UKH

That seemed to sink without trace, didn't it - or am I missing something?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Does she fish? 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The committee is meeting again today (in private) and among the agenda items is consideration of their draft report. See https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111052....

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It slipped away?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Just try trawling the net for an answer.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

How many fishy puns are we allowed in a roe?

In reply to Lankyman:

Don't tell him, Pike!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Maybe the media decided they had bigger fish to fry?

In reply to Graeme G:

No, she just doesn't know her plaice.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As said, the committee will report back in a few weeks. More emails came to light after Sturgeon's evidence by the way. Reports from Holyrood suggest that the committee is currently split along party lines with the majority of the committee either being SNP or their friendly helpers, the Greens it is unlikely that the committee will conclude that she mislead Parliament. No surprises there then. I'm reminded of Trump's impeachment hearing where partisan politics informed the result rather than an objective and impartial assessment of the evidence.

You may have heard that the SNP's chief whip in Westminster had to step down after complaints from an SNP staffer that the MP had tried to get into his boxers. Another SNP MP had drunkenly suggested he gave her a good pumping during an evening in the strangers bar. I don't think any disciplinary action has been taken against her though. Of course all this happened and was reported to the party three years ago and phuq all happened until the story became public. Ian Blackford then got all sanctimonious about it and made some suitably pompous remarks hoping we were all stupid enough to forget that he'd done nothing but sit on his fat arse when the complaints landed on his desk several years previously.

What has the above got to do with our First Miniature? Obviously she can't be expected to know everything that goes on in Westminster in her own party. Thing is Alex Salmond told her about all this during the meeting she forgot about on 29th March 2019.

In other SNP sleaze related news you may not be aware that disgraced MSP Natalie Mcgarrie is about to be tried on charges of theft. She was convicted a couple of years ago of embezzling about £5k from Women for Independence and a food bank (stealing from a food bank!?) but later avoided prison when the verdict was overturned on a technicality. This time the sum involved is £25k.

Derek MacKay our former finance minister who had to resign last year after he had been found to have been stalking a sixteen year old schoolboy on FB is still an MSP drawing a salary and expenses as is "Covid Margret" Ferrier MP although she did appear in court a month or two ago. They are both still members of the SNP.

In reply to Lankyman:

Roe ain’t cheap, it’s deer, so couple of bucks worth. 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Tom in Edinburgh explains it all rather well in this short information video produced on behalf of the Scottish Government -  youtube.com/watch?v=K5lYXaVkA0U&

In reply to Removed User:

That's not fishy at all.

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

New ID but still the same old crab!

In reply to Removed User:

Because she didn't.  

The enquiry was never going to go anywhere because the law about not providing information which could lead to someone deducing the complainer's identities was never going to go anywhere and made the task pretty much impossible.   By its very nature evidence about how complaints were handled is likely to reveal the identities of the complainers.  All the unionists have is continually demanding stuff they can't get because of the law on complainers identities and then claiming conspiracy.  It gets boring after a while.

Brexit and Covid are devastating the country and the unionists want to waste time on minutiae of a long decided court case involving a retired politician .   They probably spent several million investigating whether a 500k legal bill was reasonable.   

In reply to Lankyman:

We can squeeze in a few more fish jokes, just for the halibut.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Your same old tricks, lies and bullshit. The Scottish Parliament established the Fabiani committee by a vote of 92 to 19. Good thing too: the Scottish Government had been found to have acted unlawfully, and admitted to breaching its own guidelines.

But "it's the unionists' fault", isn't it?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It is really simple 7,000 Covid deaths and entire industries devastated by Brexit are important.  Thousands of deaths and tens of thousands losing their jobs.

Whether Alex Salmond was sexually inappropriate 12 years ago is markedly less important. especially when it has already been tried in court.  People get accused of sh*t like that every day, some of them get off, some of them get the jail, then we move on.

The underlying thing is nothing to do with Salmond or Sturgeon it is that the unionist MSPs think they are going to lose their seats in May and Westminster thinks it could well lose Scotland if there is Indyref2.  The dirty tricks are being rolled out. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You're at it again! The committee enquiry is not at all concerned with any allegations against Salmond - they've been dealt with by a criminal court. It's about the unlawful behaviour of the Scottish government - that SNP one, remember?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

....... says someone who is forever banging on about events in 1707 and earlier.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Presumably also more important than a 2nd referendum?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The inquiry is concerned with the unlawful way in which the Scottish Government handled allegations of sexual assault, up to and including rape. Good luck with telling people that's unimportant right now.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It is basically about nothing.  When you get right down to it allegations were made against a former leader of the SNP and Sturgeon had them investigated fully rather than burying them like the Tories would have done.   That is why Salmond is angry with her.  The people doing the investigation were civil servants.   Scottish Government civil servants are UK civil servants, the chain of management,  appointments and disciplinary processes for the most senior civil servants go to the Cabinet Office in London. 

Now I may be paranoid but it seems pretty obvious to me that the UK Civil Service is going to put people whose loyalty is to London at the top of the Scottish Civil Service.  When senior civil servants f*ck up in such an embarrassing manner on a case like this you've got to wonder.

In reply to Lankyman:

To be shore...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The word on the street ..... won’t see for a long stretch......... gone... swimming with the fishes. 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I do have to laugh at the tory/unionist stance on all this. The rhetoric is all about them taking the moral highground and that the SNP is corrupt etc etc. The reality is that after years and years of digging they've finally found something they think they can use against Sturgeon and are now kicking the arse out of it and baying for blood.

Why are they doing this? Quite simply they are afraid of Sturgeon because they recognise her for what she is; the second biggest threat to the union at present. Obviously they can't do much about the biggest threat to the union because he is one their own.

In reply to DaveHK:

Whilst I could see the punchline coming a mile off, it was so well put that I still chuckled.  Thanks for making me smile this early in the day.

In reply to Graeme G:

It's funny because it is true.  

Sturgeons position is a load of old pollocks

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Speaking as a unionist I'd say to be fair there is unlawful and there is unlawful...how does the proportionality of that determination stack up against say the Westminster government's record on unlawful behaviour. Do we have a repeat serious offender complaining about a rare minor offence elsewhere? Tom might not help his position at times by being biased but that doesn't make him wrong that this is a political motivated game.

"Judge Lord Pentland subsequently said that the (...SNP...) government's actions had been "unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair" and had been "tainted with apparent bias".". Compare and contrast with the legal decisions against Boris and co and the silence of the Scottish tories on that.

Taking sexual abuse seriously is something all the major UK political parties have got wrong (alongside repeat failures in dealing with some other 'isms'). Salmond admitted to sexually inappropriate behaviour. He was found not guilty in court of the charges made but that doesn't mean he was innocent beyond reasonable doubt. In our nation things are so dysfunctional currently in dealing with sexual related crime that only a few percent of reported rapes lead to convictions.

As a Scottish citizen I didn't vote, and fund via my taxes for Holyrood to be a continuation of Westminster political sleaze, I hoped that a new institution would have the ability to work to a higher ethos. 

The 'they are just as bad or worse, so its alright approach' , is an often employed defence from SNP supporters (and others when faced with evidence of their party's misdeeds), and is a contemptible attempt at deflection.

If there is corruption, illigaility, financial impropriety and unwholesome conspiracy in our political institutions; it needs to be addressed where-ever it occurs, and by who-ever.  Just because you support the SNP or Independence, or the Tories is not justification for ignoring it, in fact it is short-sighted to do so.

It might have currently gone quiet on the Salmond-Sturgeon crisis, but its hard to conclude that the fire is out, it is very likely to re-ignite, as further information reaches the public domain.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

That's just ridiculously naive. No government system has ever been free of such problems. The fair measure is to ask are they dealing with problems fairly as they arise and to think much more on what have they done to improve on the big picture issues. In nearly all respects from behaviour of politicians to PR the Scottish system has done better compared to Westminster. Yes the latest scandal has highlighted real issues and government mistakes but it also shows action being taken in parliament. The issues are trivial compared to what Boris and co are up to and highlight a gulf in current Parliamentary responses.  

I once saw Davidson as a positive role model for UK tories but I think she is being damaged by playing political games on this. Very few tory politicians seem to have the right level of visible sensitivity on major issues of female concern. As I allude to above, the terrible situation women face with sexual crime not being prosecuted fairly in the UK is way more important than legal verdicts on procedural matters. The failures in process shouldn't distract from the serious behaviour problems the process was attempting to deal with. Salmond abused his position of leadership power in his admitted sexual misconduct.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

She's just flexing her mussels because she thinks she's Cod Almighty

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

This isn't the time or the plaice for carping on about such things.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Seems the shit is hitting the fan in Westminster as I type.

David Davies is using Parliamentary privilege to say what cannot be said elsewhere. That was one of the issues with the enquiry, Holyrood does not have the same privilege.

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1371911723582636038?s=20

Allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

In reply to Removed User:

Oh aye..so many sleaze stories, so little time..

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/former-snp-campaign-manager-nathan-sparl...

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

David Davis just used his parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons to reveal details of some of the evidence that has been denied to the Salmond Inquiry by the Scottish Crown.

youtube.com/watch?v=DmUBy74A7Tw&

In reply to scratcher:

Twenty two minutes long but anyone who is interested in Scottish politics really needs to hear it. It's devastating. Peter Murrel, the guy accused of interfering with the police enquiry is Nicola Sturgeon's husband and Chief Exec of the SNP for those not au fait with the SNP.

I tried to bookmark and retweet it but couldn't. I think it may have already been deleted.

In reply to Removed User:

“Thick as mince and twice as vain as narcissus” never quite seems right when Davies has the bit firmly in his teeth. I wonder what that would have been like with a fuller house?

His main line that Holyrood should have more power to be able to investigate/hold to account seems a difficult one to argue against?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Davis isn't a fool but bear in mind he's a friend of Alex Salmond's so he'll have had help with the speech. Of course the purpose of the debate was to discuss Scottish Parliamentary procedures but the details of the example he gave tonight contain very serious allegations.

..but yes, you're right Holyrood needs the powers necessary to hold the Scottish Government to account. 

It's amazing though that after all these years in power the SNP hasn't already demanded them .

In reply to Removed User:

To complete Cummings full description of Davis: ,"Thick as mince, vain as Narcissus and idle as a toad."

What on earth was he doing getting involved? What was it to do with him?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Defending his sex pest pal and the union of course. Encouraging people to complain could just as easily be termed as encouraging people to not accept sexual harrassment. Some process mistakes were obviously made and there needs to be some look at what happened. I just hope the bigger picture is not lost: the importance of holding to account those in power who sexually abuse.

In reply to Offwidth:

And also I would trust, holding to account those in power who misuse their power for WHATEVER reason.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The plot thickens.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/17/woman-rebuts-claims-nicola-...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Did not realise that was a Cummings quote.

Now since DC is the epitome of all evil does this mean we should all side with DD?

In reply to scratcher:

And this is the statement of one of the complainers about what actually happened.

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1372215945549217796

So far all I see is people trying to get potential victims to come forward.  Naturally the person being investigated doesn't like that at all but part of having an investigation is to get all the complaints on record so you know where you are.  If you have multiple people making allegations but trying to stay off the record and guess there could well be other cases what are you supposed to do.   

I wouldn't be surprised if the Crown Office notices the remarkable coincidence that Salmond has tried to get this stuff out several times and Davis is his friend.  Davis may be OK because of parliamentary privilege, whoever handed it to him is not.

In reply to DaveHK:

Trump 101 isn't it?  It's the only weapon the right wing has.  When you know that you're a morally bankrupt piece of shit then all you can do is project and hope you base is so stupid that they don't notice - which, to be fair, they mostly don't.  Watch a bit of Tucker Carlson for this tactic being raised to an art form.  Just be warned, if you do then you'll feel your soul slipping away into a cesspit of despair.

In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Infantile. Anyone not following events may wish to know that Jackie Baillie is widely regarded as being the most effective inquisitor on the committee. That's Jackie Baillie, the Labour MSP for Dumbarton.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

How convenient. A "complainer," who wasn't in fact a complainer, contacts Liz Lloyd to seek advice, but doesn't tell Liz anything about who or what or why? Simple unbelievable.

It does however move the date at which Sturgeon's Chief of Staff knew about the complaints procedure to Jan 2018, which is now three months before Sturgeon claims she first heard of it.

If the players involved were so keen to follow due process, then can you explain why a secret meeting to discuss the matter was held between Salmond and Sturgeon at her own private residence? A meeting that was kept secret from the SNP - Sturgeon's husband is the CEO of the SNP and claims his own wife told him nothing of the matter. A meeting that was kept secret from the Scottish Government (failure to do so is a breach of the Ministerial Code) because Sturgeon claims it was a party matter, thereby contradicting the evidence that her own husband delivered under oath.

In reply to scratcher:

You want to watch that ground under you feet. Dealing with this process issue properly is important but labelling a complainer who withdrew as 'not a complainer' is risking brushing some of Salmond's completely inappropriate behaviour under the carpet (implying what this woman experienced doesn't matter). On a different point Tom was raising the behaviour relating to another potential breach of code (passing information to Davis) and Blanche speculating on motivations of such players; what has Baillie got to do with either?

In reply to Offwidth:

Revealing.

Perhaps it's worth hearing her own words -

"I said I had been asked if I wanted to make a complaint and made it clear to her I did not want to"

That is the very definition of "not a complainer," both by the common usage of the word "complainer" and, more importantly, by the precise legal definition that has been used throughout the coverage of the Salmond affair i.e. the person who instigates a criminal investigation in Scotland.

Jackie Baillie is a unionist. Blanche quoted this from DaveHK immediately before launching into her tirade -

In reply to scratcher:

You're right it's revealing. To me the known treatment of women by Salmond as a party leader is just as important as any likely procedural breaches (I could be wrong but let's wait and see).

Focussing on definitions is just another distraction from the behaviour.  Do you seriously think nothing happened to her?

There are numerous reasons why sexually assaulted women chose not to take the matter further; the most unfortunate one being what they have to face in doing that with very limited chance of a fair outcome....ie a complete lack of faith in the system. 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Amazed this hasn’t been picked up elsewhere other than the Daily Record. But could get very interesting in the next few days.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-misled-holyrood...

edit: literally just as I posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56451170

In reply to Graeme G:

There are 4 rabid unionists on the committee who were always going to vote for anything that damages the SNP, 4 SNP and one Green.  The vote was 5:4.  The only question I see coming out of this is why on earth SNP supporters should trust the Greens with their second vote.  This is probably a political goal of the unionists: most of them are only in parliament on list seats and if people go SNP #1 and SNP #2 rather than tactically SNP #1, Green #2 the de Hondt system is likely to give the unionist parties more of the list seats.

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111055....

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

are there not also a few rabid splitters on the commitee?

randomly the BBC seem to think there is a different makeup to the parliamnet website:

"The cross-party committee includes four SNP MSPs, two Conservatives, one Labour, one Liberal Democrat and independent Andy Wightman."

Is Andy Wightman involved at all?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The fifth non-SNP member is not a Green - it's Andy Wightman, who was a Scottish Green but was hounded out of the party for not toeing the line closely enough on trans issues.

I don't always agree with everything he says, but he's unlikely to be playing party politics, as he isn't in a party (and is standing as an independent candidate for the Highlands and Islands this time).

In reply to Dr.S at work:

The BBC report says Wightman is on the committee but the parliament website says it is a Green MSP called Alison Johnstone.  When you look at Wightman's MSP page it says nothing about him being on this committee.   I wonder if it changed when he left the Greens.

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111055....

https://beta.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/andy-wightman

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I’ve been advised to use my 2nd vote on a pro-independence party other than SNP. This might mean we’ll have a broader range of pro-independence parties in Holyrood. Making a refusal for indyref2 less likely. If all we have is SNP it could be seen as a single party issue and easier to refuse.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The predominantly unionist media that serves Scotland obsessively reports on an inquiry that is clearly being used for shoddy political theatre. Largely centred on the date and content of a meeting between two politicians. But what many of us see in Scotland is a campaign that is just part of a wider attack on our institutions and democracy. Prompted by majority support for independence.

Meanwhile the devolution settlement voted for by the vast majority of Scottish voters in 1997 is being subverted. Scotland is being leveraged away from our European neighbours with devastating economic consequences. Our taxes are being squandered in a spree of spending characterised by "cronyism" and virtually no accountability. And Scotland gets to be home to yet more weapons of mass destruction that our parliament and our people don't want. None of which we voted for and much of which is driven by an alien ideology wrapped up in a union jack.

But on those matters the Westminster parties represented by their branch offices in Scotland and the mainstream media have nothing to say.....not a thing. Just more British nationalism. Because they have nothing positive to say about a broken union that offers Scotland nothing but exploitation and "second class" status.

In reply to Graeme G:

I use my list vote to be able to vote for the party I support, not having to worry about keeping a Tory out.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

So do I. Tories aren’t the only unionist parties. If what I want is independence, there’s nothing in my post that doesn’t agree with your position.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

There are 4 rabid separatists on the committee who were always going to vote for what the party tell them.

In reply to Removed Useralastairmac1:

What many of us in scotland see is just another example of corruption on the part of politicians. No different to politicians all over the world.  

In reply to Removed Useralastairmac1:

House!

In reply to Graeme G:I respect Unionism, just don’t like that narrative that there is only one Unionist party, nor do I consider the thing that calls itself the Conservative Party to be Unionist... Unions work in both directions, empires do not

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

They are going to have to think up something else to stop the SNP. They have tried several tricks using a load of worthless made up sh1t administered half-heartedly by numpties.

The big question now is will they go for something similar or will they try formulating policies that people in Scotland will actually vote for.

Imagine that. Political parties formulating acceptable policies. It has become a far off dream. What happened there?

In reply to Jim Fraser: Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this particular issue, I did find the comment laughable from Ruth Davidson, saying that if Nicola had any integrity she would resign. Presumably that doesn’t apply to Boris when he went in front of Parliament to lie that all contracts relating to COVID had been published after the court case went against the Tories.

In reply to Neil R:

Baroness Ruth and DRoss are a complete waste of space. They just move from one gaffe to the next. Murdo Fraser has been know to talk sense occasionally but he has not done his credibility any favours during these recent battles.

In reply to Graeme G:

I notice that unionists like Andrew Neil are now saying that the election is about whether the SNP gets an absolute majority in parliament and that should be a gating criterion for approving Indyref2.  They seem to think the Salmond thing has cost the SNP enough votes that they wont get an absolute majority so it is a safe pretext to refuse Indyref 2.

If the unionists start using this line more it would be a reason to go SNP 1, SNP 2 and turn this strategy against them.

Where I live it is very likely the SNP will win the constituency seats and a second vote for them won't help, so I was thinking of going Green, but if I find out for sure the Green MSP for Lothian voted against Sturgeon on this committee she's not getting my vote.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Murdo Fraser is the guy who tweeted:  "Rangers 5 Celtic 4 - The Queen's 11 deliver Her Majesty the perfect Birthday present #ScottishCup #GSTQ"

In reply to Neil R:

Sturgeon demanded the resignation of Wendy Alexander when it was discovered that she mistakenly accepted a donation of £950 to her leadership campaign. 

Perfectly reasonable therefore that when she has been found to have been telling lies about conspiring to have someone thrown in prison so they couldn't challenge her leadership of the SNP that people think she should resign. Maybe you think that sort of behaviour is ok though.

The Tories have very serious allegations against them as well. I hope they are thoroughly investigated and when they are asked to cooperate with an enquiry it is an independent enquiry which doesn't include a majority of of government members and that those subject to investigation cooperate fully rather than obstruct and obfuscate at every turn.

Ruth Davidson thinks Johnson is a turd by the way.

In reply to thread :

Meh, disappointed in Ruth, thought she was better than that — but 

Douglas Ross is acting as a true Tory - I really hope he is not voted in to the Scottish Parliament, that would be funny 

In reply to Removed User:

None of that has happened.   Someone has leaked that a committee has voted along party lines to say she mislead parliament.   It isn't known whether they are going to say she 'knowingly' mislead parliament or not.   There is no suggestion the report will say stuff like 'conspiring to have Salmond thrown in jail' or 'so he couldn't challenge her leadership of the SNP'.  From what the Tories on the committee were saying to Panorama my guess is their line is 'Salmond got off with inappropriate behaviour because of Scottish Government incompetence' rather than 'Salmond was innocent and conspired against'.  Sturgeon is pretty much OK as regards serious wrongdoing because very obviously she didn't help him get off.

Leaking the vote and appearing on Panorama discussing the evidence before the report comes out are both clear breaches of the parliamentary rules.  Annie Wells - another Tory - was chucked out of parliament for three days a while back for leaking from committee meetings.   On the face of it several committee members should themselves be sanctioned.

The parliament goes into recess on March 25th this makes the whole 'resign' thing moot.  Sturgeon is already through her term and she's facing re-election.  The matter can be left to the voters.

In reply to Removed User:

But like a good Tory she sold out her principles on the EU in about half a second for a Baronetcy.

One of the problems in Scottish politics is there is no such thing as Scottish Conservatives or Scottish Labour.  They are branch offices and their so called leaders serve at the pleasure of London.   If they were real parties with real leaders they would occasionally stand up to and vote differently from the English Tory and Labour party.

In reply to Lankyman:

She must be feeling a lot of tench-on right now as everyone is trying to knoch her off her perch.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Is that date the reason Sturgeon has been delaying things ??

The whole thing stinks.

Sturgeon is no less a turd than Johnson, she just inhabits a smaller toilet* than he does.

* I mean Holyrood and Westminster of course, not any nations.

In reply to fred99:

If Sturgeon is a turd, Johnson is a mountain of rancid shit.

In reply to Offwidth:

Can't disagree with that description of Johnson.

I do think Sturgeon also has similar (hidden to many people) depths though.

In reply to fred99:

Excellent article here from a political blogger and criminal defence lawyer on whether it is credible that Sturgeon was ignorant of Salmond's behaviour until recently. The answer is no, it is beyond reasonable doubt.

Sturgeon and many others in her party spent years covering up for a sex pest until it suited them not to. That she now claims to have acted in defence of women's right is hypocrisy of the highest order. 

http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-most-ignorant-woman-in-scotland.h...

In reply to Removed User:

So which is it:

a. Sturgeon was trying to frame Salmond

or

b. Sturgeon was trying to cover up for Salmond 

You have the exact same problem as the Tories on the committee.  If they say Sturgeon was framing Salmond that implies Salmond was innocent and also has the glaring problem she's got absolutely no motive to dredge up a sex scandal about an ex-leader.   And if they say Sturgeon was covering up for Salmond they've got the huge problem that she obviously wasn't. 

Then you get to the reality of the situation.  Sturgeon saw the allegations and thought 'f*ck's sake this could be true'  then she took the gutsy decision, perhaps influenced by the series of #metoo scandals that were appearing at the time,  to make sure the allegations were fully investigated.   After which there were a series of f*ck ups.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Oh come on Tom, life isn't binary, this is looking like a classic case of convenience. 

It is looking like those around Alex Salmond knew he could make female staff uncomfortable and his behaviour was borderline, his QC virtually used that defence at trial...............but they conveniently ignored it while they travelled along the road to independence, i.e. at best covered up to some degree by inaction.

Then when it became convenient to use that knowledge to try and neutralise Salmonds potential return (or their fear he might) to politics they did! 

I don't believe this started out as a conspiracy, more that it started out as an attempt to gain leverage over him, he didn't play ball, it then went from cock-up to conspiracy as they lost control in a shakespearean way as each action and decision drew them in deeper, until it became a conspiracy. No one willing to break ranks and risk the damaging the greater cause;  party / independance dream.

That's why the narrative is so compelling, a story thats happened a thousand times before through history but in slightly different ways and at different scales.

The fact it ran so far shows the pitfalls of having power residing in a single couple (party/government), the upper echelons of the civil service being 'picked/promoted'  on the basis of being 'yes - men/women', party dissent being neutralised and the leader being idolised, and the unusual situation of the Lord Advocate being a political appointee (whom appears to have got himself tangled in teh web somewhere along the way). 

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Conspiracies are extremely difficult to organise and maintain. Most of the people who have ever been accused of consiracy do not have the intelligence or management skills for the task. Whenever consiracy is suspected, I submit that two other situations are at least as likely to be taking place. 

1. It's not a conspiracy if they all know what is expected of them. 

2. A collection of incompetences.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

For starters the Cabinet Office in London runs the appointment process for the upper levels of the Civil Service in Scotland.  Sturgeon gets given a list of 'appointable candidates' to choose from.  If London is making the list there is zero chance they are actual SNP supporters and a very high chance they are plants.   

It is a ridiculous situation that when Scotland votes for a party which seeks independence that party has to act through civil servants selected by London.   When sh*t like this Salmond screw up happens you've got to ask yourself whether London is cashing in some of its chips.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100143537/

Some of the 'party dissent' is highly questionable.  It is all a bit of a coincidence.   Why would indy campaigners suddenly be trying to damage the chance of independence just as it looks more likely than ever?   Two reasons:

a. money.  Some of the bloggers have sold out because they have noticed there's a ton more clicks pandering to unionists.  Very likely the UK government or Tory backers are pushing money at them under the table to influence their position:  this is very easy to do with a blog funded by crowdfunding and advertising.  The guy looks at his income and notices he makes a f*ckton more money with a post slagging off Sturgeon than a post pushing for Indy so next week he writes another one.

b. blackmail / they were always unionist agents.  We know for a fact that the UK government runs agents in environmental groups, some of  their agents even had children with activists.  If they infiltrate the Greens they are obviously going to infiltrate a political movement that seeks to split up the UK.  There are documents in the national archives, including a report from a Special Branch Officer about attending an SNP meeting, which show they were doing so in the past.  The fact all this dissent is happening now suggests the UK government is scared enough of Indyref 2 to risk exposing its agents.

The situation with the Lord Advocate is because that's the way Westminster wrote the Act that established the devolved government.   When we get independence this stuff should be reviewed and we should write our own constitution.

In reply to Removed User:

It's always been clear Salmond was a well known sex pest amongst the political gossip mongers long before any action was taken. That blog doesn't prove Sturgeon was managing a long running conspiracy... just the opposite in my view, as her actions if viewed in that light would seemed doomed to trap herself. The only consistent position I can see is she didn't know until quite late on (but maybe earlier than she admits). Some in the SNP will have been covering up for a long time, Salmond most notably among them. I do wonder when (or maybe if ever?) we will reach a point when sex pests in positions of power will be immediately be dealt with under proper process.

Ministers telling lies to Parliament seems the norm in Westminster these days (even when TV backs up Hansard checks to 'out' ludicrous claims from our PM of what was previously said). Also legal breaches and code breaches are common, the latest being the decision that cutting overseas aid without a Parliamentary vote, follows fast on the heels of illegal NI trade arrangements and dark money problems funding decoration bills.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/ministerial-code...

The Lord Advocate point Tom makes is only part of the story. The UK and all the devolved nations have a similar political appointed position with similar conflicts of interest. In the UK government the Attourney General sits in on the cabinet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_officers_of_the_Crown

What sad times we live in when the polls favour the most dishonest UK government in modern history.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Agree; I normally default to cock-up over conspiracy. Far easier to explain and conspiracies like you say are hard to manage.  Hence why I think it started as a cock-up....and then it grew legs, as all the actors got compromised.

A pure cock-up doesn't fit with all the subsequent events, the lack of an open and transparent process, there wouldn't be the need to try and hamstring the committee, filibuster for time, drip feed the documents, deny parliamentary resolutions etc.  It would have been a simple case of a government whom at the timing was riding high in the polls of laying out the information as quickly as possible to get all the water under the bridge as fast as possible, taking the knock and moving on.

I can't see this going away,  it doesn't feel like it has reached a logical coherent conclusion of what happened. Consequently I still believe for better or worse there are further revelations to come.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I didn't see Sir George Reid turn down his knighthood either.

Surely if you think that Westminster is such a swamp it would be best to keep the Scottish parliament squeaky clean? Or can they operate at a just-quite-clean level? Personally I think that any degree of impropriety or dishonesty in Scottish politics should not be tolerated, by any party. Let's be better than Westminster. Therefor Sturgeon's position is untenable.

In reply to Offwidth:

Oh give me a break.

She knew Salmond for thirty years and had been his deputy for ten. One of the central functions of her husband's job was to know what was going on in the party.

In reply to Le Sapeur:

Is that possible in modern politics? I won’t pretend to have an extensive knowledge of parliaments across the globe, but it would seem scandal is endemic within politics. The whole being better thing is possibly just aspirational but never achievable?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Neither but I expect you're just being deliberately dense.

Sturgeon and many in the party knew that Salmond was a creep. They did nothing other than cover it up because it would damage the party if they shopped him.

When the party started fighting over policy Salmond fell out with the current leadership and realising he was planning a challenge decided the time was right to take him out by dishing the dirt on him. Hence the new disciplinary procedure which applied retrospectively to politicians but not civil servants.

In reply to Graeme G:

Well if the SNP rediscovered its moral compass this week and some of its MSPs voted for the no confidence motion in Sturgeon then obviously yes, Scotland will show it is possible to punish impropriety in politics. If of course voting falls along party lines and the Greens have been offered enough by the SNP, which they seem to have been, then we will see our sleazy First Minister survive and claim vindication.

In reply to Removed User:

Punishing impropriety is not the same as behaving properly in the first place. I’m suggesting that given the very nature of politics it’s about to what degree do we accept poor behaviour. I’m pretty ambivalent about whether Holyrood is seen as squeaky clean. Criminal behaviour? Unacceptable. Codes of conduct? Meh.....

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Conspiracies occur all the time and so long as you keep the numbers of people involved low(ish) and the complexity equally low they are easy enough to do.

The US government setting up 911 is a tad improbable but a few senior people in a company/party working together to keep something quiet is quite probable. It will happen all the time successfully.

In reply to mondite:

Hamilton Report "First Minister did not break the ministerial code"

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

To be more precise"No evidence that there was a breach of the code"

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Interesting; in that case their behaviour over the past few months makes absolutely no sense, don't think this will be the end of it............ over to Mr Salmond to revert.....

Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, but no matter which camp you subscribe to it is a significant milestone. 

In reply to Removed User:

We really need a laughing option as well as like and dislike to cover this kind of post. 

If you're calling Sturgeon sleazy what words are you going to have left to do justice to Johnson and his cronies?

In reply to DaveHK:

"Not as bad as Johnson" is quite a low bar you're setting for politicians' behaviour, doesn't it make people feel a little dirty when that's the best that can be said?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just worried about people running out of words or more specifically adjectives.

For example, I had a friend who took in a lodger. Turned out the lodger didn't empty the water out of the iron before putting it away. Without a hint of irony my friend described this behaviour as disgusting and despicable and I thought 'crikey, if that's the words you use for leaving water in an iron what are you going to have left to deal with Nazis and paedophiles?' Of course it was just a case of her having got so angry that she lost perspective.

Its the same thing here, some individuals have gone so far down their SNP hate rabbit hole that they've lost all perspective on what words like sleaze really mean.

In reply to DaveHK:

I've certainly missed something here. What exactly is Sturgeon being accused of that is 'sleazy'? I'm obviously missing something, because all I can see is that a genuinely sleazy individual wasn't dealt with as robustly and clearly as he should have been, for any number of personal and political reasons. And people are getting aerated about that?

In reply to Offwidth:

The Lord Advocate unlike the Attorney General is head of Prosecution. In England and Wales the prosecution is headed by the DPP likewise in Northern Ireland. The Lord Advocate's position is anomolous. On occasion Lord Advocates have personally appeared in prosecutions and all prosecutions in Scotland are in the Lord Advocate's name.

This is a matter that shouldn't be party political and should be addressed. Devolved or independent it doesn't sit well with a modern European state. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

As an SNP member of some 40 Years I agree with you absolutely on this. Can I also say I was impressed by Anas Sarwar,s response today. Meanwhile  the Tories are below contempt. 

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

What happens if tomorrow's report says she did breach the code? Which "wins"?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think your asking the wrong person because I agree with you!

In reply to MG:

That’s not what tomorrow’s will bring. She didn’t breach the code. Whether she misled Parliament is still up for grabs though.

In reply to Graeme G:

Ah,  ok. Thanks.

In reply to MG:

I believe in that case the report authors would settle it by fighting in the traditional Highland way, bare breasted and each carrying an 8lb baby.

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Have a like.

In reply to MG:

The confidence vote tomorrow.

In reply to MG:

Worth noting that while it was leaked that the committee were going to find that she had misled parliament, it wasn't stated that they were going to find that she had deliberately done so. It may be entirely compatible with today's ruling.

The leak from the committee (which was itself a serious breach, and should not have happened) was clearly politically motivated, so it wouldn't be surprising if it had been spun to sound worse. We'll see.

In reply to Removed User:

She's going to claim vindication because she was just vindicated.

Naturally the four unionists on the committee are going to vote against Sturgeon, that was clear before it even started.   They've been leaking and making political statements the entire time.   Nobody cares about their opinion because their bias is so obvious.   By rights they should all be sanctioned for breaking the rules on committee work with their leaks and press appearances. Interestingly, Andy Wightman has been tweeting the relevant sections of the MSP code of conduct.

The Tories will have their vote of no confidence and the Greens have said they will vote with the SNP, which is the only reasonable thing to do since Hamilton has said she didn't break the code.  So they will lose and the witch hunt will have nowhere else to go.

In reply to DaveHK:

Is that the best you can do?

Really?

I suppose I can at least take comfort from the fact that you accept that they're both sleazy.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I thought Patrick Harvie summed it up very well: “In lodging a vote of no confidence before this report was published, just as they called for the first minister's resignation before she even gave evidence to the parliamentary committee, the Tories have shown that they have no interest in establishing the truth," 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Knowing about Salmond for years and doing nothing about it until she wanted rid of him.

How often do I have to repeat myself?

In reply to Removed User:

You obviously didn't read my other post on the matter.

Either that or you're just clutching at straws like Ruth Davidson and Forres Gimp.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I admire your optimism. I think this is going to run and run. 

Whatever your politics it isn't good for Scotland. 

It has exposed some serious flaws in the Scottish Parliament. From the position of the Lord Advocate, the remarkable fact that there is no parliamentary privilege, that committees, not just this one, divide on party lines, committee chairs are appointed not elected, the failure of the government to respect those committees and the paucity of some committees particularly this 'Salmond enquiry' one. 

None of these should be party political issues but I suspect that they will become so. 

Meanwhile given that the Scottish Government seems to have dismissed the findings of the 'Salmond' committee without hearing them in the same way that the Conservatives dismissed the First Minister's evidence without hearing it there appears little hope that any of the issues that should have been addressed will be. 

Was anyone responsible for anything? Will anything change? 

In reply to rogerwebb:

I'm sure the Tories will try and keep it running but with all the reports coming out, their vote of no confidence bound to fail and the parliament going into recess for the election it looks like the end of the road.   Will they be able to kick it off again in a serious way after the election?  Depends on how many MSPs they have.  

It's a symptom of being close to an Indyref which YES has a good chance of winning.   We need to get Independence done and then things can get back to normal left / right and find a compromise in the middle politics.

After independence we should have a proper process to arrive at a modern constitution.   Maybe we could get rid of the royals and abolish the aristocracy at the same time.   The problem with reforms before independence is they'd need to come from Westminster and there is no way in hell that the Tories in Westminster should be allowed to tinker with our parliament or justice system.

Things will definitely change if the SNP get elected with a majority and YES wins Indyref2.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You do realise it's the whole independence thing that is stopping us getting back to normal? Drop that and it's back to normal.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That phrase sounds strangely familiar, where have I heard that before...?

In reply to rogerwebb:

Headlines yesterday. Sturgeon innocent.

Headlines today. Sturgeon guilty.

Either way, it's not good for the country.

In reply to Le Sapeur:

I think you’re missing the point?

In reply to Le Sapeur:

No doubt there will be multiple SNP bad stories every day between now and the election.  Tells you more about who owns the papers than anything else.  

It's not been good for the country since 1707.   But we are closer to fixing it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Things won't get back to normal post an Indy vote though will they!

The SNP will then move into 'only we can negotiate a good deal for Scotland' mode to remain in power and hamstring the process creating further division. With the big questions of currency, pensions, boarders, trade all becoming intractable under SNP stewardship. Further undermining social cohesion in Scotland.

The government then has to go about recreating and setting up the institutions of the State, which will take a significant amount of time, and struggle to juggle the imbalance between public servant employee's and industry employees while doing so. Lets face it the government hasn't even manged to on-board welfare properly yet...after how many years?

Of course we can go independant, the question is do we want to?  In doing so we add to the 14 years that the SNP has been in power and kicked everything into the long grass. Important on the ground changes will be put to the back of the queue.

The irony of this is if the SNP didn't exist the Tory support in Scotland would diminish rapidly overnight, the majority of Scottish citizens would be very happy with the resultant centre ground government and Holyrood would actually start enacting legislation for the people.  Independance isn't going to get rid of the SNP, thats just wishful thinking, or duplicitous in the hope it convinces people to hold their noses and vote Yes. Just in the same way the Tory's are asking people to hold their noses and vote for them against the SNP at the moment. Essentially a combination of being peripheral (as many regions are) and having the SNP in power is in the process of completely bankrupting Scotland and leading to dangerous social division.

There are no sunny uplands, or land of milk and honey.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I'm not sure what "normal" is meant to be, but there's no going back to the way things were before, regardless of happens - we need to move on to something. You can wish that the issue of Scottish independence would just go away, but it won't - it will remain a major concern until it is resolved, one way or another, and no matter how much you might want the previous referendum to have resolved it, it simply did not.

You're right that independence will come with costs and problems of its own, of course it will.

But failing to go independent will, too - things will then continue to be controlled ultimately from the Westminster parliament; it looks extremely likely that devolution will be rolled back to some extent in the coming years, and it's hard to imagine the financial setup not seeing significant "revision" once the Tories feel comfortable they can do so.

Labour (or Lib Dem) success in Scotland is most likely to lead us to a situation where the Scottish parliament is neutered by the Tories, left with increasingly limited powers to mitigate the actions of the hard-right Tory government we're likely to have for the next couple of terms or so - not to some sort of social-democratic paradise. Polls suggest the Tories are gaining popularity rapidly in England, there's no sign of the UK wanting a Labour government any time soon.

There is no land of milk and honey, and there never was. But some paths can lead to sunnier uplands than others - the reasonable debate is about which ones those might be.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If you look into the history books you'll find that Scotland was deeply in the poo well before 1707 - that was the reason for the Union in the first place.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Are you?

The polls show its basically back to 50-50. I think we saw with Brexit there's a huge danger with pushing ahead with such close polls. 

If there was 60+ % in support I think hold another referendum, but that's not the case now so why push for one. You can't hold referendum's every 5 years, it's just too destabilizing.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Weren't we supposed to have sorted this out after Cadder and Carloway?

It's not like we don't know what the issues are or how to sort them. There are two established law officer appointments and two potentially incompatible functions. Doesn't take a genius ... 

Should be a start Monday, sorted by Tuesday lunchtime kind of problem. Or is self-preservation a more powerful force in the Edinburgh village than even I thought!

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

That's possibly the most sensible thing I have read in the last 7 years. 

In reply to Le Sapeur:

Except it ignores why the SNP exist and have significant support. If Scotland was independent then yes, I suspect a centre-ground pro-EU party would hold sway, with coalitions being the norm as we already have PR. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

It isn't going to stay 50:50.  The tide just turned, the Tories big play failed and there's a couple of months to get back on track for a big SNP majority in May.

It was always clear that if Scotland was taken out of the EU against its will that would be a trigger for a second Indyref.  The unionists campaigned in the first one on the basis that voting NO to Indy would be the way to stay in the EU.

Scotland can have a referendum every five years if it elects an SNP government with that in its manifesto every five years.  It's our business.   People wont vote for a party that keeps having referendums with no chance of winning.  It will only happen if the issue is very close.

Also, it is more than five years since the last Indyref.

In reply to Removed User:

'Knowing about Salmond for years and doing nothing about it until she wanted rid of him.'

If everything I've read counts as sleaze and corruption north of the Border you have no idea how lucky you are.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

A fair point. Scottish   Parliament makes cockups after 22 years in existence and still has things to learn. Westminster  up and running for over 300 years and  seems not  to be so wonderful either. And the Tories keep getting voted in.

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

I thought the Scottish Parliament was supposed to be a wonderful new place, having learned from the errors of Westminster and so forth. Seems nothing more than an extension of Westminster with all the scurrilous goings-on, vested interests and toing the party line no matter what.

In reply to fred99:

Don't go letting facts and history get in the way of Scottish nationalism. Even if the very word Scotland derives from the Irish 'Scotti' who arrived in the 4th and 5th century, displacing the picts. 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I do. Taken in isolation, it is scandalous and concerning on several levels. In a UK context with the current Westminster government, it's barely worth a shrug.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

The constitutional arrangements for Holyrood come from the act that Westminster passed to set it up.  AFAIK the Scottish Parliament doesn't have the power to rewrite them and there's no way it should be giving Westminster any chance to tinker with the current set in power.   

Once we get independence there should be in depth consideration of what constitutional arrangements we want going forward and things like the role of the Lord Advocate could be part of that.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Not if your definition of normal is the way things work in the UK.  If your definition of normal is the way things work in modern european countries with proportional representation then yes.

It is far more likely that as soon as independence is achieved the SNP will fracture, the reason for most people joining it will be gone.  My guess is post-Indy politics will look like mainstream left and right of centre parties who accept independence plus the Greens plus a rump unionist party.  

So basically it has to deal with the normal business of politics.

The SNP has done a great job for Scotland.  Far better than Labour ever did.  I would say far better than the Tories but they haven't been elected in Scotland since 1955.   This is why it keeps getting re-elected.

If the SNP did not exist it would be reinvented immediately.

Starmer has shown himself to be in thrall to the same set of pro-Brexit constituencies as the Tories because he believes they hold the balance of power in the Westminster system.  He is becoming a mini-Tory, doesn't oppose them on Brexit, likes to pose with union jacks in the background.

It's a process of taking control of our own affairs, stopping bleeding talent and money to London so people can build careers in Scotland, getting back into the EU,  getting rid of royals and aristocrats, reforming land ownership which is ridiculously skewed towards a small number of families.

We will start to look a lot more like Ireland, Denmark or Norway.  And we will be much happier for it.

Maybe not but there is a way out of the current sh*t filled swamp into a fairly pleasant meadow.   Then we can think about the next step.

In reply to fred99:

I don’t recall ever reading that, anywhere. Are you  able to provide a link?

In reply to Graeme G:

I thought it's pretty well known that the Scottish parliament was modeled on Nordic parliaments - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BGf0Iri0eVQC&lpg=PT415&ots=ugR_... - physically, but also with the intention of avoiding the adversarial and confrontational style of Westminster. 

In reply to TobyA:

Hadn’t read fred99’s comment in that context. But if that’s what he intended then I’ll concede the point.

In reply to Graeme G:

Hey, we don't want to be the first to provide incontrovertible facts in this subject.

After all, Holyrood hasn't managed any yet.

In reply to TobyA:

Norway has floating seats just for PR, so in a UK equivalent the greens, ukip, lib dems who won many votes, but few seats, would have greater representation. It's seen as a means of balance things out, but offers hope to those supporting smaller parties. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I presume that comment is tongue in cheek.  The SNPs record of actual government (away from campaigning for independence)  is abysmal...

NHS waiting times up. Education slipping down the ranks. Highest rate of drug deaths in Europe. Obesity levels are amongst the highest in the developed world. 

In reply to fred99:

If you look at ALL the history books instead of selecting only the ones that fit your hypothesis then you find that England had developed a habit of engaging in wars that it couldn't afford which is why we had to invent the Bank of England for you.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Because like the entire developed world we have an aging population, increasing health care needs and increasing healthcare technical capabilities but a limit on spending.

If you actually deal with the NHS in Scotland and compare it with how it used to be 10 or 15 years ago it is night and day.   I saw that when my mother was in the new QE2 hospital in Glasgow and remembered when my father was in the old Southern General and Victoria Infirmary.   A lot of money was spent and they build something wonderful.   

School buildings too have received massive investment, you just need to look about you to see how many new schools there are.

On one particular league table.  Rich countries can't expect the gap over poorer ones to stay constant when poorer countries are developing so quickly.

Drug policy is reserved to Westminster and Westminster refuses the Scottish Government permission to implement policies designed to improve the situation.

The death rate figures are also not directly comparable because there are different criteria for what constitutes a drug death.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

.....and the lying liar in Westminster waffles on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/24/no-lie-off-limits-for-bori...

In reply to Offwidth:

...and the denying sex pest continues to deny as if Me Too never happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/24/salmond-to-launch-fresh-le...

The Guardian is right...no political winners here and the main losers are women.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/24/the-guardian-view-on-...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'd agree with most of that but still, given the political and economic incompetence demonstrated in England in the last decade and a bit, as a social liberal I would have expected a good bit better. It's almost as if the not unreasonable desire and effort for independence is proving a bit of a distraction from the important improvements needed in social policy.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I just went and looked up the Bank of England, and found the date on which it was founded, as follows;

"The establishment of the bank was devised by Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax, in 1694. "

Now 1694 is 13 years BEFORE the Union. So I respectfully suggest that your statement above is somewhat flawed.

In reply to fred99:

Based on an earlier scot's proposal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paterson_(banker)

To be fair the idea was first floated half a century before either.

In reply to fred99:

You obviously have more faith in the fast moving nature of 17th C economics than I have.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think there's much correlation between the desire for independence and progress on other issues.   Independence has really been on the back burner since Indyref 1.  They talk about it but it hasn't been consuming man hours in the Scottish Government, they only passed one independence related bill which was about setting the framework for a referendum.

The distractions from progress since Indyref 1 have been:

a. Tory austerity.   Having our own government doesn't make us immune when the Tories set the budget for that government.  The SNP can try and apply the cuts in a less damaging way but they can't not have cuts when Westminster has cuts.  

b. Tory Brexit.   Total distraction for years causing uncertainty, economic damage and now loss of powers.  Complete disaster for Scotland.

c. Covid and the Tory f*ck up around it.

Independence is the solution to a and b and it will help with c.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well if that lack of distraction is true the SNP ability to make real positive change looks more cosmetic than I expected and your position on them weaker. They are a centrist government saying mainly the right things IMHO and should have done much better even with their constraints (the biggest of which you didn't even mention... some of these issues are hard to deal with even when a government IS trying hard). Maybe it's your rather defensive sales pitch... I could be missing some really positive initiatives.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Looks like all-out war now....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/26/alex-salmond-launches-new-...

In reply to rif:

The perception of a lot of people up here is that he's a womanising pervert (tho found not guilty) so, based on the popularity of the one in charge south of the border he should do well. 

In reply to rif:

Salmond  - willing to shred the last remaining tatters of his reputation, AND deal a devastating blow to a cause he claims to have supported all his life... Because he can't believe that women don't find him irresistible, and they were just playing hard to get when they pushed his pudgy hands from between their legs and averted their faces from his beery slobbering kisses? Talk about politics being showbusiness for ugly people - he's the living proof.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You put that so much more eloquently than I ever could. Thank you. 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think Salmond basically just can't stand the thought that it might not be all about him.

Anyway, I have high hopes for this new party - ideally, they'll absorb the worse elements of the SNP, then flop.

It would be especially gratifying if Salmond failed to get elected, although the weakness of the list system is that you can put your candidate at the top of the list in a region you expect to do alright in, and they'll be elected fairly easily.

In reply to skog:

Might it not just split the independence vote and deny the SNP any chance of an absolute majority, letting in unionist MSP's?

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, because the new party is only standing on the list. If he only gets a few msps he might hold the balance of power. He won't take any constituency seats but if he takes list ones off the SNP and a few others then it may be that the SNP needs him to deliver an independence majority.

At least I would imagine that is what he hopes will happen. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

It depends, it's too complicated to have much confidence about!

If the SNP do as well as currently expected in the constituency votes (and this new party are not standing in those), they'll struggle to get many list seats anyway, and this new party is more likely to dislodge a list seat for one of the other parties (Greens, Labour, Tory, Lib Dem) than for the SNP.

If the SNP do a lot worse in those seats than currently expected, it depends who the new party are taking list votes from. It's difficult to see many Green types voting for them, or those who've moved from Lib Dem to SNP, but they might appeal to some of the angrier types who've voted SNP (dare I say the 'UKIP'-types? Although many of them voted Labour or Tory, too.)

My initial feeling is that, unless they somehow turn voters off the SNP during the campaign, they're probably not a huge threat. I imagine Sturgeon will be putting as much water as possible between them as she can.

Salmond's really unpopular, now, too - he's sleazy and, following his stint working for Putin, quite embarrassing. I suppose a few might like that?

In reply to rogerwebb:

Only if SNP + Scottish Green isn't enough for a majority, I think.

Although, while the Scottish Greens are clear about being pro-indy, I'm not sure whether they have calling for a referendum in their manifesto?

In reply to skog:

I can't imagine that Nicola Sturgeon would be prepared to do business with him whatever he might hope. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

From what I've read (in the brief time since his announcement), he's hoping that the SNP will sweep the constituency board and his party will pick up additional lists seats, in order to increase the overall number of pro-independence MSPs, and thereby increase pressure on Johnson to allow a referendum. I can understand the thinking, but I do hope he falls flat on his face. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

No, not if she has any choice at all!

Hey, if we're lucky, maybe we'll get a head-to-head Salmond v Galloway debate live on Russia Today?

In reply to skog:

Good grief, one debate where you hope both sides lose!

In reply to skog:

I'm not so sure. I can't imagine under any circumstances a Tory voter suddenly transferring their 2nd vote to Salmond's Ultra-SNP. Same goes for Lib Dems and most Labour. The Greens are already in bed with the Nat's so they may get some of them. 

This will only split the pro independence vote.

In reply to Le Sapeur:

I can - there were some who voted Tory last time due to being pro-Brexit, who might go that way.

But that wasn't what I meant and they don't need to - for example, if you have a region where the SNP have taken all or most of the constituency seats and are not going to get any of the list seats as a result, if some of those SNP list votes go to this new party instead they might beat whoever else was in the running for the last list seat - and that could be any of Tory, Labour, Lib Dem or Green.

In reply to skog:

Indeed. This new Alba party could do quite well in some regions and increase independence supporting MSP numbers much easier than the SNP could, because of the way the election of regional list seats work. The flip side is the resulting  political aggro could damage the SNP and the independence movement. The tory leader seems delusional if he thinks many Labour and Liberal voters will switch to his party. The opposite seems almost certainly to be true, given the brexit supporters previously holding their nose and voting tory.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Don't you believe it. Politicians are notoriously fickle, and will get into bed with just about anybody to get what they want.

(AS for the "get into bed" term, some take that more "literally" than others).

Anyone know whose funding this party. A Mr V Putin, I assume?

In reply to Le Sapeur:

Maybe not. A while back there was talk of a second indy party "SNP Mk2" standing for list seats to boost the SNP and "SNP Mk2" total in Holyrood.

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/19101738.wasting-thousands-snp-votes-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_for_Independence

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Some light mockery from Calum Maclean,  wild swimmer and Gaelic speaker, if you have time to watch a 50 second video:

https://twitter.com/caldamac/status/1375431495536541696?s=19

In reply to elsewhere:

It's explicit as to try and reach a supermajority they are not standing against the SNP in constituencies:

"The party announced plans to stand at least four candidates for the list vote in every region in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election.[8] Intended candidates include Salmond (standing for the North East Scotland region) as well as former SNP members Chris McEleny (standing for the West Scotland region), Eva Comrie (standing for and formerly SNP candidate in the Mid Scotland and Fife region)[16] and Cynthia Guthrie (standing for the South Scotland region).[6][17] The party endorses voting SNP for the constituency vote while voting Alba Party for the list vote, in order to ensure more pro-independence MSPs are elected.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba_Party

It's out and out gaming of the list system to supposedly benefit the independence cause and give the sex pest a new powerbase.

In reply to skog:

Janey can be a bit hit and miss but I quite liked this too.

https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1375479300661649415

In reply to Offwidth:

The deHondt system was selected by Labour when they drafted the act that set up the parliament specifically to prevent an absolute SNP majority in order to thwart independence.  They wanted to make sure that the unionist parties together would always be able to defeat an SNP attempt at an indyref or UDI..

A system which is itself a game is fair game for gaming.

I just wish this had been done by reasonable people in co-ordination with the SNP.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That would have been blatant manipulation of the system. Completely unacceptable I hope. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Which one, salmond, or the ex finance minister who was sexting kids?

In reply to skog:

Either way we are in for some interesting times in the weeks ahead. I'm looking forward to the next instalment.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

However you cut it there is now a settled majority in Scotland that support both a referendum and independence. Hopefully that will be reflected in the May elections with a clear majority of seats won by independence supporting parties. Whether that be the SNP, Greens or the new Alba party. The choice is then one for the Scottish people and the Scottish people alone. For Westminster to block a confirmatory vote on independence is not only undemocratic but simply unsustainable. It's time to accept that this union doesn't and never has served Scotland and the whole "British" project now looks like a pretty grubby anachronism. 

In reply to Removed Useralastairmac1:

Far from settled. Narrow and fluctuating.

Confirmatory vote? We've not even had an initial one for independence yet!

In reply to Robert Durran: I think we've now had 22 polls showing a majority for independence, excluding a discredited poll for The Scotsman which wasn't weighted. Largely ranging between 53% and 56%. So I guess how you describe that is a matter of perspective. What I find most encouraging is that the only age group that now still buys the whole "British" thing are the over 60's. All of the younger age groups are emphatically pro independence. I'd like to think the momentum is unstoppable. I think most of the unionist parties do as well.....that's why they're falling back on flags, jingoism and undemocratic attacks on the powers of a parliament we voted for by a massive majority in 1997.

In reply to MG:

That's a bit rich.   It's the Tories and Brexit party taking dodgy money from Russia and Trump backers in the US.

And it is the Westminster government assigning a budget of a few million to 'campaign for the union' in other words spending taxpayer money to campaign against the policies of the democratically elected governing party in Scotland.   I have no idea how that is even legal.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And Salmond employed at RT is therefore OK?

That's  because you don't get the idea of Scotland being part of the UK,.despite the population democratically deciding to be only a few years ago.

In reply to MG:

Salmond left politics.  The BBC hires Tory ex-politicians all the time but there was no way Salmond was going to get a job with any mainstream UK TV station because thy are all owned by English unionists or the UK government.   

Personally, I think he made a bad mistake joining RT but it is a completely different thing openly taking a job as a TV presenter and covertly taking Russian money for a political campaign. 

I get it, I don't like it.

The population have voted for the SNP on multiple occasions since 2014 and they have had their country pulled out of the EU against their will and pushed well on the way to right wing autocracy.

Fundamentally the UK government have no business spending taxpayer money on a political campaign for the unionists which basically means the Tories these days.  They definitely don't have any business using covert resources of the state to spy, sabotage or manipulate social media for the unionist cause.  But it is just another entry on a long list of stuff this current batch of Tories had no business doing that they did anyway and got away with.

In reply to MG:

Not according to Sturgeon.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-hits-alex-salmond-russian...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Me too. Well, I didn't vote for the SNP because they didn't put up a candidate in my constituency. Everything else applies...

In reply to Robert Durran:

Here's a newspaper report from 1997 where Labour politicians are amazingly honest about why they made the system the way it is:

https://twitter.com/iccjock06/status/1376933495096893440/photo/1