Jump to content

The rise and fall of The SNP.


Guest

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JDK2020 said:

It will be interesting to see how this unseemly bun fight is viewed by floating voters. Obviously diehard nats will rail against "yoons and nawbags" but this whole fiasco is purely a result of internal SNP back-stabbing and infighting, and was completely avoidable - if it wasn't for Sturgeon's nasty streak and her incessant need to be she who must be obeyed.

In footballing terms it's a bit like Lawwell's celtic : the biggest part of their downfall is entirely self-inflicted through arrogance, self-obsession and good old-fashioned hubris.

I'm not a fan but Alex Salmond gave a good account of himself yesterday IMO, despite the SNP participants within the committee attempts to fillibuster with a load of fluff.

It's not something I would usually have watched but stumbled on it by chance and it was quite fascinating in it's own way.

Now I'm looking forward to 2 things :

1. Watching the SNP participants bowing and scraping and working to Nicola's orders.

2. Sturgeon's reaction to the clinical dissection of Bailey and Fraser.

Suddenly politics got interesting.

 

 

I remember Jason leach maki g a comment about her not liking people telling her what to do.  He handed her something in a lift and told her what the figures were.  She came back with 'you don't tell me what to do'.  

Doesn't mean Scotland couldn't run it's own affairs though.  

 

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

21 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Weird though how a metric **** ton of legal experts felt strongly enough that nothing like any of that was happening, that they felt compelled to write an open letter condemning the peddling of such conspiracy theories and coming to the defence of the Crown Office.

 

YoonAnon :lol:

 

Perhaps you could link this and maybe explain why it is that so many take an opposite view. Many people (real people, not the legal fraternity) are concerned that they wasted around £100million on malicious prosecutions and the best defence that they can come up with is that they are incompetent. I didn't think ignorance of the law was a valid defence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/alex-salmond-could-sue-nicola-sturgeon-over-one-angry-sentence-about-the-sexual-allegations-made-against-him-john-mclellan-3148419
 

The week’s events have plunged the Scottish government, parliament and legal system into the biggest post-war Scottish political crisis and the ex-First Minister’s opening statement summed up what is at stake: "The unacceptable conduct of those who appear to have no understanding of the importance of separation of party, government and prosecution authorities, indeed of the rule of law itself.”

To recap, the parliamentary inquiry into the disastrous handling of sexual harassment claims against Mr Salmond published his written submission, having been cleared to do so by the Parliamentary Corporate Body (PCB).

The PCB was then persuaded by the Crown Office to take down the evidence and only republished after several passages were redacted to remove any danger of breaching a court order not to identify complainants.

Mr Salmond’s appearance before the inquiry on Wednesday was cancelled as he sought legal advice, and such was the pace of change that by Thursday night the official Holyrood Business Bulletin for yesterday said: “There are no meetings today.”

The Crown Office intervening to limit the evidence available to such a politically explosive investigation was staggering, at best justified by putting a theoretical risk ahead of the institutional crisis now enveloping the Scottish government, parliament and judiciary. If the evidence did breach the order, then why is every website still carrying the unredacted material not facing contempt charges, an offence for which one man was jailed this week for six months?

The subjects for Thursday’s First Minister’s Questions weren’t hard to predict, or that Nicola Sturgeon’s answer would be the same as it’s been for weeks: nothing to hide, “relishing” giving her side of the story.

Coming out fighting, Ms Sturgeon rasped out her lines with the trademark half-laugh which signifies both disdain and unease, referring to a “scorched-earth policy that threatens the reputation and integrity of Scotland’s independent justice institutions”, adding for full effect that they were being sacrificed “on the altar of the ego of one man”. Sure enough, that was the line on Friday’s news bulletins.

It was noticeable that neither the Law Society of Scotland nor the Faculty of Advocates sought to defend the actions of individuals in the Crown Office, only warning about the dangers of undermining the independence of the system, and that cuts both ways.

Individuals are not then same as institutions and, as the Faculty said: “No one in public life is beyond reproach.” Nor should they be above criticism and unfortunately for Ms Sturgeon, amongst the torch-bearers to an alleged bonfire of the Scottish legal system included some prominent legal figures, like Edinburgh University’s emeritus professor of Scots law, Robert Black, who said: “There is no way that the unredacted version could be said to risk identification of the women.”

There are few more senior lawyers than the former Supreme Court member Lord Hope, who said he was “very surprised that the Crown Office can tell the Scottish Parliament what it can and cannot do”.

Ms Sturgeon said anyone suggesting political interference at the Crown Office was “signing up to a dangerous and quite deluded conspiracy theory that risks undermining the integrity and well-deserved reputation of Scotland’s independent justice system”. 

That presumably includes Lord Hope, who also said: “Perhaps there is weakness here in our parliamentary system. Does the Scottish parliament think that it is at risk of being held to be in contempt of court? Or is it just not wanting to offend the Crown Office? There is a question here that needs to be addressed.”

Ms Sturgeon appears unaware of how many non-political figures of legal substance are concerned about the Crown Office misjudging the impact of legal intervention in politics, but it was not the first time this week she spoke unwisely.

During her Wednesday Covid media briefing, she was asked about the inquiry and, referring to Mr Salmond’s accusers, she said: “The behaviour they complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct, and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen.”

It’s true Mr Salmond’s acquittal does not mean the women lied, but that’s not what Ms Sturgeon said. The clear inference is that while Mr Salmond might not have been found guilty of attempted rape and serious sexual assault, this is what happened and he should have been found guilty.

As well as the new complaint from ex-SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars that this broke the Ministerial Code, it is arguably as defamatory a statement as you are likely to hear, and to defend it she would have to prove something which a jury has already said Mr Salmond did not do.

That could plunge the whole thing back into court and drag the women back into the witness box. In the space of one angry sentence, Ms Sturgeon has opened herself up to legal action of potentially enormous proportions which could prolong the women’s ordeal.

Even before this week’s dramatic events and Mr Salmond’s evidence, it was cutting through to the public consciousness. The latest STV poll still had the SNP on course for an overall majority in May, but a fifth of SNP voters now feel “less favourably” towards the party, independence support has slipped four points, and Ms Sturgeon’s approval ratings are down eight.

No wonder Ms Sturgeon is keen to get the election out the way, despite being reluctant to allow any other kind of mass activity, but if May 6 didn’t seem so far away a fortnight ago, the next ten weeks are going to be the longest of her career

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/alex-salmond-could-sue-nicola-sturgeon-over-one-angry-sentence-about-the-sexual-allegations-made-against-him-john-mclellan-3148419
 

The week’s events have plunged the Scottish government, parliament and legal system into the biggest post-war Scottish political crisis and the ex-First Minister’s opening statement summed up what is at stake: "The unacceptable conduct of those who appear to have no understanding of the importance of separation of party, government and prosecution authorities, indeed of the rule of law itself.”

To recap, the parliamentary inquiry into the disastrous handling of sexual harassment claims against Mr Salmond published his written submission, having been cleared to do so by the Parliamentary Corporate Body (PCB).

The PCB was then persuaded by the Crown Office to take down the evidence and only republished after several passages were redacted to remove any danger of breaching a court order not to identify complainants.

Mr Salmond’s appearance before the inquiry on Wednesday was cancelled as he sought legal advice, and such was the pace of change that by Thursday night the official Holyrood Business Bulletin for yesterday said: “There are no meetings today.”

The Crown Office intervening to limit the evidence available to such a politically explosive investigation was staggering, at best justified by putting a theoretical risk ahead of the institutional crisis now enveloping the Scottish government, parliament and judiciary. If the evidence did breach the order, then why is every website still carrying the unredacted material not facing contempt charges, an offence for which one man was jailed this week for six months?

The subjects for Thursday’s First Minister’s Questions weren’t hard to predict, or that Nicola Sturgeon’s answer would be the same as it’s been for weeks: nothing to hide, “relishing” giving her side of the story.

Coming out fighting, Ms Sturgeon rasped out her lines with the trademark half-laugh which signifies both disdain and unease, referring to a “scorched-earth policy that threatens the reputation and integrity of Scotland’s independent justice institutions”, adding for full effect that they were being sacrificed “on the altar of the ego of one man”. Sure enough, that was the line on Friday’s news bulletins.

It was noticeable that neither the Law Society of Scotland nor the Faculty of Advocates sought to defend the actions of individuals in the Crown Office, only warning about the dangers of undermining the independence of the system, and that cuts both ways.

Individuals are not then same as institutions and, as the Faculty said: “No one in public life is beyond reproach.” Nor should they be above criticism and unfortunately for Ms Sturgeon, amongst the torch-bearers to an alleged bonfire of the Scottish legal system included some prominent legal figures, like Edinburgh University’s emeritus professor of Scots law, Robert Black, who said: “There is no way that the unredacted version could be said to risk identification of the women.”

There are few more senior lawyers than the former Supreme Court member Lord Hope, who said he was “very surprised that the Crown Office can tell the Scottish Parliament what it can and cannot do”.

Ms Sturgeon said anyone suggesting political interference at the Crown Office was “signing up to a dangerous and quite deluded conspiracy theory that risks undermining the integrity and well-deserved reputation of Scotland’s independent justice system”. 

That presumably includes Lord Hope, who also said: “Perhaps there is weakness here in our parliamentary system. Does the Scottish parliament think that it is at risk of being held to be in contempt of court? Or is it just not wanting to offend the Crown Office? There is a question here that needs to be addressed.”

Ms Sturgeon appears unaware of how many non-political figures of legal substance are concerned about the Crown Office misjudging the impact of legal intervention in politics, but it was not the first time this week she spoke unwisely.

During her Wednesday Covid media briefing, she was asked about the inquiry and, referring to Mr Salmond’s accusers, she said: “The behaviour they complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct, and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen.”

It’s true Mr Salmond’s acquittal does not mean the women lied, but that’s not what Ms Sturgeon said. The clear inference is that while Mr Salmond might not have been found guilty of attempted rape and serious sexual assault, this is what happened and he should have been found guilty.

As well as the new complaint from ex-SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars that this broke the Ministerial Code, it is arguably as defamatory a statement as you are likely to hear, and to defend it she would have to prove something which a jury has already said Mr Salmond did not do.

That could plunge the whole thing back into court and drag the women back into the witness box. In the space of one angry sentence, Ms Sturgeon has opened herself up to legal action of potentially enormous proportions which could prolong the women’s ordeal.

Even before this week’s dramatic events and Mr Salmond’s evidence, it was cutting through to the public consciousness. The latest STV poll still had the SNP on course for an overall majority in May, but a fifth of SNP voters now feel “less favourably” towards the party, independence support has slipped four points, and Ms Sturgeon’s approval ratings are down eight.

No wonder Ms Sturgeon is keen to get the election out the way, despite being reluctant to allow any other kind of mass activity, but if May 6 didn’t seem so far away a fortnight ago, the next ten weeks are going to be the longest of her career

 

 

 

It was some claim to make about his behaviour while she was in parliament.  An extremely foolish thing for someone in her position to do.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think Nicola Sturgeon is ****ed here.  Her angry outburst and undermining the jury decision during a Covid briefing has all but finished her off. She had no right to talk about the case at this briefing full stop but to come out say Salmond might well still be guilty is utterly astonishing. I hope he sues her to **** for defemination  of character and I believe it alone has breached the ministerial code. She has proved to be totally and utterly untrustworthy, power mad and just an all round bad egg.

 

She is doing more destruction to the SNP than any unionist and for the sake of Independence and the SNP she has to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two (of many it would appear) mistakes she were indeed her claim in Parliament which the presiding office should intervened in and her outburst at the Covid19 briefing. Her reply to the off topic question should have been I’m only here to answer questions about the virus. Speak to later about the Policy enquiry. 
I think her temper got the better of her and she blundered on. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Her Dad would actually be quite pleased at her repeated, poisonous attempts to belittle the Scottish Government. 

Not if it was Labour! 😄. I think there would've been a tad more respect for Scots than there is now.

 

Westminster and all their stooges in the press and the media in general are an abhorrent bunch. How Unionist Scots can put up with it is baffling. What goes through their minds when they talk Scotland down? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, weehammy said:

The language some of you clowns use to describe anyone not signed up to your cult!

 

:jj_facepalm:

 

Although I’m not a fan of Sturgeon I would never call her ‘twisted, contorted (or poisonous)’.

 

Who's a clown ya wee fool! Sarah Smith is a twisted Unionist much like yourself and your cult!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is not seeking independence, she is seeking personal glory. The statue, the legend that leading us to independence would bring.

she is damaging the cause and all because she is putting herself before party.

she has made egregious mistakes.

she will not go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
3 hours ago, Boy Daniel said:

Two (of many it would appear) mistakes she were indeed her claim in Parliament which the presiding office should intervened in and her outburst at the Covid19 briefing. Her reply to the off topic question should have been I’m only here to answer questions about the virus. Speak to later about the Policy enquiry. 
I think her temper got the better of her and she blundered on. 
 

 

Looks like it. The cumulative stresses of the past year must really be taking their toll.

In that she should have our sympathy.

The most damaging wounds may yet prove to be those that were self inflicted.

Edited by Governor Tarkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

I honestly think Nicola Sturgeon is ****ed here.  Her angry outburst and undermining the jury decision during a Covid briefing has all but finished her off. She had no right to talk about the case at this briefing full stop but to come out say Salmond might well still be guilty is utterly astonishing. I hope he sues her to **** for defemination  of character and I believe it alone has breached the ministerial code. She has proved to be totally and utterly untrustworthy, power mad and just an all round bad egg.

 

She is doing more destruction to the SNP than any unionist and for the sake of Independence and the SNP she has to go. 

 

Great post.

Her supreme arrogance got the better of her at that Covid meeting, and is, perhaps, an insight into her megalomania. It was a dreadful thing to say and completely inappropriate in the circumstances.

It is never healthy when political leaders surround themselves with only yes men and women as there is no-one to check any excesses.

There are now obviously real concerns among a number of SNP heavy hitters (not the collection of muppets who hang on her every word for the easy money it brings them) who have now caught up with the majority of us who believe that Sturgeon is unfit to lead the country. 

 

I think she may well struggle to control herself effectively when she appears before Wednesday's committee, even with the SNP members undoubtedly giving her an easy ride. Could be interesting.

 

And yes, Salmond and his supporters are now a far more effective opposition to Sturgeon than any of the other parties.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Looks like it. The cumulative stresses of the past year must really be taking their toll.

In that she should have our sympathy.

The most damaging wounds may yet prove to be those that were self inflicted.

You are right there. 
 

Just read what I had written😂 You can easily see I was never very good at English (not to mention slightly dyslexic) 🙁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regards next Wednesday as someone who isn’t exactly clued up on this will sturgeon actually get ask any hard questions that will put her in the shit or will it be a bit of an easy ride for her?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sturgeon lost the plot a long time ago. Rather than do the job she should be doing, which is to administer the devolved powers to the best of the SG's ability on behalf of us all, she's got swept up in this delusional Statesmanship role, and really does see herself as some sort of Mother of the Nation. 

 

And in my opinion, that's why Nationalism is so dangerous. Her husband's job in the Party, positioning friends in key public roles, a tame media, a weak opposition, and a fanatical support have led her to believe she was untouchable. 

 

If even half of what Salmond has claimed is true, her position is untenable. Even if she survives this, lasts to the election and wins it, her party is split and there is no route to another referendum anyway.

 

I think the Separatists will need to pack away the tick-tocks for the foreseeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Montpelier
4 minutes ago, theshed said:

Regards next Wednesday as someone who isn’t exactly clued up on this will sturgeon actually get ask any hard questions that will put her in the shit or will it be a bit of an easy ride for her?  

Expect Jackie Baillie and Murdo Fraser to be putting some challenging questions to her, the others maybe less so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105
38 minutes ago, pablo said:

Sturgeon lost the plot a long time ago. Rather than do the job she should be doing, which is to administer the devolved powers to the best of the SG's ability on behalf of us all, she's got swept up in this delusional Statesmanship role, and really does see herself as some sort of Mother of the Nation. 

 

And in my opinion, that's why Nationalism is so dangerous. Her husband's job in the Party, positioning friends in key public roles, a tame media, a weak opposition, and a fanatical support have led her to believe she was untouchable. 

 

If even half of what Salmond has claimed is true, her position is untenable. Even if she survives this, lasts to the election and wins it, her party is split and there is no route to another referendum anyway.

 

I think the Separatists will need to pack away the tick-tocks for the foreseeable.

:greatpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105
23 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

Social distancing. 

 

Screenshot_20210226-190904_Facebook.jpg

Is this a leaving party ? 
 

hopefully the press will look into whether it’s genuine 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pablo said:

Sturgeon lost the plot a long time ago. Rather than do the job she should be doing, which is to administer the devolved powers to the best of the SG's ability on behalf of us all, she's got swept up in this delusional Statesmanship role, and really does see herself as some sort of Mother of the Nation. 

 

And in my opinion, that's why Nationalism is so dangerous. Her husband's job in the Party, positioning friends in key public roles, a tame media, a weak opposition, and a fanatical support have led her to believe she was untouchable. 

 

If even half of what Salmond has claimed is true, her position is untenable. Even if she survives this, lasts to the election and wins it, her party is split and there is no route to another referendum anyway.

 

I think the Separatists will need to pack away the tick-tocks for the foreseeable.

Which friends are in "key public roles"? 

 

You didn't explain why you thought Nationalism is dangerous in this context unless you think that we have a tame media, weak opposition and fanatical support because of Nationalism. Are you suggesting that the media and opposition have been suppressed by the Nationalists? Do other Nationalists do this e.g.British Nationalists or are they above that sort of thing? The last bit obviously cant be totally true as you claim the "party is split".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

She is not seeking independence, she is seeking personal glory. The statue, the legend that leading us to independence would bring.

she is damaging the cause and all because she is putting herself before party.

she has made egregious mistakes.

she will not go

It'll be some fall from grace if she is found to have done the dirty considering at the start of the pandemic she was being seen as the most trustworthy leader in the uk. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theshed said:

Regards next Wednesday as someone who isn’t exactly clued up on this will sturgeon actually get ask any hard questions that will put her in the shit or will it be a bit of an easy ride for her?  

 

Going by yesterday it won't be easy. 

 

But then given how confident she is presumably she has straightforward answers for everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boy Daniel said:

The Aberdeen North MP Ma somebody or other will give her an easy time you can rest assured on that. 

 

Wednesday is a risk for the Committee. There were some signs of bias yesterday from a couple of SNP MSPs. But they were easily rebuffed. 

 

It was the Liberal Democrat who went all out to make Salmond out to be an abuser. He got the headlines he wanted but the Chair Linda Fabiani put him in his place. 

 

But going easy on Sturgeon undermines the point of the Committee to get to the bottom of what went on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Barack said:

Doesn't look it to me. Sturgeon's hair is slightly longer and styled differently in that photo. Bet Swinney wishes he could say the same.

 

A photoshop effort.

 

 

 

 

Is it not from the brexit vote? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
32 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

Saying 'nawbags' at this stage of the game is probably the sign of a sore loser.

 

 

You don't know that, this makes you seem shan.

 

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in anything you think. You have bombarded this thread with utter drivel and continue to do so. I actually think you have something wrong with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in anything you think. You have bombarded this thread with utter drivel and continue to do so. I actually think you have something wrong with you. 

Definitely a sandwich short of a picnic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
22 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

Like what is wrong with me? Some sort mental disease or something? I am Autistic, but I don't view that as a thing that is wrong. And neither should you, or anyone else. So, realistically, what could you mean.

 

I think I have touched a nerve, and you are lashing out at me.

 

Thanks. 

 

I'm not lashing out at you. I'm just responding to the shite you post when you quote me. If you don't like that then tough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 I am Autistic, but I don't view that as a thing that is wrong. And neither should you, or anyone else. So, realistically, what could you mean.

 

 

 

You shouldn't play the neurodiversity card to explain away your behaviour.  It's a cheap shot, and unfair to neurodivergent people who post on this forum without being aggressive and ill-mannered.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

What I notice with you, is you seem angry now.  


 

You seem to be an angry kind of person yourself.  Perhaps you should seek out conflict a little less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When's the next opinion poll on the election due to be published?  You'd have to ask if all the stuff in the news since Christmas might have an impact on voter intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

Ulysees, I was genuinely replying to an accusation 'I actually think you have something wrong with you.' that as an austitic person, I have heard many times.

So, on this website, I informed the person, and gave them an opportunity to think twice.

Autistic people are often considered angry and ill-mannered, as you have done to me here.

 

So I disagree. I believe that I communicated a valid piece of information, which was not a 'cheap shot', and I also disagree it was unfair to people who are 'neuro-divergent'.

 

Perhaps you ought to seek less control over other people.

 

I haven't done anything to you here.  You behave terribly, and all I've done is say so.  You repeatedly look for conflict, and you behave rudely and unpleasantly towards people who have different views to yours.  And whenever someone pushes back in response to that, you roll out the neurodiversity card.  That's unfair on others on this forum who are genuinely neurodivergent and who can post away on the forum without the amount of aggression that you display.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
1 hour ago, Zlatanable said:

"Nawbags". Pete Wishart said that years ago, a few days before Christmas, don't know if he originated it. He doesn't say it anymore.

You could not possibly know this as a fact. This is speculation. And you are quite clearly biased.

1- You are interested in what I say as you keep replying. 2- You make an accusation about my mental health and right to be part of democracy.

Nobody is making you reply to me. 

 

What I notice with you, is you seem angry now.  

 

I'm not angry and I'm completely comfortable with everything I have posted in reply to you. I also think it's quite cute when you say I'm biased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

OK.

For the record, I am not being rude to you here. 

 

I don't recognise your take that I 'roll out the neurodiversity card'. To me, I started a autism thread, and outside that, I rarely mention it.

 

If you think I behave terribly, that is your opinion. It is a subjective thing. 

 

But you are doing something to me here. You are attacking my character. 

I disagree with you that I am actually as bad a person as you are making me out to be.

 

I'll take it at face value when you say you are autistic.  You're also an aggressive and mean-spirited poster. These things are not connected in reality, and they're not connected by me - but they are connected by you, when someone pushes back against your poor behaviour.  If someone who isn't autistic were to do that it would probably be regarded as ableist and discriminatory, so I don't see why you should be given a free pass.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

I genuinely don't know how to reply to this.

You are not really talking to me I think. 

I have spent an hour defending my character against your accusations. 

What is it that you think you are doing?


When it comes to defending your character against accusations, if you weren't so aggressive and rude towards people you disagree with people wouldn't think you were aggressive and rude, myself included.  So it's not an accusation, it's a description.

 

But yeah, I do wonder about your fondness for conflict.  You started a couple of threads on the independence issue and the SNP, when you know that a lot of people on this forum are supporters of both.   So maybe you like the fights and the attention a little more than you're letting on, eh?  Maybe you'll consider that an accusation.  I'm saying it's more of a doubt.

 

That said, just because I'm calling it like I see it doesn't mean I'm not biased.  I've seen neurodivergent people who don't resort to unpleasantness and conflict, including on this board.  I've also seen autistic people being given a hard time unfairly, which I find annoying.  So I did a search, and discovered that you've used the "autism" defence only a couple of times, and less than it felt to me.  So I reckon it feels like more often because of the degree to which it annoys me.   So I'll back off, and hopefully I won't see it again. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Perhaps you could link this and maybe explain why it is that so many take an opposite view. Many people (real people, not the legal fraternity) are concerned that they wasted around £100million on malicious prosecutions and the best defence that they can come up with is that they are incompetent. I didn't think ignorance of the law was a valid defence. 

 

Here it is again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

I haven't done anything to you here.  You behave terribly, and all I've done is say so.  You repeatedly look for conflict, and you behave rudely and unpleasantly towards people who have different views to yours.  And whenever someone pushes back in response to that, you roll out the neurodiversity card.  That's unfair on others on this forum who are genuinely neurodivergent and who can post away on the forum without the amount of aggression that you display.

 

:greatpost:

 

5 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

I don't recognise your take that I 'roll out the neurodiversity card'. To me, I started a autism thread, and outside that, I rarely mention it.

 

Of course you don't. You never take personal responsibility for anything out of line you ever post. And you "rarely mention it"? :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:


When it comes to defending your character against accusations, if you weren't so aggressive and rude towards people you disagree with people wouldn't think you were aggressive and rude, myself included.  So it's not an accusation, it's a description.

 

But yeah, I do wonder about your fondness for conflict.  You started a couple of threads on the independence issue and the SNP, when you know that a lot of people on this forum are supporters of both.   So maybe you like the fights and the attention a little more than you're letting on, eh?  Maybe you'll consider that an accusation.  I'm saying it's more of a doubt.

 

That said, just because I'm calling it like I see it doesn't mean I'm not biased.  I've seen neurodivergent people who don't resort to unpleasantness and conflict, including on this board.  I've also seen autistic people being given a hard time unfairly, which I find annoying.  So I did a search, and discovered that you've used the "autism" defence only a couple of times, and less than it felt to me.  So I reckon it feels like more often because of the degree to which it annoys me.   So I'll back off, and hopefully I won't see it again. 

 

That would be a half decent post if it was just the last paragraph 

 

#bekind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

You shouldn't play the neurodiversity card to explain away your behaviour.  It's a cheap shot, and unfair to neurodivergent people who post on this forum without being aggressive and ill-mannered.

standing-ovation.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine playing the Autism card to explain why they are a troll? This was done in an attempt to make Weekend Offender out to be some sort of arsehole but ultimately made you, Zlattanable, even more pathetic for bringing it up. Here is a novel idea; nobody gives a shit about you having Autism but rather the intolerable and quite often nasty nature of your posting. That is down to your personality and blaming it on a disability is actually more insulting to the many hundreds and thousands of other autistic folk who lead perfectly normal lives without having to use it as an excuse.

 

Grow up and stop playing the disability card. Nobody here gives a shit and you will be treated as an equal member of this board regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
14 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Imagine playing the Autism card to explain why they are a troll? This was done in an attempt to make Weekend Offender out to be some sort of arsehole but ultimately made you, Zlattanable, even more pathetic for bringing it up. Here is a novel idea; nobody gives a shit about you having Autism but rather the intolerable and quite often nasty nature of your posting. That is down to your personality and blaming it on a disability is actually more insulting to the many hundreds and thousands of other autistic folk who lead perfectly normal lives without having to use it as an excuse.

 

Grow up and stop playing the disability card. Nobody here gives a shit and you will be treated as an equal member of this board regardless. 

 

Wasted effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Konrad von Carstein
29 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Imagine playing the Autism card to explain why they are a troll? This was done in an attempt to make Weekend Offender out to be some sort of arsehole but ultimately made you, Zlattanable, even more pathetic for bringing it up. Here is a novel idea; nobody gives a shit about you having Autism but rather the intolerable and quite often nasty nature of your posting. That is down to your personality and blaming it on a disability is actually more insulting to the many hundreds and thousands of other autistic folk who lead perfectly normal lives without having to use it as an excuse.

 

Grow up and stop playing the disability card. Nobody here gives a shit and you will be treated as an equal member of this board regardless. 

 

We need more  etc, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

Excerpts from an interesting piece in todays Telegraph by Nigel Biggar.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/28/plan-defeating-sturgeons-devious-snp/

 

Most of all Scottish nationalist hankering after independence is about the quasi-religious need to infuse quotidian lives with transcendent meaning, plugging the little self into a Grand National Project. Hence the nationalist spinning of an apocalyptic tale of young Scotland’s struggle to realise its shining, progressive, European destiny by pushing off the incubus of a dog-eared Britain, sunk in imperial nostalgia, dominated by Tory Little Englanders.

 

The situation mirrors Ireland’s a century ago, when, according to Roy Foster’s account in Vivid Faces of “the revolutionary generation” in Ireland straddling the First World War, young Irish separatists, enchanted by a mystical vision of national Gaelic purity, revolted against their parents’ collusion with decadent, materialist, militarist British civilisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are certainly all words. Hilariously delusional and ahistorical excerpts indeed, thanks for the laughs.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGlynn The Money
15 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Is this a leaving party ? 
 

hopefully the press will look into whether it’s genuine 

 

It's from 2019, the cabinet watching Lady Hale's verdict on the prorogation or parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
19 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Excerpts from an interesting piece in todays Telegraph by Nigel Biggar.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/28/plan-defeating-sturgeons-devious-snp/

 

Most of all Scottish nationalist hankering after independence is about the quasi-religious need to infuse quotidian lives with transcendent meaning, plugging the little self into a Grand National Project. Hence the nationalist spinning of an apocalyptic tale of young Scotland’s struggle to realise its shining, progressive, European destiny by pushing off the incubus of a dog-eared Britain, sunk in imperial nostalgia, dominated by Tory Little Englanders.

 

The situation mirrors Ireland’s a century ago, when, according to Roy Foster’s account in Vivid Faces of “the revolutionary generation” in Ireland straddling the First World War, young Irish separatists, enchanted by a mystical vision of national Gaelic purity, revolted against their parents’ collusion with decadent, materialist, militarist British civilisation.

Jesus christ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Excerpts from an interesting piece in todays Telegraph by Nigel Biggar.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/28/plan-defeating-sturgeons-devious-snp/

 

Most of all Scottish nationalist hankering after independence is about the quasi-religious need to infuse quotidian lives with transcendent meaning, plugging the little self into a Grand National Project. Hence the nationalist spinning of an apocalyptic tale of young Scotland’s struggle to realise its shining, progressive, European destiny by pushing off the incubus of a dog-eared Britain, sunk in imperial nostalgia, dominated by Tory Little Englanders.

 

The situation mirrors Ireland’s a century ago, when, according to Roy Foster’s account in Vivid Faces of “the revolutionary generation” in Ireland straddling the First World War, young Irish separatists, enchanted by a mystical vision of national Gaelic purity, revolted against their parents’ collusion with decadent, materialist, militarist British civilisation.

 

Drivel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

When's the next opinion poll on the election due to be published?  You'd have to ask if all the stuff in the news since Christmas might have an impact on voter intentions.

 

 

60F6BA40-F737-4734-BB86-ABB6F0659B8C.jpeg

84A7EDA3-B448-4945-A258-3378B4D3C7D5.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Excerpts from an interesting piece in todays Telegraph by Nigel Biggar.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/28/plan-defeating-sturgeons-devious-snp/

 

Most of all Scottish nationalist hankering after independence is about the quasi-religious need to infuse quotidian lives with transcendent meaning, plugging the little self into a Grand National Project. Hence the nationalist spinning of an apocalyptic tale of young Scotland’s struggle to realise its shining, progressive, European destiny by pushing off the incubus of a dog-eared Britain, sunk in imperial nostalgia, dominated by Tory Little Englanders.

 

The situation mirrors Ireland’s a century ago, when, according to Roy Foster’s account in Vivid Faces of “the revolutionary generation” in Ireland straddling the First World War, young Irish separatists, enchanted by a mystical vision of national Gaelic purity, revolted against their parents’ collusion with decadent, materialist, militarist British civilisation.

tenor.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Wednesday is a risk for the Committee. There were some signs of bias yesterday from a couple of SNP MSPs. But they were easily rebuffed. 

 

It was the Liberal Democrat who went all out to make Salmond out to be an abuser. He got the headlines he wanted but the Chair Linda Fabiani put him in his place. 

 

But going easy on Sturgeon undermines the point of the Committee to get to the bottom of what went on. 

 

Salmond held up well under questioning last week, not so sure wee Nippy and her temperament will cope as well. However, it's not like the SNP haven't been preparing for anyone daring to question them.

 

Taxpayers foot £55,000 bill to 'prepare' civil servants for Salmond inquiry hearings (telegraph.co.uk)

 

At any rate, be sure to expect the SNP members to play to her bidding.

Edited by JDK2020
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...