Sturgeon under pressure

tangerine_neil said:
He used his Parliamentary privilege to release it.
Click to expand...
Yes. But apparently that hasn’t stopped the Crown Office in Scotland from threatening the Spectator. Or the threat may have been in relation to an earlier document they published. I can’t recall now but it’s in the link TM posted for you to read.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Yep I agree with your comments about the division of powers and that an amendment to the Act to build in more checks and balances seems like a good idea. It’ll be interesting to see how that’s presented in Scotland. England interfering in Scottish affairs. Or sensible house management, especially important if there was independence.
Click to expand...

It came as a request from The honourable member for East Lothian, so cant see how it would be seen as England interfering.
 
The latest news today is that the Scottish Crown office has threatened the Spectator for publishing David Davis's speech to Parliament. They even tried to make them not tell anyone that they had been threatened.

I wondered what the Oystons were doing these days. 🙄
 
Tangerinemoss said:
The latest news today is that the Scottish Crown office has threatened the Spectator for publishing David Davis's speech to Parliament. They even tried to make them not tell anyone that they had been threatened!

Jackboots

In a Democracy, in this case, the only reason to redact or censor information is, rightly, to protect anyone who has made a complaint of sexual misconduct. It is not there to protect incompetence or worse.

I am surprised that this is not bigger news.
Click to expand...
Anyone would think they had something to hide.
 
Matesrates said:
Hope so, but they left the word “knowingly” out of the report and the vote was 5/4, so she may somehow survive.
Click to expand...

It will be hard for her to argue that she didn't mislead the committee 'knowingly'. Either way, her credibility reduces on a daily basis and she will be under pressure to resign.
 
Last edited:
So when Government ministers mislead or lie, we're told that's what all politicians do. When Sturgeon misleads, she has to resign. It's all very confusing.
 
The whole thing stinks, even though Salmond is also an odious creep. Not only did she mislead the commiittee and Scottish Parliament, but the SNP have consistently tried to prevent evidence being presented to committee, Parliament and indeed the court. Sturgeon and the SNP were determined that Salmond was done, at all costs, have abused the Parliamentary and legal proceeses in doing so and have tried to cover up what went on. The danger is that if they continue to take Scotland towards a one party state there will be no effective challenge or exposure of their actions. Their record on public services over the last 15 yearsc is poor, even though they have had more resources per head than the rest of the UK.
 
poolseasider said:
Good riddance to the poisoned dwarf(hopefully)more dirt now also to come out I've been told overspend on projects with millions missing.
Click to expand...
Here's a video about the Alex Salmond shenanigans explained by the pro-independence Craig Murray.
Just to add, he attended the first two days of the trial before being charged with contempt of court for reporting on it in his blog.
It's a bit rambling at times so recommend skipping to 5 mins 30 secs.
It's always worth listening to different points of view and you won't find much of this in the MSM.

 
I'd like to see what they actually said in full, but this is a major relief for her.

How their elections will go is any guess. The SNP will be close to an absolute majority, I think, with the Tories and Labour fighting it out for second place.
 
basilrobbie said:
I'd like to see what they actually said in full, but this is a major relief for her.
Click to expand...

https://order-order.com/2021/03/22/...de-of-conduct-says-independent-investigation/

However the report comes with some very significant caveats posted by @Loco here (post 9): https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/crankie-survives.16190/

In particular, I have been advised by my own independent legal adviser that nothing may be published which could identify certain particular individuals, some of whom had a significant role in certain events. A redacted report that effectively erases the role of any such individual in the matters investigated in the report cannot be properly understood by those reading it, and presents an incomplete and even at times misleading version of what happened. In earlier drafts of the report I attempted to anonymise certain individuals in such cases but these attempts were not successful.

It is therefore impossible to give an accurate description of some of the relevant events dealt with in the report while at the same time complying with the court orders.

I am deeply frustrated that applicable court orders will have the effect of preventing the full publication of a report which fulfils my remit and which I believe it would be in the public interest to publish.
 
It's strange how so many get upset by the allegations laid at the door of NS but completely and utterly ignore the same indiscretions made by BJ
 
Shandypants said:
It's strange how so many get upset by the allegations laid at the door of NS but completely and utterly ignore the same indiscretions made by BJ
Click to expand...
Shandy you sound like that SNP mp on Question Time last Thursday. She kept trying to deflect the discussion away from Sturgeon by criticising Johnson
She got slaughtered by all the panel and the online audience
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
Shandy you sound like that SNP mp on Question Time last Thursday. She kept trying to deflect the discussion away from Sturgeon by criticising Johnson
She got slaughtered by all the panel and the online audience
Click to expand...
Tories complaining about deflection. Comedy gold.

Could be worse, could be Corbyn is the default answer to anything.
 
Wizaard said:
Tories complaining about deflection. Comedy gold.

Could be worse, could be Corbyn is the default answer to anything.
Click to expand...
So it wasn't deflection? Last time I looked this thread was about Sturgeon.
Your posts are becoming more and more bizarre.
But do carry on as they've got huge comedy value 😂
 
Lost Seasider said:
https://order-order.com/2021/03/22/...de-of-conduct-says-independent-investigation/

However the report comes with some very significant caveats posted by @Loco here (post 9): https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/crankie-survives.16190/

In particular, I have been advised by my own independent legal adviser that nothing may be published which could identify certain particular individuals, some of whom had a significant role in certain events. A redacted report that effectively erases the role of any such individual in the matters investigated in the report cannot be properly understood by those reading it, and presents an incomplete and even at times misleading version of what happened. In earlier drafts of the report I attempted to anonymise certain individuals in such cases but these attempts were not successful.

It is therefore impossible to give an accurate description of some of the relevant events dealt with in the report while at the same time complying with the court orders.

I am deeply frustrated that applicable court orders will have the effect of preventing the full publication of a report which fulfils my remit and which I believe it would be in the public interest to publish.
Click to expand...
Just had a read at his report, I hadn't realised how narrow the remit was, purely to do with their meetings, phone calls and notes, with a small digression into whether throwing in the towel( his words!) on the judicial review was a breach.

His tone about the original meeting is a little more ambivalent than his later rulings, particularly believing AS's CoS rather than NC's contact, in that case it might have been more appropriate the Good Old Scottish Not Proven.

The redactions are strange. It appears in most cases it is names being redacted. Now, unless the complainants were actually involved in the case on an executive basis, it is a bit of a puzzle. You can certainly get the tone of his frustration from his note above. I also noticed that I could not see anywhere where it was AS's advisors who were redacted.

I hear NS survived the vote of confidence today, I have a little suspicion there is more to come out on this. The detailing of documents being withheld from the court and Counsel's reaction to it seems to mirror the Crown Office's redacting evidence to parliament. How can this possibly be acceptable without anyone talking responsibility or being sacked boggles the mind.
 
The Spectator reporting directly what was said in Parliament has the full protection of English law. The Scottish Crown Office is making empty threats. But the fact that they have been made at all, shows that their judicial system is not impartial and is under SNP control. That is the road to a dictatorship and one-party State.
 
Archibald Knox said:
The Spectator reporting directly what was said in Parliament has the full protection of English law. The Scottish Crown Office is making empty threats. But the fact that they have been made at all, shows that their judicial system is not impartial and is under SNP control. That is the road to a dictatorship and one-party State.
Click to expand...
They have an election in 6 weeks I imagine it’s a democratic vote is it not.
 
Must be the first time in AVFTT history that there have been (almost) two double century knocks on exactly the same subject.

Takes an iconic batsman to do such a thing although you wont find me contributing to it.
 
TSSeasider said:
I don't know.

NS, created a policy to include ex-First Ministers, without scrutiny.

She held meetings about AS, which aren't minuted, which she forgot about, she can't recall them very well.

The Scottish government had an illegal and inherently unfair and unjust investigation into AS.

They carried on regardless despite being told that wouldn't win and have embarrassed legal defence as their chosen representative to have an independent enquiry into AS had already met the complainants before being asked to do the investigation.

One of only 23 people leaked the story to the Press and the SNP didn't investigate where it could have come from.

The Crown office, have put a ban on the sharing of evidence likely to support AS.

The Scottish Government refuse to release everything they've got to the Scottish Parliament.

And that's without including the different roles of NS and her husband.

It's more complex than that, but that's all I recall.

If I was him, I'd feel like I was the victim of a stitch up too.



I think what it does demonstrate that there is no place for virtue signalling in politics. NS had her eyes fixed on a #MeToo scalp and in pursuit of that completely failed in due process.

So the women who complained have been let down and the right to a fair trail has too.

That's no place for whatabout The UK Government on this thread, we have enough on them as is it.
Click to expand...
So she's obviously innocent of all accusations then ! Ha ha
 
Yes she certainly is today 17/4/2022 for allegedly not wearing a face mask when visiting a barbers. A complaint has been made to Police Scotland and they are investigating. BBC and various media reporting.
 
Trammo said:
Yes she certainly is today 17/4/2022 for allegedly not wearing a face mask when visiting a barbers. A complaint has been made to Police Scotland and they are investigating. BBC and various media reporting.
Click to expand...
I know she should know better, and it's makes her a hypocrite, but what an absolute waste of police time and resources.

And who could be bothered to do that.
 
Shandypants said:
It's clear cut where you stand politically and that's your choice. It's hugely hypocritical for the English press, the Scottish tories and some AVFTT posters to call her out for misleading Parliament/lying whilst ignoring the antics of our current PM. She has no impact on my life, whereas he does.
Click to expand...
She’d have plenty of impact on your life if she got through Scottish Independence and if you really believe your last sentence then you need a serious rethink.
 
Not wearing a mask will be called out as a resigning offence by the usual suspects, whereas the charlatan we have regularly lies, misleads Parliament and is now a confirmed law breaker, but is allowed to continue 'because we're in a tricky place with Ukraine'.

Unbelievable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top