Sturgeon under pressure

Potentially a couple of key developments: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...lex-salmond-holyrood-inquiry-live-news-today/

11:42AM
Ms Sturgeon expressed her regret about the leak, reiterating that she did not know who was responsible.

11:55AM
Some drama from outside the Holyrood inquiry.
With Nicola Sturgeon on the stand, Alex Salmond has lodged a formal complaint against the alleged leaker of the complainant's name.


If the alleged leaker contradicts the FM's claim, that is probably game over.
 
Shandypants said:
Morning. I observe this board, you claim to be neutral your footprint gives you away. Any observation on Johnson's lies? I'm not fussed about your political views, it's the double standards I'm pulling up.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked this thread was about Nicola Sturgeon. Instead of trying to trash Lala over Boris Johnson why not join in and give your verdict on wee Jimmy instead.
 
Alf said:
Bullshit
Click to expand...

Scaramanga said:
Last time I checked this thread was about Nicola Sturgeon. Instead of trying to trash Lala over Boris Johnson why not join in and give your verdict on wee Jimmy instead.
Click to expand...
I'm not trashing her, I'm quite fond really. I do like to pick her up on things, to be fair she always gives a reasonable answer. I couldn't care less about Sturgeon it doesn't affect my life.
 
I really want to be wrong with this, but I think she is building so much grey area into all the evidence that she may not be found responsible, given the slave-like SNP following, and the Greens doing their normal.

From the outside, she is trying to trash the jury's clearing of Salmond, duck any Government responsibility for targeted leaks, dismiss the senior lawyers opinions as timid, and appear to not quite remember what others, on oath, have said very clearly.

Trouble is as I said last week, Salmond is certainly not a very nice chap either.
 
For the head of a government she doesn't seem to know much about what has been going on.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I really want to be wrong with this, but I think she is building so much grey area into all the evidence that she may not be found responsible, given the slave-like SNP following, and the Greens doing their normal.

From the outside, she is trying to trash the jury's clearing of Salmond, duck any Government responsibility for targeted leaks, dismiss the senior lawyers opinions as timid, and appear to not quite remember what others, on oath, have said very clearly.

Trouble is as I said last week, Salmond is certainly not a very nice chap either.
Click to expand...

That sounds like every other politician, ever.

It's small beer in comparison to the stuff that Blair, Campbell et. al. got away with, I suppose. Then there's Grenfell. The list goes on.

Same old obtuse use of language to avoid taking responsibility for stuff done on their watch.

We probably get what we deserve mind.
 
TSSeasider said:
That sounds like every other politician, ever.

It's small beer in comparison to the stuff that Blair, Campbell et. al. got away with, I suppose. Then there's Grenfell. The list goes on.

Same old obtuse use of language to avoid taking responsibility for stuff done on their watch.

We probably get what we deserve mind.
Click to expand...
Biggest scandal of recent times for me is Windrush.
British citizens deported to a foreign country because they could not prove that they were British after the HO (i.e. UK gov) had destroyed the records which proved their identity.
Some died abroad, some lost jobs, some were refused NHS treatment etc, all through no fault of their own.
Guilt was assumed rather than proved and a rather pitiful, pathetic compensation scheme had to be overhauled to pay more money after a legal challenge.
However, it hardly gets any media coverage.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Biggest scandal of recent times for me is Windrush.
British citizens deported to a foreign country because they could not prove that they were British after the HO (i.e. UK gov) had destroyed the records which proved their identity.
Some died abroad, some lost jobs, some were refused NHS treatment etc, all through no fault of their own.
Guilt was assumed rather than proved and a rather pitiful, pathetic compensation scheme had to be overhauled to pay more money after a legal challenge.
However, it hardly gets any media coverage.
Click to expand...
There's loads. Windrush is scarcely believable although, I'm not sure about it not getting much coverage, I think it's been heavily covered by the nationals - less by local media but that's probably to do with demographics.

All our big institutions put up a ridiculous fight when they are clearly wrong to save face.

I know, especially with all this cancel culture nonsense, that we don't seem to offer forgiveness, but, I'm sure most of us would accept "I made a mistake, sorry" and move on quite quickly if they did that.

But they appear hardwired not to.
 
Her worst "crime" is to tell the Scots that they would do well outside the UK. I understand they would not be able to survive without the extra monies they get from London and as for joining the EU: no chance.
 
Scaramanga said:
Last time I checked this thread was about Nicola Sturgeon. Instead of trying to trash Lala over Boris Johnson why not join in and give your verdict on wee Jimmy instead.
Click to expand...
Pity you don’t take your own advice. Trump to Biden ring any bells?
 
Shandypants said:
I'm not trashing her, I'm quite fond really. I do like to pick her up on things, to be fair she always gives a reasonable answer. I couldn't care less about Sturgeon it doesn't affect my life.
Click to expand...
I sympathise with your general concern, there is certainly a hypocrisy of media where this is IMO a really important event at least in terms of moral and political precedent. Forgetting even Westminster, the coverage and focus this story has received pales in comparison to that of the Brett Kavanaugh case in our own newspapers which is bizarre.

All I meant to say, flippantly I admit, was that you were pressing a wider political point even if it had a personal slant.
 
The Convener and Deputy Convener clashing again, clearly no love lost between these two, oh one’s SNP the other is Conservative 🤣
 
Bonkers rejecting independent legal advise. Such advise is all too often to continue, how do you think lawyers generate their fees?
 
Davepick said:
Windrush could/should have been sorted out when it happened.
Easy, issue them with a Passport as soon as they arrived.
Click to expand...
The problem was, technically they didnt need one to travel between Jamaica and the UK as it was still a colony at the time.
 
Well that certainly came as a huge shock to me....

I didn’t know that NS was married.. I must have missed that episode of The Undateables.
 
Loco said:
Latest:

www.heraldscotland.com

Sturgeon Government 'discounted' advice to concede legal fight with Salmond

THE Scottish Government "discounted" advice to concede its legal fight with Alex Salmond and only gave up after a series of increasingly…
www.heraldscotland.com www.heraldscotland.com
Click to expand...
It does make you wonder why she chose to ignore the very assertive legal advice and place herself in this predicament.
I really don’t understand why she would jeopardise her own standing when it was made clear to her that’s what would happen 🤔
 
Lala said:
It does make you wonder why she chose to ignore the very assertive legal advice and place herself in this predicament.
I really don’t understand why she would jeopardise her own standing when it was made clear to her that’s what would happen 🤔
Click to expand...

One suggestion was that if they stretched it out long enough they hoped that the criminal case would overtake it.
 
Lala said:
It does make you wonder why she chose to ignore the very assertive legal advice and place herself in this predicament.
I really don’t understand why she would jeopardise her own standing when it was made clear to her that’s what would happen 🤔
Click to expand...
That’s what I can’t understand either. Especially as she has control of the SNP and AS is history. As far as I can tell:

1. Things started down the #Metoo path and she thought it wiser to go along with it. And then couldn’t back out or pull strings when AS (allegedly) asked her to. And he got the hump.
2. Personal animosity to AS. Pay back for some reason.
3. AS planning to come back and replace her. So she decided to head him off.

All or a mixture of the above.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
That’s what I can’t understand either. Especially as she has control of the SNP and AS is history. As far as I can tell:

1. Things started down the #Metoo path and she thought it wiser to go along with it. And then couldn’t back out or pull strings when AS (allegedly) asked her to. And he got the hump.
2. Personal animosity to AS. Pay back for some reason.
3. AS planning to come back and replace her. So she decided to head him off.

All or a mixture of the above.
Click to expand...
Still seemed a massive risk after the harsh advice we now know she was given.
But yes, there does have to be a reason for her to take such a chance.
 
Lala said:
Still seemed a massive risk after the harsh advice we now know she was given.
But yes, there does have to be a reason for her to take such a chance.
Click to expand...
From my experience when a client gets advice they don’t like the reaction is either:

1. We’d better find a way out of this with the least damage or
2. We need better lawyers who’ll tell me what I want to hear.

It also makes a difference if you’re the claimant or on the receiving end.

If you’re the first then within certain limits (and certainly before court proceedings) you can control the timetable. Do I push it now or keep my options open, sit back and await developments?

If you’re the defendant, unless you can find a counterclaim, you’re reacting to what the other side allege or do. It’s more difficult then to roll over if you get advice you don’t like. Especially if you have a claimant with a “scorched earth policy” who doesn’t want to comprise.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
From my experience when a client gets advice they don’t like the reaction is either:

1. We’d better find a way out of this with the least damage or
2. We need better lawyers who’ll tell me what I want to hear.

It also makes a difference if you’re the claimant or on the receiving end.

If you’re the first then within certain limits (and certainly before court proceedings) you can control the timetable. Do I push it now or keep my options open, sit back and await developments?

If you’re the defendant, unless you can find a counterclaim, you’re reacting to what the other side allege or do. It’s more difficult then to roll over if you get advice you don’t like. Especially if you have a claimant with a “scorched earth policy” who doesn’t want to comprise.
Click to expand...
Yes I suppose that makes some sense Mex.
What a bitter and twisted world we live in sometimes.
 
Watched some of it on telly last week. Don't like her at all, but she was impressive on detail and kept her cool really well.
 
She's a posturing self centered media whore with a face like a grinning baboon.

Wouldn't fancy any Krankie panky with her.

*runchase trundles along effortlessly*
 
Lala said:
It does make you wonder why she chose to ignore the very assertive legal advice and place herself in this predicament.
I really don’t understand why she would jeopardise her own standing when it was made clear to her that’s what would happen 🤔
Click to expand...
Career at stake over £600,000 costs.

Track and trace £37 billion but look over here, shiny shiny vaccinations....
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
I th

Wasn't this thread about Nicola Sturgeon? Hijacked and turned in to political point scoring by the loony left again 😆
Click to expand...
Compare and contrast. RWNJs more than happy to waste 37 billion but scream and shout about £600,000, which might just get Boris a new kitchen. Political point scoring.
 
Who's screaming and shouting? I didn't waste 37 billion. I just asked a simple question. Wasn't this thread about Nicola Sturgeon?
Well wasn't it?
 
I also watched quite a bit of her evidence. It's difficult to know what to make of the "he said, she said" stuff ** but she has pretty good powers of concentration, I must say.

** for conspiracy theory potential, Alex S. would fit right in on here. 😀
 
Whatever the political circumstances of this SNP fallout, Alex Salmond had to go to court and face sexual abuse charges and that was no laughing matter.

If NS has impaired any investigation into that then politically she has to go, along with any of the senior civil servants who were involved in the cover up.

Reminds me a bit of the John Prescott affair with one of his staff,where the whole office should have been sacked and had their inflation busting pensions removed.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Potentially a couple of key developments: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...lex-salmond-holyrood-inquiry-live-news-today/

11:42AM
Ms Sturgeon expressed her regret about the leak, reiterating that she did not know who was responsible.

11:55AM
Some drama from outside the Holyrood inquiry.
With Nicola Sturgeon on the stand, Alex Salmond has lodged a formal complaint against the alleged leaker of the complainant's name.


If the alleged leaker contradicts the FM's claim, that is probably game over.
Click to expand...
Has she not been spotted yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top