The rise and fall of The SNP.

[NANOJAMBO]

6 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

No. The real threat to Indy comes from the SNP and most of their elected representatives and officials. They can't run a competent and honest government. Their woke priorities are not popular.  They have no vision for the future. They can't tell us how Scotland will be different from rUk.  They have stifled the enthusiasm of 2014 and disassociated themselves with the wider Indy movement. Today at FMQs she had the audacity to deride parliamentary privilege at Westminster while being the FM who surrendered popular sovereignty to the same parliament.

 

  She had her chance and didn't take it. Why not? As you say the ducks are all in a row. 

How much hyperbole is enough ?

The only party of/for independence is a threat to independence ? Aye,  OK. 

[Justin Z]

4 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

You have a personalised attack on a messenger to counter the views of a long list of long committed Indy supposrters. 

 

Are you telling us Murray, MacAskill, Sheridan, Sillars, Cherry and many others can't think for themselves?

 

I'll punt on most of these, but one thing is clear: the only thing that matters to Joanna Cherry is Joanna Cherry.

[manaliveits105]

36 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Its obvious to Blind Pew there is a deliberate attempt by the SG/SNP to suppress the evidence. The mere fact that Swinney with held documents and had to be threatened by a vote of no confidence to release the documents but chose to released them late in the day and still with held some says all you need to know about what they were up to. 
The texts message and WhatsApp exchanges also show what they were about. 
Something fundamental needs to change in the Government run by the SNP but I doubt it will change with them in charge. 
Let’s see what the voters say in May. Let’s hope there is enough discerning voters to see through the SNP smoke and mirrors.

[coconut doug]

17 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I'll punt on most of these, but one thing is clear: the only thing that matters to Joanna Cherry is Joanna Cherry.

 

Another personal attack.

[pablo]

1 hour ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Aah the Spectator, that bastion of impartiality. Do you have a link to the article expressing their outrage at the recent bill that was passed that more or less prohibits the right to protest?

 

The well's running dry for whataboutery. Only the fanatics are still buying into it. 

[Konrad von Carstein]

2 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

The well's running dry for whataboutery. Only the fanatics are still buying into it. 

Calling out hypocrisy isnt whataboutery but...

[manaliveits105]

15 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Another personal attack.

[XB52]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

No. The real threat to Indy comes from the SNP and most of their elected representatives and officials. They can't run a competent and honest government. Their woke priorities are not popular.  They have no vision for the future. They can't tell us how Scotland will be different from rUk.  They have stifled the enthusiasm of 2014 and disassociated themselves with the wider Indy movement. Today at FMQs she had the audacity to deride parliamentary privilege at Westminster while being the FM who surrendered popular sovereignty to the same parliament.

 

  She had her chance and didn't take it. Why not? As you say the ducks are all in a row. 

I've not got a clue what you are on about? What chance has she had? This coming election is her chance, and I firmly believe the last chance. If you and your Salmond lovers have your way the SNP will lose the election and independence will be gone for ever. Thankfully, IMO, the vast majority that want independence couldn't care less about Salmond's ego trip and will continue to vote for the only party that can deliver independence

[manaliveits105]

This in my humble opinion gives some clarity on the shenanigans ;

 

The only people who saw all the evidence and saw all the witnesses were the jury.

their decisions -

Charge 1 indecent assault Woman A - NOT GUILTY
Charge 2 sexual assault Woman A - NOT GUILTY
Charge 3 indecent assault Woman B - NOT GUILTY
Charge 4 sexual assault Woman C - NOT GUILTY
Charge 5 sexual assault Woman D - NOT GUILTY
Charge 6 - PREVIOUSLY DROPPED
Charge 7 sexual assault Woman F- NOT GUILTY
Charge 8 sexual assault with intent to rape Woman F - NOT PROVEN
Charge 9 sexual assault Woman G - NOT GUILTY
Charge 10 sexually assault Woman G - NOT GUILTY
Charge 11 sexual assault Woman H - NOT GUILTY
Charge 12 attempted rape Woman H - NOT GUILTY
Charge 13 Sexual assault Woman J - NOT GUILTY
Charge 14 sexual assault Woman K - NOT GUILTY

Prior to that we had the outcome of the Judicial Review.

The highest civil court in Scotland stated the SNPG's handling of the complaints against Salmond was 'unlawful, unfair and tainted by bias'. The court awarded Salmond the highest possible punitive costs. The SNPG's own lawyers threatened to quit due to the SNPG failing to be honest and fulfill their duty of candour. This pattern of malicious behaviour even continued well after the police investigation had been provoked and started.

People want to keep Salmond on trial because it deflects away from the crimes of the Scottish Government. They tried to send an innocent man to jail to stop him from re-entering politics. As Salmond himself has said it was only the protection of the Court of Session judges and the jury that saved him otherwise they would have been successful.

Edited March 18, 2021 by manaliveits105

[Justin Z]

So who'd you copy paste this from mate?

[AlimOzturk]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

So who'd you copy paste this from mate?

Haven't got a reasonable explanation or reply to the above so resorts to sarcasm to deflect. 
 

Lowest form of wit fwiw. 
 

Everything in the post is true and nobody seems to want to answer for the failings. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by AlimOzturk

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, AlimOzturk said:

Haven't got a reasonable explanation or reply to the above so resorts to sarcasm to deflect. 
 

Lowest form of wit fwiw.

 

Aye okay.

 

2 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Everything in the post is true and nobody seems to want to answer for the failings. 

 

Weird, you could read literally scores of posts above from non-hypocrites saying if this is all proven there ought to be consequences—just as with all governmental malfeasance. Maybe check out the thread and get back to us?

[luckydug]

Makes you wonder when the former FM of Scotland and a staunch Scottish National becomes best mates with a former Tory Brexit minister. 

Such best mates that Tory invokes parliamentary privilege in an Westminster parliament to help out patriotic 'Scottish' mate. 

Salmond is so desperate to bring down NS and the Scottish government nothing else matters to him. 

 

 

[ri Alban]

Hopefully the women break their anonymity and tell the world exactly what Salmond is.

And on the off chance he does feck up independence, I'd advise him to leave the country. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

No. The real threat to Indy comes from the SNP and most of their elected representatives and officials. They can't run a competent and honest government. Their woke priorities are not popular.  They have no vision for the future. They can't tell us how Scotland will be different from rUk.  They have stifled the enthusiasm of 2014 and disassociated themselves with the wider Indy movement. Today at FMQs she had the audacity to deride parliamentary privilege at Westminster while being the FM who surrendered popular sovereignty to the same parliament.

 

  She had her chance and didn't take it. Why not? As you say the ducks are all in a row. 

Aw feck up. 

[coconut doug]

18 minutes ago, XB52 said:

I've not got a clue what you are on about? What chance has she had? This coming election is her chance, and I firmly believe the last chance. If you and your Salmond lovers have your way the SNP will lose the election and independence will be gone for ever. Thankfully, IMO, the vast majority that want independence couldn't care less about Salmond's ego trip and will continue to vote for the only party that can deliver independence

 

Having a 2nd referendum has been in all manifestos and all elections have been won. The threat of leaving the EU was a big game changer, we've left now and we didn't get the concessions NI got. The polls are going the other way now, most peope will not vote for any party they consider corrupt and with every revelation they appear more corrupt.

 

Salmond's ego trip as you describe it is done to clear his name. Anybody in a similar position would do the same. Why does the FM keep going on about the concerns of the women? Everything was done to advance their case but still they could not make one charge stick even with all the adverse publicity for Salmond and his legendary dislikeability a majority female jury would not convict.
  It shouldn't have been a surprise to the FM, the LA , the PS and the rest of them. They were told by the police that they did not have the evidence to secure a conviction. Isn't that the job of our prosecuting service to decide upon the likelyhood of conviction. Not only could they not get the convictions, the evidence they led was so easily refuted that in some cases at least, the witnesses were clearly lying. Simple things like not actually being in the place they claimed to be in when the alleged assault took place or allegations of assault in a public place in front of several witnesses none of whom saw anything. Almost all the other allegations were equally as ludicrous so why did they take this to court.

   They went to court to cover up the conspiracy to frame Salmond and to distract attention from their flawed disciplinary procedures and "biased" application of them. The court said that. Why did they escalate this to court against the wishes of at least 3 of the complainants? It was done to cover their arses with never a concern for those allegedly wronged women. Why did the prosecution pursue such a poor case? Who checks their decision making? who are they answerable to? Nobody it seems and after the Rangers debacle that is just not tenable anymore. Just maybe they did it to damage the Indy movement too. They had been following and scrutinising Salmond for years and found nothing. 

 

   Who leaked the story to the Daily Record at the most opportune time for the government. Was it the woman involved in the enquiry who was in a relationship with the editor of the Record or was it somebody else? Why was it done? Imo it was done to try Salmond before he ever got to court and to deflect from the shorcomings in their Judicial review proceedings. They thought and hoped they had done enough to send Salmond down and that would sweep away all the little indiscretions that preceded the trial. 

 

The reaction after the verdict was priceless. What about the women they cried as if they hadn't had a fair trial. If as you say people don't care about such things in the Indy movement then i despair. I don't think what you say is true though. We need a government and institutions that work properly and fairly and we do not have that. That is not a price worth paying for Indy. We are better than that.

  

[Jeffros Furios]

6 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Having a 2nd referendum has been in all manifestos and all elections have been won. The threat of leaving the EU was a big game changer, we've left now and we didn't get the concessions NI got. The polls are going the other way now, most peope will not vote for any party they consider corrupt and with every revelation they appear more corrupt.

 

Salmond's ego trip as you describe it is done to clear his name. Anybody in a similar position would do the same. Why does the FM keep going on about the concerns of the women? Everything was done to advance their case but still they could not make one charge stick even with all the adverse publicity for Salmond and his legendary dislikeability a majority female jury would not convict.
  It shouldn't have been a surprise to the FM, the LA , the PS and the rest of them. They were told by the police that they did not have the evidence to secure a conviction. Isn't that the job of our prosecuting service to decide upon the likelyhood of conviction. Not only could they not get the convictions, the evidence they led was so easily refuted that in some cases at least, the witnesses were clearly lying. Simple things like not actually being in the place they claimed to be in when the alleged assault took place or allegations of assault in a public place in front of several witnesses none of whom saw anything. Almost all the other allegations were equally as ludicrous so why did they take this to court.

   They went to court to cover up the conspiracy to frame Salmond and to distract attention from their flawed disciplinary procedures and "biased" application of them. The court said that. Why did they escalate this to court against the wishes of at least 3 of the complainants? It was done to cover their arses with never a concern for those allegedly wronged women. Why did the prosecution pursue such a poor case? Who checks their decision making? who are they answerable to? Nobody it seems and after the Rangers debacle that is just not tenable anymore. Just maybe they did it to damage the Indy movement too. They had been following and scrutinising Salmond for years and found nothing. 

 

   Who leaked the story to the Daily Record at the most opportune time for the government. Was it the woman involved in the enquiry who was in a relationship with the editor of the Record or was it somebody else? Why was it done? Imo it was done to try Salmond before he ever got to court and to deflect from the shorcomings in their Judicial review proceedings. They thought and hoped they had done enough to send Salmond down and that would sweep away all the little indiscretions that preceded the trial. 

 

The reaction after the verdict was priceless. What about the women they cried as if they hadn't had a fair trial. If as you say people don't care about such things in the Indy movement then i despair. I don't think what you say is true though. We need a government and institutions that work properly and fairly and we do not have that. That is not a price worth paying for Indy. We are better than that.

  

Great Post Duggie 

[XB52]

7 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Having a 2nd referendum has been in all manifestos and all elections have been won. The threat of leaving the EU was a big game changer, we've left now and we didn't get the concessions NI got. The polls are going the other way now, most peope will not vote for any party they consider corrupt and with every revelation they appear more corrupt.

 

Salmond's ego trip as you describe it is done to clear his name. Anybody in a similar position would do the same. Why does the FM keep going on about the concerns of the women? Everything was done to advance their case but still they could not make one charge stick even with all the adverse publicity for Salmond and his legendary dislikeability a majority female jury would not convict.
  It shouldn't have been a surprise to the FM, the LA , the PS and the rest of them. They were told by the police that they did not have the evidence to secure a conviction. Isn't that the job of our prosecuting service to decide upon the likelyhood of conviction. Not only could they not get the convictions, the evidence they led was so easily refuted that in some cases at least, the witnesses were clearly lying. Simple things like not actually being in the place they claimed to be in when the alleged assault took place or allegations of assault in a public place in front of several witnesses none of whom saw anything. Almost all the other allegations were equally as ludicrous so why did they take this to court.

   They went to court to cover up the conspiracy to frame Salmond and to distract attention from their flawed disciplinary procedures and "biased" application of them. The court said that. Why did they escalate this to court against the wishes of at least 3 of the complainants? It was done to cover their arses with never a concern for those allegedly wronged women. Why did the prosecution pursue such a poor case? Who checks their decision making? who are they answerable to? Nobody it seems and after the Rangers debacle that is just not tenable anymore. Just maybe they did it to damage the Indy movement too. They had been following and scrutinising Salmond for years and found nothing. 

 

   Who leaked the story to the Daily Record at the most opportune time for the government. Was it the woman involved in the enquiry who was in a relationship with the editor of the Record or was it somebody else? Why was it done? Imo it was done to try Salmond before he ever got to court and to deflect from the shorcomings in their Judicial review proceedings. They thought and hoped they had done enough to send Salmond down and that would sweep away all the little indiscretions that preceded the trial. 

 

The reaction after the verdict was priceless. What about the women they cried as if they hadn't had a fair trial. If as you say people don't care about such things in the Indy movement then i despair. I don't think what you say is true though. We need a government and institutions that work properly and fairly and we do not have that. That is not a price worth paying for Indy. We are better than that.

  

Wow, just wow. You carry on with your campaign to stop independence and I'll carry on treating you and your conspiracy theory pals with utter contempt. Oh and have the last word if it keeps you happy, as I won't be replying

[AlimOzturk]

35 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Aye okay.

 

 

Weird, you could read literally scores of posts above from non-hypocrites saying if this is all proven there ought to be consequences—just as with all governmental malfeasance. Maybe check out the thread and get back to us?

There is no doubt now that even the staunchest SNP AND Indy supporter can point to that the SNP have been up to no good. If Hamilton comes back and says any different then the biggest cover up in Scottish political history will have been completed. Even if he finds her to broken the ministerial code and finds other failing...do you really think she is about to resign? I doubt it. She will just disagree with the findings, sweep sweep, on we go with the local elections. 
 

[jack D and coke]

24 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

We are better than that.

  

Are we? What makes us better? 
Scots are of better stock or we’re more trustworthy? What is it and why would you believe that? Or is that what you demand or you’ll just accept the norm from WM and let it all go? 
I don’t necessarily disagree with your points Doug I’ve always thought you at least go into details and explain...however you seem to be going in just a wee bit too hard for me atm. 
Or I suppose it’s likely you’ve read up a lot more and are clearer in what’s happened. I tend to skim a lot of stuff tbf and completely ignore the general trollathon nature on this thread. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by jack D and coke

[Auldbenches]

18 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Great Post Duggie 

One really huge party scandal in the last 20 years and our institutions don't work.  

If that's the case, how can anyone see any merit in being part of Westminster? 

There is no doubt that the snp haven't done themselves any favours here, but to say that everything in the country that matters isn't fit for purpose is just pathetic when you compare it to what we are trying to get away from.

Holyrood or Westminster when it comes to dodgy politicians?  No contest.  

Edited March 18, 2021 by Auldbenches

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

One really huge part scandal in the last 20 years and our institutions don't work.  

If that's the case, how can anyone see any merit in being part of Westminster? 

There is no doubt that the snp haven't done themselves any favours here, but to say that everything in the country that matters isn't fit for purpose is just pathetic when you compare it to what we are trying to get away from.

Holyrood or Westminster when it comes to dodgy politicians?  No contest.  

Kinda where I am pal. There’s no doubt something isn’t right but to then just say ah **** it we might as well just put up with the shite were used to....🤔

[coconut doug]

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

Are we? What makes us better? 
Scots are of better stock or we’re more trustworthy? What is it and why would you believe that? Or is that what you demand or you’ll just accept the norm from WM and let it all go? 
I don’t necessarily disagree with your points Doug I’ve always thought you at least go into details and explain...however you seem to be going in just a wee bit too hard for me atm. 
Or I suppose it’s likely you’ve read up a lot more and are clearer in what’s happened. I tend to skim a lot of stuff tbf and completely ignore the general trollathon nature on this thread. 

 

Nothing makes us better. We're not better than anybody else but surely we are not going to accept serial corruption and incompetence for any cause never mind Indy.

 

I have read quite a lot from a range of sources over a long period of time. They have been corroborative maybe because salmond is the source for all of them. Its what i think and its where the evidence points me and its csandalous and unbelievable but the actions of the FM and many in the SNP run counter to obtaining Indy IMO 

[Auldbenches]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

Kinda where I am pal. There’s no doubt something isn’t right but to then just say ah **** it we might as well just put up with the shite were used to....🤔

List the party and scandals by individuals at Westminster compared to here and there is no way people can sell the no vote on that place being cleaner.   

Sturgeon et al have created this situation but anyone judging everything about our politics is just looking to.  

You posted a while ago that it's becoming like football now, and you were spot on.  

Policies aren't going to sway certain voters on both sides.  

I thought modern politics wouldve moved on from all this.  

[Jeffros Furios]

8 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

One really huge party scandal in the last 20 years and our institutions don't work.  

If that's the case, how can anyone see any merit in being part of Westminster? 

There is no doubt that the snp haven't done themselves any favours here, but to say that everything in the country that matters isn't fit for purpose is just pathetic when you compare it to what we are trying to get away from.

Holyrood or Westminster when it comes to dodgy politicians?  No contest.  

I'm for Independence but I do not like or trust the SNP .

And yes I'm well aware of the antics at Westminster .

[ri Alban]

14 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

There is no doubt now that even the staunchest SNP AND Indy supporter can point to that the SNP have been up to no good. If Hamilton comes back and says any different then the biggest cover up in Scottish political history will have been completed. Even if he finds her to broken the ministerial code and finds other failing...do you really think she is about to resign? I doubt it. She will just disagree with the findings, sweep sweep, on we go with the local elections. 
 

Utter Bollox.  You're just in a wee huff cause you cannae bug people with your fecking tuneless bagpipes because the SNP/SG/NS has us in lockdown.  

 

[Auldbenches]

1 minute ago, Jeffros Furios said:

I'm for Independence but I do not like or trust the SNP .

And yes I'm well aware of the antics at Westminster .

Because a party has acted like a bunch of chancers, it doesn't mean our institutions are broken. 

I don't trust any party and hope a Holyrood of the future would be the end of them.  

[Jeffros Furios]

1 minute ago, Auldbenches said:

Because a party has acted like a bunch of chancers, it doesn't mean our institutions are broken. 

I don't trust any party and hope a Holyrood of the future would be the end of them.  

I don't disagree with you I just thought Doug the Russian Bot made some good points .

[Auldbenches]

Just now, Jeffros Furios said:

I don't disagree with you I just thought Doug the Russian Bot made some good points .

He did, I just thought he went over the top with saying all our institutions don't work because of this scandal.  

 

[AlimOzturk]

25 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Utter Bollox.  You're just in a wee huff cause you cannae bug people with your fecking tuneless bagpipes because the SNP/SG/NS has us in lockdown.  

 

I am getting fairly sick of you bringing what I do for a living into stuff you disagree with. Fwiw I have plenty other strings to my bow than “just a bagpiper”. Got my own tour bus business to continue getting off the ground, my own music agency and a plenty wedding and funeral contracts. Wtf do you do? Jealous that I am living my passions and you aren’t? Have you met Tyson fury or toured the world with any of your passions? Played at tynecastle, Hamden, Murray field? Doubt it. 
 

You know where I stand and play.  You know what I look like. Got a problem with me don’t keep bringing me down on football forum and what I do for living on a forum. Come see me and see how you get on with that. 
 

fwiw to anyone reading this - this is constant with this prick. Every time he disagrees with something he brings me and what i do for living down making feel like shit. It is out of order and he needed called out on it. 
 

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by AlimOzturk

[AlimOzturk]

And fwiw if i was “just busker” I would’nt be ashamed of it either. I ****ing love what I do and can’t wait to get back to it once this shit is over. You or nobody will try and bring me down.

 

[Konrad von Carstein]

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

Haven't got a reasonable explanation or reply to the above so resorts to sarcasm to deflect. 
 

Lowest form of wit fwiw. 

Everything in the post is true and nobody seems to want to answer for the failings. 

 

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.” Is the full quote - and are Edinburgh's citizenry not famous for being dry sarcastic b'stards? (I know I'm known for that kind of humour)

[AlimOzturk]

Just now, Konrad von Carstein said:

 

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.” Is the full quote - and are Edinburgh's citizenry not famous for being dry sarcastic b'stards? (I know I'm known for that kind of humour)

Fair doos. He answered the question anyways. Can’t all agree On everything. 

[Konrad von Carstein]

1 minute ago, AlimOzturk said:

Fair doos. He answered the question anyways. Can’t all agree On everything. 

 

Quite true...would be a fairly tedious world if we all agreed on everything....Although I'm sure we can agree that Nicola will deliver Indy...

 

 

[Unknown user]

33 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

Because a party has acted like a bunch of chancers, it doesn't mean our institutions are broken. 

I don't trust any party and hope a Holyrood of the future would be the end of them.  

No matter what a government does there'll be a decent percentage of people outraged in this reactionary world.

What's being alleged is alleged all over the world in good governments everywhere, it's actually pretty amazing that this is unusual in Scottish politics.

 

If allegations are true, action has to be taken, and I hope they are. But the idea that a whole party, the members, voters or idealogy is now untrustworthy or inherently bad is ridiculous.

Especially when it's appropriate to compare literally everything in this debate with Westminster.

[pablo]

[JackLadd]

11 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Scourgeon is the one who should leave with her whole rag, tag and bobtail cult of rascals and chancers.

[Auldbenches]

20 minutes ago, Smithee said:

No matter what a government does there'll be a decent percentage of people outraged in this reactionary world.

What's being alleged is alleged all over the world in good governments everywhere, it's actually pretty amazing that this is unusual in Scottish politics.

 

If allegations are true, action has to be taken, and I hope they are. But the idea that a whole party, the members, voters or idealogy is now untrustworthy or inherently bad is ridiculous.

Especially when it's appropriate to compare literally everything in this debate with Westminster.

It's not even a party that is being questioned here, it's all our institutions according to some.  

God knows how that works.  

[manaliveits105]

Surprised to see Kier Starmer was in Edinburgh today at EICC would have expected nippy to have moaned about him travelling up here like she did with the Prime Minister - they aren’t even consistent 

[coconut doug]

59 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

He did, I just thought he went over the top with saying all our institutions don't work because of this scandal.  

 

 

Not sure i really did that. Here's what i did say re institutions - We need a government and institutions that work properly and fairly and we do not have that.  I did not say they all didn't work. i was referring to those i had been discussing that in my view were not working "properly". Copfs, the Lord advocate, the senior civil service and the Scottish parliament to be more precise.

[coconut doug]

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

No matter what a government does there'll be a decent percentage of people outraged in this reactionary world.

What's being alleged is alleged all over the world in good governments everywhere, it's actually pretty amazing that this is unusual in Scottish politics.

 

If allegations are true, action has to be taken, and I hope they are. But the idea that a whole party, the members, voters or idealogy is now untrustworthy or inherently bad is ridiculous.

Especially when it's appropriate to compare literally everything in this debate with Westminster.

 

I don't think anybody has suggested that this situation can be blamed on a whole party, the members, voters or idealogy

or that they are untrustworthy or inherently bad.

 

 

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not sure i really did that. Here's what i did say re institutions - We need a government and institutions that work properly and fairly and we do not have that.  I did not say they all didn't work. i was referring to those i had been discussing that in my view were not working "properly". Copfs, the Lord advocate, the senior civil service and the Scottish parliament to be more precise.

Fair enough if you didn't mean institutions in general, I thought that from your post too though TBF

[Guest]

EXCLUSIVE: First Minister Nicola Sturgeon misled Parliament, concludes Holyrood harassment committee @SkyNews

[AlimOzturk]

2 minutes ago, Candy said:

EXCLUSIVE: First Minister Nicola Sturgeon misled Parliament, concludes Holyrood harassment committee @SkyNews

You got a source for this? Can’t find anything on the sky website. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, AlimOzturk said:

You got a source for this? Can’t find anything on the sky website. 

James  Matthews reporting it.

[Auldbenches]

14 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not sure i really did that. Here's what i did say re institutions - We need a government and institutions that work properly and fairly and we do not have that.  I did not say they all didn't work. i was referring to those i had been discussing that in my view were not working "properly". Copfs, the Lord advocate, the senior civil service and the Scottish parliament to be more precise.

You're right that they haven't worked in this instance if the Scottish government have been trying to influence them regarding the Salmond issue.  

Are the institutions in England and Wales working properly compared to here? If scandals like this one are the gauge then none of them work properly.  

Which parliament has had more scandals in the last 20 years? 

Westminster has had many more than we have.  

 

[Guest]

Incoming: what about patel/boris/hancock/toaries/corruption  blah blah blah 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Candy said:

Incoming: what about patel/boris/hancock/toaries/corruption  blah blah blah 

As above it's completely appropriate to compare the alternative when discussing the SNP and independence.

There should be consequences though, no two ways about that.

[AlimOzturk]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

As above it's completely appropriate to compare the alternative when discussing the SNP and independence.

There should be consequences though, no two ways about that.

do you feel she should resign l?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

do you feel she should resign l?

She won't resign.

 

She will tell us that the electorate will be her judge.