown that Carmichael lied and it was his SPAD not civil servants? In fact there was a huge investigation into that. Hardly a conspiracy. 

 

Spads are civil servants and it was proved that Carmichael did collude with at least one before the CS leaked the story to the Telegraph and Carmichael embarked on his smear and lies campaign. If Carmichael and the spad were not conspiring or did not realise that he was conspiring why did he initially deny he knew anything about it. That was the lie not that Nicola wanted a Tory government. A very small conspiracy yes but a conspiracy nonetheless. 

Spads are not civil servants. They are special advisers to Ministers and are political in nature. Therefore it was not a civil service conspiracy but a political one. 

 

Civil Service Code:

 

"They [SPADs] add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support."

 

"They are part of the team working closely alongside civil servants to deliver Ministers’ priorities. They can help Ministers on matters where the work of government and the work of the government party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved."

 

"...they are exempt from the general requirement that civil servants should be appointed on merit and behave with impartiality and objectivity, or that they need to retain the confidence of future governments of a different political complexion."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-advisers-code-of-conduct 

They are involved in government, but they are not civil servants. Civil servants carry out the function of government; SPADs are political advisers.

  12 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

Yes you are equating this with guilt. You categorised Salmond with Walker and Rowley. Salmond is guilty of nothing and they are.

You are still doing it when you suggest that this should centre on the "culture which facilitates these events". (1) There are no events yet as far as Salmond is concerned.

Walkers situation is not in the workplace and is not of a sexual nature though it is serious physical abuse. It also happened before Walker went into politics. (2) When the SNP found out what he was doing he was suspended and subsequently went to jail. I presume it was some failing with the police that prevented prosecution previously, (3) maybe his victims never reported it and his employers turned a blind eye. 

The Labour party however have big problem though. (4) It appears that Monica Lennon and others have been sexually assaulted but are too scared to report it. (5) Rowley has returned to the front bench yet Salmond who is as yet guilty of nothing is castigated for daring to defend himself. https://wingsoverscotland.com/brass-neck-gleaming/#more-108149

 

Quote

Taking these points in turn;

1. Yes there are. Those are the ones being investigated. Without the information are you saying the complainers are liars? If there is a lack of evidence does that belittle their claims? (Cases such as these suffer from a lack of evidence all the time). There are events. It's a question of due process and investigation.

2. Walker went to jail on 23 charges of abusing three of his former wives and a step-daughter. The issue of Bill Walker was the SNP had been informed of his past in 2008 when he was running to be a candidate and ploughed on. Surely this, in any party, should set alarm bells ringing?

 

 https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13055207.snp-knew-of-msps-violent-past-three-years-before-his-election-to-holyrood/

3. I don't know the ins and outs of it on that side, but he clearly was a court conviction. And I am sure you are aware that in these types of cases the abused coming forward is a hugely difficult issue. 

4. Agreed and I don't think Scottish Labour has done enough publicly on this. I think it takes a lot of courage for anyone in that situation to come forward. It creates massive mental stressed and it is a very difficult thing for those involved to come to terms with. Feelings of shame, anger, disgust with yourself exist in these situations. If people do not feel strong enough to come forward that is a huge failing and Labour need to ask why that is. If I am right on Lennon, I understand this was dealt with within Labour's own processes and she feels that has resolved the issue; why it need go further then I am not sure. This internal, arbitration process is apparently what Salmond wanted in his case. Which is his right to request, unless that is rejected for good reason. These are very complex cases and we can't hold one above the other.

5. I don't think that should ever have happened with Rowley. I think he should have remained on the back benches. On Salmond he is not  in a JR defending himself against the allegations. He is saying there was an issue in the process. The two are distinct and shouldn't be conflated.

 

Equally, whilst you are right this isn't proven yet. There's also the other side to this which is the complainants allegations have not yet been shown to be inaccurate or false.

 

That side has to wait until there is a guilty verdict or at least until the process is over. I thought perhaps you might understand that. 

 

Quote

I do. But that's not the point I was making. I think you are inferring these allegations do not stand up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2
1 hour ago, coconut doug said:
On 09/01/2019 at 12:45, JamboX2 said:

 

How do we know it was a government source who leaked?

 

We dont but it seems unlikely that AS is going to leak allegations about himself whist claiming not to be aware of the allegations. The detailed nature of the allegations would suggest that they are from an accurate source close to the complainants but would not be from the complainants themselves as had they wanted publicity they could have sold the stories themselves to the Daily Record. Who else could it be?

 

Quote

Good investigative journalism? Might be nobody directly involved. Might be persons known to either party. 

Kenny MacAskill is alleging that there is a "cabal" loyal to Sturgeon trying to prevent any "potential challengers" or issues from arising. Might they be involved? Conspiracies work in all ways.

 

I think this would have come out eventually. Given the man and his importance in the governing party. If the man is not guilty and the allegations made against him are not substantiated then there is little if anything to come out.
 

Quote

I think it would have. This story. The investigation. Things like this always leak. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

I agree with this point. A point he didn't make when he made his statement after the dismissal. Instead it was attack the Perm Sec.

 

He did make this point outside the court, i heard him say it. Perhaps you only watched the BBC edited version.

 

Quote

:lol: No I watch the Channel 4 News and the Guardian clip. Perhaps they edited it too. Has Wings produced an article on this yet?

 

 

We are not yet aware of his innocence. 

 

As far as i am aware in this country we are innocent until proved guilty and that applies to AS as well.

 

Quote

Agreed. It's what I said there in fact. 

 

The leak wasn't what the case was dismissed over but the HR process itself. Albeit the FM yesterday defended the process and persons involved and said the process would be made more robust.

 

 I think every man and his dog who is interested in this case has worked  out that it is the process that was deemed "unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair and that they were tainted with apparent bias" to use the judge's own words. I never said nor implied that it had anything to do with the leak as you infer. Neither has Nicola "defended the process"  as you claim.
 

Quote

She has defended those involved and Leslie Evans's conduct in this matter. She said to Parliament that she backed the process, but would ensure it was made more rigorous in light of the case. Perhaps this was on an edited clip you watched?

"The Scottish government is confident that in all other respects clear, the procedure which was followed was otherwise fair to all concerned. It¬†is important to note that as a simple matter of fact today‚Äôs settlement has no implications one way or the other for the substance of the complaints or for the credibility of the complainants.‚ÄĚ

 



Using your own words you said that she thought the process should become more robust, that means, it's not good enough.

 

Quote

Not necessarily. The basis of the complaint was the person running the investigation had had prior contact with the complainers in the matter. This, according to the First Minister and Permanent Secretary, was only in terms of support and welfare advice. In effect the error was made in terms of personnel implementing the process not the process itself.



AFAIK she did not defend the "persons involved" as you suggest but did give the perm sec her full support. At the moment she has no choice but to do this.
 

Quote

So she did defend the Perm Sec? She did provide her support to continue in her job amidst calls from Mr Salmond for her head, yes? Is that not a defence? 

She had all the choice to sack her. There was a massive procedural failing in a process to safeguard civil servants and others in government employment from Ministers engaging in sexual assault. A policy the First Minister asked be implemented. A policy the Permanent Secretary presumably had some involvement in. The Permanent Secretary is appointed and can be dismissed by the First Minister. It is within her power and her choice to do so. How could she not have the option to sack her on a cock up of this magnitude given the issues concerned?



She is not and cannot be involved. when it is all over,if not before the perm sec will be retired. The process has been botched and potentially compromised the complainants as well as AS. Salmond has hinted at sueing and perhaps the complainers might do the same. The Perm sec is responsible for this 
 

Quote

Indeed, it's why the Scottish Editor of the Times called for her sacking today. So why has she not been sacked?

Added to that, Sturgeon has to a degree been involved. Since the process started she has had 5 meetings with Salmond. In which her Chief of Staff apparently attended a number. Is that not involvement?

 

Going as far to say as providing the government did in her view did not amount to "encouraging" the complainants to raise proceedings - as Mr Salmond and his legal team alleged.

Presumably Salmond has some evidence to support this claim. It's just a pity the government were so incompetent or we might have found out what it was in the Judicial review. It might have something to do with the unfairness and bias the judge was talking about. Seems strange that one of the complainers should seek to repeat her claim 5 years after it had already been resolved.

Quote

And who leaked that to him?

On the JR, if the Government hadn't been incompetent they would have likely won the JR. The unfairness and bias was said to be "perceived" not actual; in a JR that perception point is enough to render a finding of procedural impropriety. As noted above the issue was the investigating officer had also been the government official who provided support and welfare assistance to the complainers at the outset; which Mr Salmond's team claimed was "encouragement". That has not been shown as the Scottish Government agreed a joint motion on the procedural impropriety of the same person being involved in the same role. 

On your last point, there are many cases of this kind which come to pass years after the event. It is the nature of it once the psychological wounds heal and people have the confidence to do so. I am not saying this is the case here. But as a general rule of thumb it is not strange for this to be the case.

 

There is an ongoing police investigation. The SG process can be restarted at a later date - so I understand.  I know, that's why i used the word "other". They probably can reinvestigate if they want but what level of confidence would a complainer have in their complaint being investigated for a third time if the police do not charge Salmond.
 

Quote

There are different levels in burden of proof. For example, David Goodwillie was not found guilty of criminal rape, where there must be evidence which is beyond reasonable doubt, but the civil charge of rape which was on the level of the balance of probabilities. 

There may not be enough evidence to raise a case in court or to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In many sexual abuse cases there is very little corroborating evidence. It's why legally rape convictions are hard to get. 

Should they wish to re-start the HR process, that is their choice. I would hope they and other people in the Scottish Government do have confidence in their processes. AS aside, such things are vitally important to protecting people in the work place.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
5 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Keep trying Kevin Spacey. It’s cute. 

 

:) 

Ridiculing people's political choice, while behind non disclosure of your own. Aye very good. 

Labour - nope

Libs- nope

SNP- nope

Greens- doubt it

The unionist party- Bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Ridiculing people's political choice, while behind non disclosure of your own. Aye very good. 

Labour - nope

Libs- nope

SNP- nope

Greens- doubt it

The unionist party- Bingo.

 

I’m not ridiculing him for his political choice. I’m ridiculing him because he’s an absolute moon howler. 

 

Why strangers on the internet think they have a right to know peoples voting history is beyond me. It’s literally none of your business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Unionists know times up on team GB, (Brexit has won Independence) the propaganda has started. 

 

 

Tick fecking Tick!!!

 

Aye, that'll be it ūüėÜūüėÜūüėÜ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Gentleman
17 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Usually a court. 

I think you'll find the investigative process comes first, followed by a court case if the PF feels there's a substantial case to be answered.

I'm pretty sure that's how the criminal justice system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
16 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Read what? Empathy is the requirement for the alleged victims. Salmond seen as guilty before process. As I have said, if he's guilty he should get what's coming to him. 

Smoke screen alert. Do you understand why a woman may not report a sexual assault for 5 years after it happens? No. If you've thought it through and still believe that then you're a sick *******. Salmond may or may not be guilty but one thing I'm confident of, it isn't a "yoonionist plot"

Edited by SE16 3LN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh

So will this internecine war be the end for them?  The "Sturgeon" Nationalist Party or The "Salmond" Nationalist Party? Apparently they are already briefing against each other (the supporters of each) privately to the media and in some cases publicly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

Finding out who leaked the details that Salmond was under investigation is certainly interesting.

 

He's right to make his complaint under data protection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck
27 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

So will this internecine war be the end for them?  The "Sturgeon" Nationalist Party or The "Salmond" Nationalist Party? Apparently they are already briefing against each other (the supporters of each) privately to the media and in some cases publicly. 

 

But which would Reg describe as ‚Äėsplitters‚Äô?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
9 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

But which would Reg describe as ‚Äėsplitters‚Äô?

 

It'll just add to the fun as the call each other out as splitters! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

Error

 

Edited by Mikey1874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

Wrong thread

Edited by Mikey1874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
19 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Spads are not civil servants. They are special advisers to Ministers and are political in nature. Therefore it was not a civil service conspiracy but a political one. 

 

Civil Service Code:

 

"They [SPADs] add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support."

 

"They are part of the team working closely alongside civil servants to deliver Ministers’ priorities. They can help Ministers on matters where the work of government and the work of the government party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved."

 

"...they are exempt from the general requirement that civil servants should be appointed on merit and behave with impartiality and objectivity, or that they need to retain the confidence of future governments of a different political complexion."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-advisers-code-of-conduct 

They are involved in government, but they are not civil servants. Civil servants carry out the function of government; SPADs are political advisers.

In the very document you link it states immediately before the bit you quote above that spads are Civil servants. 

 

It states"special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed in accordance with part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance act 2010. Special Advisers are bound by the standards of integrity required of all civil servants as set out in the Civil Service code."

 

I cannot imagine why you would choose to quote the bit immediately before the definitive part which totally refutes your assertion that Spads are not Civil Servants unless of course you are deliberately trying to mislead.

 

   Neither did i say that this was a Civil Service conspiracy i said Carmichael conspired with a Civil servant. Despite being the SOS for Scotland both he and his spad who are supposed to a work for Scotland's interest and  abide by the Civil Service code decided to undermine the FM by leaking a falsehood to a right wing newspaper and later lied abou having done so.

 

There may have been others involved, i do not know but even if everybody else acted honourably then at least one other Civil servant and the French Ambassador were compromised. I'm sure the damage to Scotland's reputation would not concern Carmichael or the Spad one bit. I have not totally discounted the idea that something similar is happening to Alec Salmond.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
9 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

Smoke screen alert. Do you understand why a woman may not report a sexual assault for 5 years after it happens? No. If you've thought it through and still believe that then you're a sick *******. Salmond may or may not be guilty but one thing I'm confident of, it isn't a "yoonionist plot"

What are you on about? I presume you're a unionist as I can detect it in your ire. I have 3 daughters and you know nothing about me. You've misconstrued what I've said or meant. Sexual harassment is abhorrent but the politicisation of this case instead of letting authorities deal with it really is shocking. 

 

Are you trying to tell me there isn't any point scoring? There is, even on this thread and mostly from those Unionists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
6 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

What are you on about? I presume you're a unionist as I can detect it in your ire. I have 3 daughters and you know nothing about me. You've misconstrued what I've said or meant. Sexual harassment is abhorrent but the politicisation of this case instead of letting authorities deal with it really is shocking. 

 

Are you trying to tell me there isn't any point scoring? There is, even on this thread and mostly from those Unionists!

Loves Scotland that much he's in London, bumping up their economy. Or just English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
11 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It'll just add to the fun as the call each other out as splitters! 

The yes movement needs a more proactive indy party. If that means the SNP coalition has to break, so be it. The FM and leadership of the SNP needs to concentrate on more Scottish Independence from London and less about English Brexit/Independence from Brussels.

 

 

There'll be a GE soon, so no need for an Indyref2. 30 SNP MPs will do. And the the union loving Brits born here can put up with it. The same way  us real Scots put up with it for 300 years.

Edited by ri Alban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck
4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Loves Scotland that much he's in London, bumping up their economy. Or just English.

 

Who is? Salmond? 

 

He loves only one thing - himself. If he was made of chocolate, he’d eat himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
4 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Who is? Salmond? 

 

He loves only one thing - himself. If he was made of chocolate, he’d eat himself. 

:blahblah:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brighton Jambo
On 09/01/2019 at 02:58, ri Alban said:

Utter tripe again. 

Don’t rise to the bait!  The UK has almost literally never been in a bigger turmoil than the last two years and yet not one credible poll anywhere has Scotland in favour of independence.  To claim it is imminent is the laughable cries of the desperate.  Damn it I just rose to the bait!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brighton Jambo

Also - Salmond ended his conversation with the press by saying again something along the lines of ‚ÄėI‚Äôm no Angel‚Äô . ¬†He has clearly got some skeletons in that closet and has been a bit naughty. I‚Äôm Not saying that equates to what he is accused of but something has happened or why¬†would he say that?¬†

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dunks
2 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Also - Salmond ended his conversation with the press by saying again something along the lines of ‚ÄėI‚Äôm no Angel‚Äô . ¬†He has clearly got some skeletons in that closet and has been a bit naughty. I‚Äôm Not saying that equates to what he is accused of but something has happened or why¬†would he say that?¬†

 

For those reasonably close to this, that statement makes perfect sense.

 

He won't be charged by Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

Another 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JackLadd

Who's going to get Krankie's job then? Runner sand riders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
12 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Who's going to get Krankie's job then? Runner sand riders. 

Nicola Sturgeon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JackLadd
2 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Nicola Sturgeon. 

 

I see Humza Useless is current favourite. Mhairi Bleck second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
5 hours ago, JackLadd said:

 

I see Humza Useless is current favourite. Mhairi Bleck second.

Hilarious, really funny names. Must have taken you ages to think them up. Do you unionists actually think that playground name calling does anything, apart from making you look like daft wee laddies?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlimOzturk

Irony of Salmond tearing apart the very party he helped build into the biggest party in Scotland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Australis......

I believe that Police Scotland have said that Sturgeon getting involved could jeopardise the case.

 

Is there any chance that it could be a fix between her and Salmond, ending in her being cleared by the standards panel, Salmond was 5 times in the past and the Salmond case getting dropped.

 

Could it all end up like that, or are they really at each other's throats?

Then, what will happen to the two complainants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory

Opposition parties and the MSM have orchestrated this beautifully to distract from the Brexit shitshow for a few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory
On 11/01/2019 at 22:09, Seymour M Hersh said:

So will this internecine war be the end for them?  The "Sturgeon" Nationalist Party or The "Salmond" Nationalist Party? Apparently they are already briefing against each other (the supporters of each) privately to the media and in some cases publicly. 

 

*END OF THE SNP KLAXON*

 

You'd love it to be true, the media would love it to be true, the opposition parties would love it to be true, but the SNP juggernaut will roll on long after an iScotland is achieved.

 

When all this blows over, it'll harden the resolve of existing SNP supporters and highlight a malicious opposition that will prioritize party politics over the country thus further boosting the already growing support for Independence, the finishing line is in sight, and the unionists are panicking.

Edited by Hunky Dory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
13 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

*END OF THE SNP KLAXON*

 

You'd love it to be true, the media would love it to be true, the opposition parties would love it to be true, but the SNP juggernaut will roll on long after an iScotland is achieved.

 

When all this blows over, it'll harden the resolve of existing SNP supporters and highlight a malicious opposition that will prioritize party politics over the country thus further boosting the already growing support for Independence, the finishing line is in sight, and the unionists are panicking.

 

:rofl::facepalm::rofl::rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy

The cultists are rattled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory
36 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

:rofl::facepalm::rofl::rofl:

 

Feel free to identify or pick apart what is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory
25 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

The cultists are rattled.

 

I think after Brexit it was obvious that the union represents more of a cult than anything else within the UK.   Considering how those that voted remain and warned of the disastrous implications surrounding Brexit, quickly backtracked and followed official party line conveniently forgetting all the previous warnings associated with leaving the EU.

 

It must be hard being a unionist and watching every MSM source throw allegations towards the SNP in the hope of fracturing their support, only to see them continue to dominate every election.  I can't wait to see the red, white, and blue implosion when Scotland becomes independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff the Mince

Personally I can't stand any of the political parties or politicians 

 

Bunch of self serving conniving wankers .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
56 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

The cultists are rattled.

Not me. My support for independence and the SNP is stronger than ever. After all they are the only Scottish party so no one else to vote for. Who should I vote for that stands up for Scotland's interests, Labour or tory? ūü§£

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
6 hours ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Personally I can't stand any of the political parties or politicians 

 

Bunch of self serving conniving wankers .

 

While you're right from a general point of view, it's a pretty obvious statement so it's really not all that useful, you know? The challenge is in finding the exceptions to the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck
6 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

I think after Brexit it was obvious that the union represents more of a cult than anything else within the UK.   Considering how those that voted remain and warned of the disastrous implications surrounding Brexit, quickly backtracked and followed official party line conveniently forgetting all the previous warnings associated with leaving the EU.

 

It must be hard being a unionist and watching every MSM source throw allegations towards the SNP in the hope of fracturing their support, only to see them continue to dominate every election.  I can't wait to see the red, white, and blue implosion when Scotland becomes independent.

 

Re the topic of the thread, your guys keep lobbing in easy balls which have been dispatched beyond the boundary with flourishes reminiscent of the Big Bash League.  No point in your bottom lip getting bent out of shape with self-inflicted injuries. 

 

That aside... 

 

‚ÄėDisastrous implications¬†surrounding Brexit‚Äô.¬†

 

How is your detailed plan for independence with costs and benefits, risks and rewards coming along? 

 

Still going with ‚Äėshoot¬†first and ask questions later‚Äô?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
10 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

*END OF THE SNP KLAXON*

 

You'd love it to be true, the media would love it to be true, the opposition parties would love it to be true, but the SNP juggernaut will roll on long after an iScotland is achieved.

 

When all this blows over, it'll harden the resolve of existing SNP supporters and highlight a malicious opposition that will prioritize party politics over the country thus further boosting the already growing support for Independence, the finishing line is in sight, and the unionists are panicking.

Personally, I vote for which ever party best represents what I want at any given time.

I don't support a "party" as such. Blind party support always seems a bit mad!

There are people who would vote SNP no matter what they were saying and that has replaced the blind loyalty to Labour that used to afflict Scotland.

Look at the leader and the policies- then  vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
10 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

I think after Brexit it was obvious that the union represents more of a cult than anything else within the UK.   Considering how those that voted remain and warned of the disastrous implications surrounding Brexit, quickly backtracked and followed official party line conveniently forgetting all the previous warnings associated with leaving the EU.

 

It must be hard being a unionist and watching every MSM source throw allegations towards the SNP in the hope of fracturing their support, only to see them continue to dominate every election.  I can't wait to see the red, white, and blue implosion when Scotland becomes independent.

 

10 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Not me. My support for independence and the SNP is stronger than ever. After all they are the only Scottish party so no one else to vote for. Who should I vote for that stands up for Scotland's interests, Labour or tory? ūü§£

 

This, folks, is why you shouldn’t treat a political

party like a football team. 

 

Offering it unwavering support, no matter what anyone within that party is up to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
14 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

 

This, folks, is why you shouldn’t treat a political

party like a football team. 

 

Offering it unwavering support, no matter what anyone within that party is up to. 

 

One can support a party without necessarily supporting individual  members who are up to no good.

 

Some people may see themselves aligned to a particular party because they feel it represents their political outlook and philosophy.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
3 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

One can support a party without necessarily supporting individual  members who are up to no good.

 

Some people may see themselves aligned to a particular party because they feel it represents their political outlook and philosophy.  

 

 

That’s very true. However, you surely agree that there are people in Scotland who blindly follow the SNP, without acknowledging any failures from that party. 

 

And who who also claim any negative press associated with that party is all part of a MSM plot to discredit them. It’s all just a bit sad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
26 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

That’s very true. However, you surely agree that there are people in Scotland who blindly follow the SNP, without acknowledging any failures from that party. 

 

And who who also claim any negative press associated with that party is all part of a MSM plot to discredit them. It’s all just a bit sad. 

 

Oh, of course there are, as there is with prettty much all political parties.

 

Regards the MSM plots, I tend to err with you on that, however particularly with the printed press, there have been instances of misinformation, but then newspapers are entitled to political bias/opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff the Mince
5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

While you're right from a general point of view, it's a pretty obvious statement so it's really not all that useful, you know? The challenge is in finding the exceptions to the rule.

I was having a rant 

 

I like to rant .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
16 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Oh, of course there are, as there is with prettty much all political parties.

 

Regards the MSM plots, I tend to err with you on that, however particularly with the printed press, there have been instances of misinformation, but then newspapers are entitled to political bias/opinion.

 

Perhaps it’s just living in Scotland that exposes you more to the SNP supporters (some on here seem to support the SNP more than Hearts) than the hardline Conservatives. 

 

I tend to avoid media opinion because it is exactly that. Opinion. The paranoia that surrounds party politics just now is actually quite frightening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



√ó