Don Dan Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 (edited) Edited March 2, 2021 by Boy Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said: Give it a rest. You must be employed by some stupid unionist supporting party or advised to come on here to noise the place up! You're not Ian Murray? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said: It was okay send untested people to care homes killing thousands during a pandemic. Who did that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 It seems the Scottish Tories think its fair to convict someone before they even give evidence. Won't succeed though as the other parties want to wait until the enquiry has concluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said: I don't understand how people can vote for Johnson, Ross, Davidson, Sarwar, Baillie, Rennie, Gove, Starmer and the rest of the anti Scottish reprobates. Absolutely hate them and their demeaning behaviour. We are supposed to equal partners in this so called union. If we were equal partners we wouldn't be getting a 14bn deficit covered annually for free. They'd say spend within your means. Mrs Merkel won't be covering any snp freebies. The uni's, the care homes, the prescriptions etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Footballfirst said: Pedant point: He was found "Not Proven" on one charge of "Sexual assault with attempt to rape". It has the same effective result as a "not guilty" verdict, but is not the same. Do you know why he was found not proven on that charge as opposed to being found not guilty on the others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Odds from Betfair Next Scottish First Minister Win 4/1 Angus Robertson 5/1 Kate Forbes 6/1 John Swinney 7/1 Joanna Cherry 12/1 Keith Brown 14/1 Humza Yousaf 16/1 Ruth Davidson Mhairi Black Douglas Ross 20/1 Shona Robison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, JackLadd said: If we were equal partners we wouldn't be getting a 14bn deficit covered annually for free. They'd say spend within your means. Mrs Merkel won't be covering any snp freebies. The uni's, the care homes, the prescriptions etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, The Frenchman Returns said: Odds from Betfair Next Scottish First Minister Win 4/1 Angus Robertson 5/1 Kate Forbes 6/1 John Swinney 7/1 Joanna Cherry 12/1 Keith Brown 14/1 Humza Yousaf 16/1 Ruth Davidson Mhairi Black Douglas Ross 20/1 Shona Robison Kate Forbes would be good. Like a tidy supply teacher. In for a week before the real one comes along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDK2020 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 6 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said: Give it a rest. You must be employed by some stupid unionist supporting party or advised to come on here to noise the place up! You're not Ian Murray? FFS, welcome to the debate! We were missing a voice of reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 hour ago, weehammy said: Not sure what you’re banging on about here. It matters not a jot if Salmond behaved like a sex pest. The issues are that the FM seems to have overseen a costly legal case despite being told it was unwinnable and may have misled parliament about the timing and nature of relevant meetings on the Salmond case. The point being that it was the behaviour of the former FM that kicked off this whole saga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 8 minutes ago, coconut doug said: What is it that Salmond has done that makes you say he is a sleazeball? When he describes himself as "No angel" and his QC describes him as a sex-pest or his conduct as "inappropriate", I think that is a reasonable starting point. His former head of policy and speech writer described him as "a creep" and went on to write a newspaper column "“When your best defence is ‘I’m sleazy but not criminal’, it’s nothing to smile about,” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Latest odds 69/1 on Derek Mackay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Candy said: Kate Forbes would be good. Like a tidy supply teacher. In for a week before the real one comes along Fungus Rab is a shoe-in surely. Likes to play away mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Candy said: Latest odds 69/1 on Derek Mackay 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, coconut doug said: Do you know why he was found not proven on that charge as opposed to being found not guilty on the others? I honestly don't know why that was the case. It was odd trial in any event as the case started with 15 jurors, but ended with 13 after Lady Dorrian discharged two (1 man, 1 woman) for "various reasons". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDK2020 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, luckydug said: The point being that it was the behaviour of the former FM that kicked off this whole saga. More correctly, the point is that it all kicked off when Sturgeon decided to use Salmond's (alleged) behaviour as the basis for inviting others to join her in a conspiracy to have him charged and hopefully jailed. Presumably behaviour that her and her co-conspirators had known about for years (if it was in fact true) and had done sweet FA about in all that time until she had deemed it necessary for whatever her agenda was. Edited March 2, 2021 by JDK2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: When he describes himself as "No angel" and his QC describes him as a sex-pest or his conduct as "inappropriate", I think that is a reasonable starting point. His former head of policy and speech writer described him as "a creep" and went on to write a newspaper column "“When your best defence is ‘I’m sleazy but not criminal’, it’s nothing to smile about,” That's why the SG pressed ahead with the case. They couldn't just bury it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 I have questions - can anyone help me understand some of this... With regards to the legal advice (suggesting that the investigation shouldn't go ahead) who decided to continue with it (leading to the waste of money and payout for Salmond's legal fees) ? Was it the head of the Civil Service, the Lord Advocate or someone else ? Also - at the time they were given the advice and would have had to stand down, would the Scottish Government been liable for a big chunk of legal expense anyway ? Would it have been a big difference given that Salmond would have been engaging with a lawyer ? Just genuinely wondering who made the decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwindonJambo Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, Candy said: Latest odds 69/1 on Derek Mackay Got to be worth an each way bet 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Footballfirst said: When he describes himself as "No angel" and his QC describes him as a sex-pest or his conduct as "inappropriate", I think that is a reasonable starting point. His former head of policy and speech writer described him as "a creep" and went on to write a newspaper column "“When your best defence is ‘I’m sleazy but not criminal’, it’s nothing to smile about,” In the words of Salmond himself last week. Just because somebody said something doesn't make it true. If he was so bad then why is there no credible evidence given the huge amount of police resource that went into finding some? Why did the police report that they had insufficient evidence for prosecution and yet they still proceeded with the prosecution. Have you actually seen the evidence that was led in court and is there any of it that you think credible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 16 minutes ago, JackLadd said: If we were equal partners we wouldn't be getting a 14bn deficit covered annually for free. They'd say spend within your means. Mrs Merkel won't be covering any snp freebies. The uni's, the care homes, the prescriptions etc... 2 trillion debt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, JDK2020 said: FFS, welcome to the debate! We were missing a voice of reason. I presume you're a unionist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 John Swinney should walk as well he is still defending the indefensible! https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-told-to-resign-as-evidence-to-harassment-complaints-committee-backs-alex-salmond-3152353 After been told in October 2018 that there was a high portability of losing the case and still being told on two or three occasions quite strongly up to the case commencing that it would fail. Swinney claims : “These documents are clear. Our legal advice was optimistic about the government’s prospects for success at the start. It became gradually, but progressively less optimistic over time.” The documents were NOT optimistic about the prospects for success. And who allowed the Investigation Office Ms McKinnon to investigate the case after she had contact with one of the complainers also needs to go as does Ms McKinnon who should have known better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, luckydug said: It seems the Scottish Tories think its fair to convict someone before they even give evidence. Won't succeed though as the other parties want to wait until the enquiry has concluded. The Tories are right to call a vote of no confidence whether it be against Swinney or Sturgeon however any decent politician for the SNP should be able to quote verbatim the absolute rank hypocrisy given the behaviour of the Primeminister and in the last week his Health Secretary (when it comes to breaking the law/legal cases and wasting vast quantities of tax payer money). Edited March 2, 2021 by Mysterion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 12 minutes ago, luckydug said: The point being that it was the behaviour of the former FM that kicked off this whole saga. What did he actually do though? You seem unable to tell us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said: 2 trillion debt! Foxy Roxy has his wee Casio out. 😆 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Mysterion said: The Tories are right to call a vote of no confidence whether it be against Swinney or Sturgeon however any decent politician for the SNP should be able to quote verbatim the absolute rank hypocrisy given the behaviour of the Primeminister and in the last week his Health Secretary when it comes to breaking the law/legal cases and wasting vast quantities of tax payer money. Correct. Let's hope the chancers on here can ask the same questions of the corrupt cesspit that's Westminster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamborich Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 32 minutes ago, coconut doug said: What is it that Salmond has done that makes you say he is a sleazeball? 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Famous 1874 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 24 minutes ago, coconut doug said: Who did that? Sturgeon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said: Correct. Let's hope the chancers on here can ask the same questions of the corrupt cesspit that's Westminster. Ken, whit aboot them, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, Candy said: Ken, whit aboot them, eh? Correct. Tell me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: I honestly don't know why that was the case. It was odd trial in any event as the case started with 15 jurors, but ended with 13 after Lady Dorrian discharged two (1 man, 1 woman) for "various reasons". Nobody knows for sure but the events described in the not proven allegation were not disputed. The events had happened a few years ago and were dealt with by an internal process. The complainer and AS reached an amicable agreement. The complainer was asked if she wished to be moved away from As at the same grade but declined because she liked working where she was. AS maintained at the time and in the trial that what happened was consensual. The complainer did not want to go to court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Famous 1874 said: Sturgeon When and how did she manage it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamborich Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 25 minutes ago, luckydug said: It seems the Scottish Tories think its fair to convict someone before they even give evidence. Won't succeed though as the other parties want to wait until the enquiry has concluded. Lol expand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Famous 1874 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 23 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said: Odds from Betfair Next Scottish First Minister Win 4/1 Angus Robertson 5/1 Kate Forbes 6/1 John Swinney 7/1 Joanna Cherry 12/1 Keith Brown 14/1 Humza Yousaf 16/1 Ruth Davidson Mhairi Black Douglas Ross 20/1 Shona Robison Have they offered any odds for Sturgeon to either resign or stay? Interested to see the bookies thoughts, although since they have offered odds for other people they must know something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, coconut doug said: In the words of Salmond himself last week. Just because somebody said something doesn't make it true. If he was so bad then why is there no credible evidence given the huge amount of police resource that went into finding some? Why did the police report that they had insufficient evidence for prosecution and yet they still proceeded with the prosecution. Have you actually seen the evidence that was led in court and is there any of it that you think credible? No I haven't seen the evidence, but I expect that the Crown Office (with the LA making the final decision) thought that there was enough there for a conviction. Without corroborating evidence for the complaints, they probably sought to rely on a pattern of behaviour being established through the number and nature of the complaints, but failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Famous 1874 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, coconut doug said: When and how did she manage it? October last year https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18829366.coronavirus-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-fire-care-home-transfers/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, coconut doug said: What did he actually do though? You seem unable to tell us? There's a legally acceptable wiki here outlining the former FM was a "touchy feely" character and that local policy at Bute House was changed to stop women from working alone with him after an incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Advocate_v_Salmond He was found not guilty though despite a number of women making complaints on record. I find it difficult to accept nothing inappropriate happened which lead to this sorry story of who knew what/when and how they tried to do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 27 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said: Give it a rest. You must be employed by some stupid unionist supporting party or advised to come on here to noise the place up! You're not Ian Murray? It must rattling your jimmies to see the SNP dirty laundry being laid bare for all to see. SNP were once the ones who were above criticism, in the eyes of the avid supporters. It make you wonder what else lies hidden from the Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said: Have they offered any odds for Sturgeon to either resign or stay? Interested to see the bookies thoughts, although since they have offered odds for other people they must know something Don't know if they know something - but i would take a punt (no pun intended) that they opened a book on it in order to take a few quid off people. The book will always balance and alter the odds as betting patterns change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said: Correct. Tell me. That Boris Johnson that went tae the posh school, trying tae put Theresa May in jail for being an unproven beast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, Boy Daniel said: It must rattling your jimmies to see the SNP dirty laundry being laid bare for all to see. SNP were once the ones who were above criticism, in the eyes of the avid supporters. It make you wonder what else lies hidden from the Parliament. It rattles me that dumplings on here go on about what's happening in Scotland but not about the cesspit that's Westminster. I'll be voting SNP until independence is achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamborich Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said: It rattles me that dumplings on here go on about what's happening in Scotland but not about the cesspit that's Westminster. I'll be voting SNP until independence is achieved. 40 minutes ago, coconut doug said: What is it that Salmond has done that makes you say he is a sleazeball? 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Candy said: That Boris Johnson that went tae the posh school, trying tae put Theresa May in jail for being an unproven beast. Westminster can GTF and their supporters too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, Roxy Hearts said: Westminster can GTF and their supporters too. A coherent and well reasoned point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Candy said: A coherent and well reasoned point. Brought down to this level. Unionists couldn't care less about Scotland and I couldn't care less about their worshipping of Westminster governance. I'll take our parliament in Scotland with all its faults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, Footballfirst said: No I haven't seen the evidence, but I expect that the Crown Office (with the LA making the final decision) thought that there was enough there for a conviction. Without corroborating evidence for the complaints, they probably sought to rely on a pattern of behaviour being established through the number and nature of the complaints, but failed. The police told them there was insufficient evidence for any convictions. The "evidence" given by at least some of the complainants was easitly and completely countered in particular the most serious indictment of attempted rape where the woman gave contradictory evidence but above all it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt (not reasonable doubt) that she was not where she said she was when the attempted rape was (Bute House)supposed to have taken place. Not only did the complainants not have corroborating evidence even when others were present, but of those in the same place at the time of the allegations did not see anything. Moreover one woman who claimed he touched her leg and was so traumatised by the whole thing that she could not reveal her identity in court but she never mentioned the event to her husband who was also in the same car at the same time. The driver testified that the architecture of the vehicle was such that it would have been impossible for the woman to have been assaulted without him seeing it and he didn't. There was no credible evidence that's why the prosecutions failed not because they couldn't establish a pattern. The real question is how did this rubbish get to court. Nicola didn't do it by herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said: It must rattling your jimmies to see the SNP dirty laundry being laid bare for all to see. SNP were once the ones who were above criticism, in the eyes of the avid supporters. It make you wonder what else lies hidden from the Parliament. Whilst your comments are intended for someone else - i'll just chuck my views in on your last sentence. I don't think the SNP have a closet full of skeletons of issues hidden from parliament - i think that one of the general strengths is that many government issues are not hidden and they've take a lot of criticism in the last term (eg. Issues with Education reform, problems with the ventilation in the QE2 Hospital). I am open to having my mind changed but at the moment I see the real thing about the Salmond affair is that at some point a number of actors (whether it is the FM/Civil Service/Lord Advocate etc) have screwed up whilst trying to support a number of claims of sexual impropriety. In the light of the MeToo movement I suspect that we saw an attempt to support and show willingness to act and not cover up issues. That started a massive **** up. For that reason i am struggling to evaluate if i can accept wrongdoing by Salmond in order to support the wrongdoing that allegedly happened to a number of women. I think it's a difficult situation and is overlooked by people happy to just get stuck in and shout for resignations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said: Brought down to this level. Unionists couldn't care less about Scotland and I couldn't care less about their worshipping of Westminster governance. I'll take our parliament in Scotland with all its faults. Interesting. Scottish unionists and nationalists both care about Scotland, they just have different ideas about whats best.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.