Jump to content

The rise and fall of The SNP.


Guest

Recommended Posts

kingantti1874
1 minute ago, XB52 said:

Last reply as obviously wasting my time. You said and I quote

"point, is and always has been that we would need to take our fair share of U.K. debt." 

 

Glad that you now agree that we would not NEED to take our share 


So  “need” in your mind means I’ve said it’s the law? I did highlight the precedents that we would need to take the debt, and we will be taking the ****ing debt 😂 and there will be no £2k per head benefit .. which WAS the garbage point made in the first place
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Unknown user

    1077

  • jack D and coke

    795

  • manaliveits105

    705

  • Roxy Hearts

    648

13 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Another one that can't read. We would not need to take a share of UK debt, end of story, Fact. Will we end up taking a share of the debt for a share of the assets? Very likely but not legally required 

The whole debt thing is a red herring. How much CAPITAL from the UK debt has been paid back in the last 30 years ? NONE. Not a penny. The UK only pays interest on the debt, has done for many years. I imagine Scotland MIGHT be held liable for 8.45% if those interest payments for a given amount of time but it’s by no means a legal certainty. The debt is UK debt, all incurred, managed and spent by the UK government without Scotland’s blessing or input and not proportionally spent in Scotland. incurred on behalf of a UK which would still exist as an entity but which we would no longer be part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/new-northern-independence-party-cause-for-concern-among-labour-ranks-in-hartlepool-259190/
If this ever gains traction in the north (and god only knows how it hasn’t happened) then Labour will be ruined in England as well. 
Labour took Scotland, Wales and the north for granted for half a century and now have no idea what they are or who they’re supposed to represent. 

 

I am not a big Labour fan, and have never voted for them in any election, but it is quite sad to see how far they have fallen since the death of New Labour. 

 

The fact that they cannot hold the current Westminster Govt to account is problematic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheOak88 said:

 

I am not a big Labour fan, and have never voted for them in any election, but it is quite sad to see how far they have fallen since the death of New Labour. 

 

The fact that they cannot hold the current Westminster Govt to account is problematic. 

 

Could be a trend worldwide. How Governments control information etc.

 

Individually there are a lot of questions by Opposition. Anas Sarwar did quite well on mental health the other day for example. 

 

But how much does the electorate care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad that this debate always descends into semantic point scoring. 

 

Especially when basically everyone agrees the same point which is that if Scotland went independent, in any separation negotiation with the UK we would have to take on a portion of the overall UK debt. 

 

The more interesting question is whether we would be in a position to service that debt or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Could be a trend worldwide. How Governments control information etc.

 

Individually there are a lot of questions by Opposition. Anas Sarwar did quite well on mental health the other day for example. 

 

But how much does the electorate care?

 

Yeah I saw that bit from Sarwar on mental health. 

 

It feels like Scot Labour are almost just a bit of a protest party now. They don’t seem to be tackling the big issues, no real idea what they stand for in terms of economics, education, health etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Yeah I saw that bit from Sarwar on mental health. 

 

It feels like Scot Labour are almost just a bit of a protest party now. They don’t seem to be tackling the big issues, no real idea what they stand for in terms of economics, education, health etc. 

 

We should find out soon.

 

There's an election. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XB52 said:

You obviously can't read or understand. I originally argued against a poster who stated we couldn't use the pound and that we had to accept debt. Both these statements are false. If you can read you would see that I agree that, in negotiations, an equitable debt for assets swap would be worked out

Piss off 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

Sad that this debate always descends into semantic point scoring. 

 

Especially when basically everyone agrees the same point which is that if Scotland went independent, in any separation negotiation with the UK we would have to take on a portion of the overall UK debt. 

 

The more interesting question is whether we would be in a position to service that debt or not. 

UK will simply try to divide the national debt by 10 and charge Scotland for that much.

Scotland will demand an itemised bill and only accept debt for expenses that were directly spent in Scotland (as per the international standard mentioned earlier), or will demand assets to cover the entire 10% charge if agreement on that cannot be reached.

The end result would be somewhere between those.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waiting on the impartial independent report.

If that has the same findings as the committee, she'll have to go.

 

If it doesn't agree then she'll have a way out, but may go anyways as it's harming the party in the run-up to the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user

Listening to the radio on the way home they seemed to be of the opinion that the key word would be "knowingly"

 

If it's found that she knowingly misled parliament then she's breached the ministerial code, if it's found it wasn't done knowingly then she hasn't.

 

I'm sure that distinction won't matter to her enemies but it's pretty important in terms of power and support on her side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105

It’s OK the green minion says the committee enquiry has lost all credibility with the leaks

Is that how it works paddy if the result is leaked it can’t be the right result 

there’s never any leaks in politics right enough

The lickspittle greens need booted out as well 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JimmyCant said:

The whole debt thing is a red herring. How much CAPITAL from the UK debt has been paid back in the last 30 years ? NONE. Not a penny. The UK only pays interest on the debt, has done for many years. I imagine Scotland MIGHT be held liable for 8.45% if those interest payments for a given amount of time but it’s by no means a legal certainty. The debt is UK debt, all incurred, managed and spent by the UK government without Scotland’s blessing or input and not proportionally spent in Scotland. incurred on behalf of a UK which would still exist as an entity but which we would no longer be part of.

Scotland  didn't borrow the money so there's no liability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:


So  “need” in your mind means I’ve said it’s the law? I did highlight the precedents that we would need to take the debt, and we will be taking the ****ing debt 😂 and there will be no £2k per head benefit .. which WAS the garbage point made in the first place
 

 

Scotland doesn't NEED to take any of the debt - it didn't borrow the money.

Scotland may agree to do so - perhaps for it's  share of the assets but to suggest Scotland WILL is crystal ball gazing. It would be fascinating to see how London works out Scotland's share of the debt London ran up - HS2 for starters (from which Scotland derives zero benefit). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auld Reekin'
6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Listening to the radio on the way home they seemed to be of the opinion that the key word would be "knowingly"

 

If it's found that she knowingly misled parliament then she's breached the ministerial code, if it's found it wasn't done knowingly then she hasn't.

 

I'm sure that distinction won't matter to her enemies but it's pretty important in terms of power and support on her side.

 

Or the BBC, or ITV, or the right-wing / unionist press, or the union-at-all-and-any-costers on here. Oh wait, you're right, her enemies...   :icon14:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105

The James Hamilton enquiry smacks of the SFA independent enquiry last year - they appointed the independent    QC - the fish appointed the independent QC for this 

here’s a Scottish Government response for FOI request into correspondence provided by Swinney to Hamilton

Information request and response under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

James Hamilton QC investigation remit correspondence: FOI release
FOI reference: FOI/202100139181
Date received: 18 Jan 2021
Date responded: 15 Feb 2021
Information requested

- All communication between John Swinney and James Hamilton QC in relation to the inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code.

-All communication between the Scottish Government and James Hamilton QC in relation to the inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code.

Response

It may be of assistance if I clarify at the outset that James Hamilton QC is one of the independent advisers on the Scottish Ministerial Code. The independent advisers are not subject to FOISA.

Accordingly, information held by or on behalf of Mr Hamilton is not within the scope of FOISA. In any event, your request has been made to the Scottish Government rather than to Mr Hamilton, and so we have considered whether the Scottish Government holds any information that falls within scope of your request.

  • All communication between John Swinney and James Hamilton QC in relation to the inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code.

I enclose a copy of most of the information you requested.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide a small amount of the information you have requested because an exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to that information. 

This exemption applies because requested because it is personal data of a third party, in this case the personal contact details of a third party, and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

  • All communication between the Scottish Government and James Hamilton QC in relation to the inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code.

I enclose a copy of most of the information you requested.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide a small amount of the information you have requested because an exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to that information. 

This exemption applies because requested because it is personal data of a third party, in this case the personal contact details of a third party, and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

An exemption under section 30(c) (substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) applies to some of the information.

This exemption applies because the information you have requested is information concerning the conduct of Mr Hamilton’s ongoing investigation in respect of the First Minister’s self-referral under the Scottish Ministerial Code. We consider that disclosure of this information would substantially prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (i.e. Mr Hamilton’s investigation which is being carried out in accordance with paragraph 1.7 of the Scottish Ministerial Code).

Mr Hamilton’s investigation was ongoing at the date your request was received, and it remains ongoing as at the date of this response. We consider that disclosure of information relating to Mr Hamilton’s conduct of the investigation would be likely to prejudice substantially his investigation because it would lead to an unwarranted focus on possible approaches to the preparation of, or approach used in the final report before he has had an opportunity to conclude his investigation and prepare his report. In our view, disclosure would be likely to undermine the process whereby such investigations are carried out, and it is likely that this would affect the independent advisers’ ability to discuss matters of process with the Scottish Government.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is a public interest in transparency, particularly in relation to the work that the independent advisers undertake, in evidencing that their investigations are carried out objectively and independently, and in understanding fully the processes used by the independent advisers when a referral is made to them..

However, we consider that there is a greater public interest in allowing the independent advisers to determine the details of how the investigation would be conducted, without that part of the process necessarily being put into the public domain. We consider that the Independent Advisor and Scottish public authorities and their staff (principally, but not exclusively, the Scottish Government) would be far more reticent in discussing different approaches to the process if there was no confidential space for these discussions to proceed.

In short, there is a greater public interest in ensuring that independent advisers can fulfil their functions under the Scottish Ministerial Code effectively and that future referrals are not prejudiced. We also take the view that the public interest is, to a large extent, served by the eventual publication of the independent adviser’s report once the investigation is complete.

 

:interehjrling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roxy Hearts

Back on topic from OP. By-election win for the SNP last night. Still rising and not falling. They were also first preference in the other one but Labour and Tories got together.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Scotland  didn't borrow the money so there's no liability. 

I take it you've not got divorced. I wish I'd been able to apply that logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mister T said:

I take it you've not got divorced. I wish I'd been able to apply that logic. 

Top debating there. Bravo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambos are go!

Leave this to the SNP folks and don't let become about Independence. This is all about two SNP heavyweights going for each others jugular. The committee  had an inbuilt independence Majority .

Let them keep digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Top debating there. Bravo. 

It wasn't a contribution to the debate. I was being serious. Unfortunately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mister T said:

It wasn't a contribution to the debate. I was being serious. Unfortunately. 

 

Here's to your  to your next insightful contribution. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffros Furios
9 minutes ago, Mister T said:

OK 👍

Have you two just got divorced from each other ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are part of an United Body (in this case Kingdom) and that United body borrows money to function and you are in someway benefiting from the borrowing (being able to function) At some point in the future you decide to withdraw from the United body then that doesn’t absolve you from not being responsible for your share of the debt. 
If you chose to walk away and not take responsibility for your share of the debt then you become liable and will be subject to debt recovery and all the consequences that comes with that. 
Debt could be written off or assets exchanged in lieu of part or all of the debt. 

Edited by Boy Daniel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mister T said:

I take it you've not got divorced. I wish I'd been able to apply that logic. 

If this is a divorce, we’re the downtrodden abused partner kept in a marriage against their will for 300 hundred years and they are the brow beating bully keeping us in the corner and feeding us scraps.

 

Divorces like that turn out one way generally speaking. We’re keeping the house and the kids and the dug and your clothes are in 2 sacks in the garden for you to collect when you fancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

And the polling for that was from 10 days ago.

 

NS being seen as a 'world leader' as it were, seemed to me like a major part of what she was doing.

Her appearance at the anti-Brexit/pro-EU membership rally in London for instance. 

 

IMO, NS has spent time + effort building support for her as a person and leader, and for the cause, to the audience outside Scotland. And a lot of that effort was toward the UK (mainly England, as Wales and Northern Ireland have commonality of such issues about identity), and toward the the EU after the Brexit vote.

 

Which is fair enough. It is like preparing the landing ground. 

 

So the collapse in support outwith Scotland is a thing NS cannot recover from, imo. Like, that is not something NS will be able to recover. 

 

 

 

😴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

I am still laughing at 'generally speaking'

You’ve lost me. Maybe it’s late on a Friday night or something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

I am still  laughing, I think it also might the phrase 'divorces like that', in fact your whole post is hilarious. but Divorces like that turn out one way generally speaking.' is so funny.

Okay mate. I’ll bid you goodnight and leave you to your cackling inanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105

She didn’t remember or know 50 times  at the enquiry she certainly didn’t do well as her PR machine suggests.

Jess has her number though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting sick on this “this is about the women”’chat. Is everyone just forgetting that Alex Salmond has faced the charges and none of the allegations against him were found to be true? When does the apologies start flowing his way? He was falsely accused of rape ffs. This was a court case with a majority female jury and judge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
31 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

I am getting sick on this “this is about the women”’chat. Is everyone just forgetting that Alex Salmond has faced the charges and none of the allegations against him were found to be true? When does the apologies start flowing his way? He was falsely accused of rape ffs. This was a court case with a majority female jury and judge. 

It's a fair point. I think though that Salmond's chips were well and truly pissed the minute his lawyer admitted to inappropriate advances when drunk. It changed the perception of him from an outraged innocent to a lecherous old drunk who probably is guilty of something whether it could be proven or not.

 

I'm not saying that's right of course, if found not guilty he should be treated like he's not guilty, but I feel like there isn't a lot of sympathy among what would normally be his core support because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It's a fair point. I think though that Salmond's chips were well and truly pissed the minute his lawyer admitted to inappropriate advances when drunk. It changed the perception of him from an outraged innocent to a lecherous old drunk who probably is guilty of something whether it could be proven or not.

 

I'm not saying that's right of course, if found not guilty he should be treated like he's not guilty, but I feel like there isn't a lot of sympathy among what would normally be his core support because of this.


He has been well and truly punished and well and trulydragged through the gutter for his inappropriate behaviour. You have to ask when does the punishment start to fit the crime. You also have to ask how many of these women were a wee bit scorned and made the advances in the first place to attempt to further their career.
 

Why is the women who accused him

of rape when he wasn’t even at bute on that day just getting allowed to get away with false allegations like that? Its rank rotten behaviour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
2 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


He has been well and truly punished and well and trulydragged through the gutter for his inappropriate behaviour. You have to ask when does the punishment start to fit the crime. You also have to ask how many of these women were a wee bit scorned and made the advances in the first place to attempt to further their career.
 

Why is the women who accused him

of rape when he wasn’t even at bute on that day just getting allowed to get away with false allegations like that? Its rank rotten behaviour. 

Yeah I'm not arguing, I bet he's having a really shitty time just now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
2 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


He has been well and truly punished and well and trulydragged through the gutter for his inappropriate behaviour. You have to ask when does the punishment start to fit the crime. You also have to ask how many of these women were a wee bit scorned and made the advances in the first place to attempt to further their career.
 

Why is the women who accused him

of rape when he wasn’t even at bute on that day just getting allowed to get away with false allegations like that? Its rank rotten behaviour. 

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.


🙏

 

great post agree with every word. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
53 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

I’ve not been that deep into it but that’s covered quite a bit. 
The whole thing is utterly bizarre I can’t for the life of me work out why they’ve done this..it stinks big time though and regardless of whether you like AS or not this is a crime in itself trying to fit him up on this bullshit. 
My gut feelings are it’s more to do with Peter Murrell for some reason but she’ll have to carry the can at the end of the day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enzo Chiefo
1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Great post CD. I'm not a supporter of the SNP nor Independence but I do understand that the Yes movement and the party are different entities.  Sturgeon, her husband and their cabal are rotten to the core and this whole affair stinks to high heaven. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.


Excellent post Doug. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

 

I managed two minutes before I was wondering where he lives and would it be worth my effort to pop round and knock his pan in. 
He’s the bloke you dread getting stuck with at a social gathering. Anyone that kicks off his diatribe with Sartre is generally a mock intellectual tosspot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auldbenches
7 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Excellent post.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffros Furios
8 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Another great post Duggie .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105

Scot Craig from Falkirk wins the voice

Weegie Lawrence wins Rue Paul’s Drag Race

its just a fix to make us feel wanted and prove we are better together 

:conspiracy:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
19 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Scot Craig from Falkirk wins the voice

Weegie Lawrence wins Rue Paul’s Drag Race

its just a fix to make us feel wanted and prove we are better together 

:conspiracy:

 

 

2 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

Fascinating.

At the very least, it is different.

I’m all for ****ing everything up☺️
He gets my vote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...