RugbyRebels

Salmond wasn't able to provide the 'proof' that was being demanded of him which he says isn't required of him. Whether records held by Sturgeon's office would confirm Salmond's position I don't know, but given her popularity she may think she can sneak a way though this as though she were the Scottish Trump.

I still don't find it even remotely credible she just forgot about the initial meeting because he schedule is so busy. And actually even if that story she tells is true it suggests her mental faculties are so pathetically low she's no business in government, or holding any executive or frankly any administrative position. So she should either resign because she's a liar and broke ministerial code, or she should resign because she's pathetically inept

Digby wrote:Salmond wasn't able to provide the 'proof' that was being demanded of him which he says isn't required of him. Whether records held by Sturgeon's office would confirm Salmond's position I don't know, but given her popularity she may think she can sneak a way though this as though she were the Scottish Trump.

I still don't find it even remotely credible she just forgot about the initial meeting because he schedule is so busy. And actually even if that story she tells is true it suggests her mental faculties are so pathetically low she's no business in government, or holding any executive or frankly any administrative position. So she should either resign because she's a liar and broke ministerial code, or she should resign because she's pathetically inept

Re-what?? Is that something politicians used to do?

Her Ladyship is giving evidence today. Whether or not her evidence will actually make sense or resolve anything is anyone's guess, and prob depends on one's previous opinions.

In an act of the bitterest irony, the Scottish Tories have released a document accusing her of breaking the ministerial code no fewer than 38 times. I haven't read it, but she is under a separate investigation for such activities.

The most interesting part of the last few days is the release of correspondence between Scot Gov and their lawyers with regards to the case against Alex Salmond. These documents were only released after Herself knew that her Depute, John Swinney, was about to lose a vote of no confidence. Until that point they were being securely hidden.

The full trail can be found here https://www.gov.scot/publications/legal ... nts-sghhc/

It is damning in how it reveals the Scot Gov knew months ahead that they would lose the case but plowed on anyway... I believe this waste of public money is one of the ways she is accused of breaking the ministerial code as above. In one letter, picture attached, the some of Scotland's preeminent lawyers speak of their extreme professional embarrassment in front of the court, caused by Scot Give actions.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Her Ladyship is giving evidence today. Whether or not her evidence will actually make sense or resolve anything is anyone's guess, and prob depends on one's previous opinions.

In an act of the bitterest irony, the Scottish Tories have released a document accusing her of breaking the ministerial code no fewer than 38 times. I haven't read it, but she is under a separate investigation for such activities.

The most interesting part of the last few days is the release of correspondence between Scot Gov and their lawyers with regards to the case against Alex Salmond. These documents were only released after Herself knew that her Depute, John Swinney, was about to lose a vote of no confidence. Until that point they were being securely hidden.

The full trail can be found here https://www.gov.scot/publications/legal ... nts-sghhc/

It is damning in how it reveals the Scot Gov knew months ahead that they would lose the case but plowed on anyway... I believe this waste of public money is one of the ways she is accused of breaking the ministerial code as above. In one letter, picture attached, the some of Scotland's preeminent lawyers speak of their extreme professional embarrassment in front of the court, caused by Scot Give actions.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Not sure how much of a smoking gun this is, and I can't see her stepping down in a month of sundays- what's the take in Scotland?

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Her Ladyship is giving evidence today. Whether or not her evidence will actually make sense or resolve anything is anyone's guess, and prob depends on one's previous opinions.

In an act of the bitterest irony, the Scottish Tories have released a document accusing her of breaking the ministerial code no fewer than 38 times. I haven't read it, but she is under a separate investigation for such activities.

The most interesting part of the last few days is the release of correspondence between Scot Gov and their lawyers with regards to the case against Alex Salmond. These documents were only released after Herself knew that her Depute, John Swinney, was about to lose a vote of no confidence. Until that point they were being securely hidden.

The full trail can be found here https://www.gov.scot/publications/legal ... nts-sghhc/

It is damning in how it reveals the Scot Gov knew months ahead that they would lose the case but plowed on anyway... I believe this waste of public money is one of the ways she is accused of breaking the ministerial code as above. In one letter, picture attached, the some of Scotland's preeminent lawyers speak of their extreme professional embarrassment in front of the court, caused by Scot Give actions.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Not sure how much of a smoking gun this is, and I can't see her stepping down in a month of sundays- what's the take in Scotland?

View in Scotland very much depends on what tribe you're in. SNP and Indy voters screaming "what about corruption in the Tories/Westminster/English????" (with plenty justification)

Non SNP/Indy voters screaming "She should resign"... again, with plenty justification.

The above wasn't presented as evidence of a smoking gun that should cause her to step down, merely as an indication both of the utter incompetence of the Scot Gov that has been hiding in plain sight for years. Also of the obsession with secrecy that means their own lawyers were sent to argue a case, an illegal case as it was later proved, without the documents that would've prevented them from arguing that case.

Anyway She's about to start giving her evidence. We'll see what the day brings.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Her Ladyship is giving evidence today. Whether or not her evidence will actually make sense or resolve anything is anyone's guess, and prob depends on one's previous opinions.

In an act of the bitterest irony, the Scottish Tories have released a document accusing her of breaking the ministerial code no fewer than 38 times. I haven't read it, but she is under a separate investigation for such activities.

The most interesting part of the last few days is the release of correspondence between Scot Gov and their lawyers with regards to the case against Alex Salmond. These documents were only released after Herself knew that her Depute, John Swinney, was about to lose a vote of no confidence. Until that point they were being securely hidden.

The full trail can be found here https://www.gov.scot/publications/legal ... nts-sghhc/

It is damning in how it reveals the Scot Gov knew months ahead that they would lose the case but plowed on anyway... I believe this waste of public money is one of the ways she is accused of breaking the ministerial code as above. In one letter, picture attached, the some of Scotland's preeminent lawyers speak of their extreme professional embarrassment in front of the court, caused by Scot Give actions.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Not sure how much of a smoking gun this is, and I can't see her stepping down in a month of sundays- what's the take in Scotland?

View in Scotland very much depends on what tribe you're in. SNP and Indy voters screaming "what about corruption in the Tories/Westminster/English????" (with plenty justification)

Non SNP/Indy voters screaming "She should resign"... again, with plenty justification.

The above wasn't presented as evidence of a smoking gun that should cause her to step down, merely as an indication both of the utter incompetence of the Scot Gov that has been hiding in plain sight for years. Also of the obsession with secrecy that means their own lawyers were sent to argue a case, an illegal case as it was later proved, without the documents that would've prevented them from arguing that case.

Anyway She's about to start giving her evidence. We'll see what the day brings.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Yeah sorry, I was asking how much of a smoking gun it was ie how inextricably her fortune is tied to what looks like this level of incompetence in the back office.

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote: Not sure how much of a smoking gun this is, and I can't see her stepping down in a month of sundays- what's the take in Scotland?

View in Scotland very much depends on what tribe you're in. SNP and Indy voters screaming "what about corruption in the Tories/Westminster/English????" (with plenty justification)

Non SNP/Indy voters screaming "She should resign"... again, with plenty justification.

The above wasn't presented as evidence of a smoking gun that should cause her to step down, merely as an indication both of the utter incompetence of the Scot Gov that has been hiding in plain sight for years. Also of the obsession with secrecy that means their own lawyers were sent to argue a case, an illegal case as it was later proved, without the documents that would've prevented them from arguing that case.

Anyway She's about to start giving her evidence. We'll see what the day brings.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Yeah sorry, I was asking how much of a smoking gun it was ie how inextricably her fortune is tied to what looks like this level of incompetence in the back office.

Well, the SNP are masters of spin, and the one thing she is good at is public communication, so she could conceivably make her own fortune by riding out whatever public opinion backlash comes her way because of this.

As I said there is a separate investigation into whether or not she breached the ministerial code. What that is looking at or how it is looking I couldn't say. Knowingly wasting public money is a breach of the ministerial code and NS did use it to force resignations of other politicians when she was in opposition, so it would be tricky but not impossible for her to brazen it out.

John Swinney has just been on the radio and been forced to admit that even the trail of communication so far published is not in fact all the communication Scot Gov had with lawyers, and he is still facing a vote of no confidence. If that passes the SNP/NS could be in a lot of trouble.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Very helpful, thanks.

I'm led to believe breaking the ministerial code on pursuing a case knowing they'd lose, or at least with the advice the case was likely not winnable, isn't a matter of resignation, at least not according to code. Whereas if she lied in parliament that does come with an expectation under the code she needs to resign.

Given the Patel situation, and given the SNP are likely to do well in forthcoming elections I doubt anyone she thinks she'll follow the code, the code being more guidelines for the pirates of politics

I very much doubt she will follow the code and resign, but at least if everyone knows she's lied to parliament and wasted feck knows how much money on a losing court case, it just might puncture this ridiculous cult like following she has.


In what might be the weirdest part of the whole circus, our esteemed* Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf is live tweeting Sturgeons appearance, giving a partisan commentary of the questions, questioners and answers given by a witness who is, lest we forget, appearing under oath.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:I'm led to believe breaking the ministerial code on pursuing a case knowing they'd lose, or at least with the advice the case was likely not winnable, isn't a matter of resignation, at least not according to code. Whereas if she lied in parliament that does come with an expectation under the code she needs to resign.

Wait - that's still a thing? Has anyone told Westminster? Or is that a different code?

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm led to believe breaking the ministerial code on pursuing a case knowing they'd lose, or at least with the advice the case was likely not winnable, isn't a matter of resignation, at least not according to code. Whereas if she lied in parliament that does come with an expectation under the code she needs to resign.

Wait - that's still a thing? Has anyone told Westminster? Or is that a different code?

It's a different code, though at Westminster too ministers who knowingly mislead parliament are expected under the code to offer the PM their resignation. I don't know if the two codes start with the same premise, the Westminster one starts with the idea the mission is to make the UK the greatest place on earth, maybe the Holyrood one has the mission to make part of the greatest place greater still

Donny osmond wrote:I very much doubt she will follow the code and resign, but at least if everyone knows she's lied to parliament and wasted feck knows how much money on a losing court case, it just might puncture this ridiculous cult like following she has.

Sturgeon could skin kittens alive on TV, the cult would believe it was a Westminster/Tory plot.

Unforfunately, in the last five years, politicians have learned that being "forced to resign" doesn't actually exist and probably never did. Doesn't matter how bad the thing you did was, if you stand there and just brazenly refuse to acknowledge any calls for your resignation, there's not a lot that anyone can do about it and the majority of the populace will have forgotten or rationalised it away by the next election.

Nowadays, walking's for chumps.

Puja

Puja wrote:Unforfunately, in the last five years, politicians have learned that being "forced to resign" doesn't actually exist and probably never did. Doesn't matter how bad the thing you did was, if you stand there and just brazenly refuse to acknowledge any calls for your resignation, there's not a lot that anyone can do about it and the majority of the populace will have forgotten or rationalised it away by the next election.

Nowadays, walking's for chumps.

Puja

That's optimistic. I'd say about a week after it disappears from the news.

Scottish elections are coming up fast. Between the referendums, UK general elections, local (and once EU) elections, and Scottish election there are always elections in Scotland. The elections almost become a reason not to act if you know you'll do well, you can just say the people will be able to speak in a matter of weeks

It will be ineresting to see if Galloway's tactical voting plan takes off to stop snp gaining an overall majority, or with the cheekily named 'gardening section' (greens) derived from the 2nd. Regional (list) vote.
i.e. first vote to pro-uk candidate most likely to beat snp for that constituency (which might be a party you would never normally vote for), with regional vote going to his Alliance party.
Seems odd if it's still going ahead for 6 May given the campaigning difficulties for opposition & indep. parties

Galfon wrote:It will be ineresting to see if Galloway's tactical voting plan takes off to stop snp gaining an overall majority, or with the cheekily named 'gardening section' (greens) derived from the 2nd. Regional (list) vote.
i.e. first vote to pro-uk candidate most likely to beat snp for that constituency (which might be a party you would never normally vote for), with regional vote going to his Alliance party.
Seems odd if it's still going ahead for 6 May given the campaigning difficulties for opposition & indep. parties

The tactical voting thing has been around for the last couple of elections, not sure it's achieved anything at all as yet and I wouldn't really expect it to altho Galloway is a big name to be behind it. I get the feeling he's more of a joke figure these days so I have doubts as to how successful it'll be.

It is fecking ridiculous that the election isn't being pushed back by 2 months.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

In a quick update on the Muppet show, after "all the relevant" legal advice was released to the inquiry on Tuesday, more legal advice has now been released, which we are told is "all the relevant" legal advice.

What has been released is still not *all* the legal advice that was asked for.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Only human after all - that's a relief..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-56482878

( 'genuine failure of recollection' = honest mistake = same difference)

Galfon wrote:Only human after all - that's a relief..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-56482878

( 'genuine failure of recollection' = honest mistake = same difference)

As long as every person guilty of perjury, lying to the police or similar can use the same explanation then fair enough, on the off chance that's not appropriate then it stinks

Having downloaded and very quickly skimmed the report it seems to be ... strange?

On the meeting that she "forgot"..

7.12. The failure to disclose the meeting of 29 March with Mr Aberdein to the
Scottish Parliament on 8 January 2019, although the First Minister’s statement
was technically a correct statement of the occasions on which the she had met
Mr Salmond nonetheless resulted in an incomplete narrative of events. For the
reasons stated above I accept that this omission was the result of a genuine
failure of recollection and was not deliberate. That failure did not therefore in
my opinion amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code.

Which is a humorously similar defence to what Salmond came out with in court... "Yeah I did it but so what?"

Also, chapter 15 seems to say that altho the ministerial code tells MSPs to report meetings to the civil service asap, the above meeting (wherein they discussed the Government response to the allegations made against AS) was neither SNP business nor govt business, so there was no need for her to report it. Quite how she can remember the details clearly enough to talk about it but still the failure to tell parliament was a genuine failure of recollection and not deliberate is... ehmmm... strange?

Anyhoo, reaction is as partisan as you like.

The Scottish Tories have painted themselves into a hell of a corner over it, which has become the only amusing part of it all.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Also just noticed this :

7.11. It is for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether they were in fact misled.


Err.. they already have decided that they were misled? Which decision has not been taken into account by this report which, again, seems strange given the above.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Final point on it, it's worth noting that the report is heavily redacted and that the author has concurrently published a letter saying that the redactions - put in place by the SNP - mean that the report cannot present the whole truth.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Yer man is due to make a statement on Wed, after the Committee report is issued later today.
Somehow can't see him just giving everything a timely nod, though not sure what shots he may have left to fire, separate to
David D. spilling-the-beans-by-proxy.