Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 10
Discussion
Lim said:
So, if I understand right, Salmond is complaining that he was denied access to docs that Lady Dorrian deemed not relevant to the accusations against him. However, AS has now finally seen them, and is arguing they would have been useful. And claiming conspiracy, with intent to pervert course of justice.
It is more legalistic than that. At that stage in the trial it is contempt of court for prosecution to withhold from the defence's lawyers evidence which it turns out was gained as a result of a search warrant (which will be why Evans visually winced when a search warrant was mentioned in relation to withheld documents - that will have been the moment she realised someone was losing their pension at the very least over this and she decided there and then it wasn't going to be her).It is irrelevant what the evidence is in that respect and that is the beginning and the end of it as far as anyone interested in the legals is concerned.
However, why would the prosecution risk the consequences of such evidence being withheld in a trial they lost anyway, unless the evidence was relevant to some other matter that could prove embarrassing or detrimental to the people concerned in a context wider than the trial itself?
For those who are unimpressed or unaware of the significance of the legal implications but think that the world turns on scandal and juicy gossip that will be the interesting bit.
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 12th January 21:39
Sorry for deleting that comment, I was just thinking out loud, I didn't really mean to post it.
But now I'm here... I was wondering what it had to do with NS. It doesn't seem to, on the surface. But you are reading between the lines that there was a cover up that would implicate NS in more serious, different charges.
But this coverup stuff isn't in any of these docs, right? It's mostly speculation? Albeit with lots of confidence. And none of this has anything to do with the ministerial code stuff?
But now I'm here... I was wondering what it had to do with NS. It doesn't seem to, on the surface. But you are reading between the lines that there was a cover up that would implicate NS in more serious, different charges.
But this coverup stuff isn't in any of these docs, right? It's mostly speculation? Albeit with lots of confidence. And none of this has anything to do with the ministerial code stuff?
Pastor Of Muppets said:
Get on to Wings folks, s
t truly hitting the fan tonight....
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-duty-of-candour/#m...
Oh my. This is far, far worse than even I imagined. Poileas Alba will be busy.t truly hitting the fan tonight....https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-duty-of-candour/#m...
Lim said:
Sorry for deleting that comment, I was just thinking out loud, I didn't really mean to post it.
But now I'm here... I was wondering what it had to do with NS. It doesn't seem to, on the surface. But you are reading between the lines that there was a cover up that would implicate NS in more serious, different charges.
But this coverup stuff isn't in any of these docs, right? It's mostly speculation? Albeit with lots of confidence.
There is only a very limited number of people who could have ordered it or known about the order (Sturgeon being one of them), plus there is a responsibility chain - if the person guilty of the cover up was under the managerial control of someone else then the manager carries the can unless they can show their underling was behaving in a rogue manner.But now I'm here... I was wondering what it had to do with NS. It doesn't seem to, on the surface. But you are reading between the lines that there was a cover up that would implicate NS in more serious, different charges.
But this coverup stuff isn't in any of these docs, right? It's mostly speculation? Albeit with lots of confidence.
Evans said today it 'wisnae me' but she didn't shovel the s
t downwind either. Evans only has one person who outranks her!Which explains why, away back when this whole thing started to bubble-up, one of our former but since-departed independence apologists tried to muddy the waters by saying Sturgeon could not be held responsible because Evans was an employee of the UK Civil Service, therefore the management chain ended at Whitehall rather than with the FM.
At the time we told them they were clutching at straws, because they clearly had no working knowledge of the Scotland Acts.
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 12th January 21:42
Roderick Spode said:
Pastor Of Muppets said:
Get on to Wings folks, st truly hitting the fan tonight....
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-duty-of-candour/#m...
Oh my. This is far, far t truly hitting the fan tonight....https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-duty-of-candour/#m...
technodup said:
Roderick Spode said:
Pastor Of Muppets said:
Get on to Wings folks, st truly hitting the fan tonight....
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-duty-of-candour/#m...
Oh my. This is far, far t truly hitting the fan tonight....https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-duty-of-candour/#m...
It’s fascinating watching this play out: 3D chess personified.
The non salmond sites (Bella Caladonia) are absolutely scthum on this. Not touching it with a barge pole.
The unionist sites such as they are (effiedeans) are looking at it from the point of view of how it impacts a referendum.
Wings is obviously, as the Salmond outfit, going nuts about it.
The thing is in the real world it doesn’t play. Until it does: the timing becomes everything. If she is found to have broken ministerial code she resigns.
The wings wing is banking on that to happen before the Holyrood elections as that means that someone like Robertson can then lead a SNP party into a defacto referendum which then they assume will apply pressure to Johnson to keel over and agree to another divisive vote. If not they got down the Joanna Cherry route of running a referendum without consent to force the issue.
The sturgeon wing I think is bust; the gradualists unless they pull off some kind of constitutional coup are fked.
The unionists are split: in some respects Sturgeon’s Independence sometime never has exasperated the fan base but the union always banked on Sturgeon never going down the UDI route, so as Wings has always argued, she’s in many ways the Union’s best friend.
However the fun thing is as soon as Salmond’s cohort go down the lane of a non Edinburgh agreement approach they are on a deeply slippery route to a Catalan experience.
I have no idea how this will play out, but my gut instinct (as a yoon) is that the independence movement is fked. They are in a constitutional and political cul de sac:
As my Irish Cousin wound up my Indy mate back in 2014, unless you are prepared to pull out a gun ala 1916 and walk the talk then you are just pretending at independence. I may be wrong but I don’t believe we are at that point, and Cherry’s approach is just fantasy. The fun observation from Effie is that as she rightly pointed out, the gradualists in Northern Ireland may actually be winning. But that doesn’t fit the brave heart narrative.
The non salmond sites (Bella Caladonia) are absolutely scthum on this. Not touching it with a barge pole.
The unionist sites such as they are (effiedeans) are looking at it from the point of view of how it impacts a referendum.
Wings is obviously, as the Salmond outfit, going nuts about it.
The thing is in the real world it doesn’t play. Until it does: the timing becomes everything. If she is found to have broken ministerial code she resigns.
The wings wing is banking on that to happen before the Holyrood elections as that means that someone like Robertson can then lead a SNP party into a defacto referendum which then they assume will apply pressure to Johnson to keel over and agree to another divisive vote. If not they got down the Joanna Cherry route of running a referendum without consent to force the issue.
The sturgeon wing I think is bust; the gradualists unless they pull off some kind of constitutional coup are f
ked.The unionists are split: in some respects Sturgeon’s Independence sometime never has exasperated the fan base but the union always banked on Sturgeon never going down the UDI route, so as Wings has always argued, she’s in many ways the Union’s best friend.
However the fun thing is as soon as Salmond’s cohort go down the lane of a non Edinburgh agreement approach they are on a deeply slippery route to a Catalan experience.
I have no idea how this will play out, but my gut instinct (as a yoon) is that the independence movement is f
ked. They are in a constitutional and political cul de sac:As my Irish Cousin wound up my Indy mate back in 2014, unless you are prepared to pull out a gun ala 1916 and walk the talk then you are just pretending at independence. I may be wrong but I don’t believe we are at that point, and Cherry’s approach is just fantasy. The fun observation from Effie is that as she rightly pointed out, the gradualists in Northern Ireland may actually be winning. But that doesn’t fit the brave heart narrative.
Edited by Ridgemont on Wednesday 13th January 00:57
hutchst said:
Cherry's too bright for that. Not just from the legal perspective. Any half bright nat knows that the polls are fake. A UDI declaration without overwhelming support of the people is just another third world coup d'etat.
I am inclined to agree - Cherry is only making these vague proposals to put some clear water between herself and Sturgeon's approach, because her main ambition is to become Party Leader and First Minister, which currently comes down to a battle for the votes of the independence supporters rather than the electorate at large.hidetheelephants said:
Aside from Cherry having the bedside manner of Dracula......
Her biggest problem.Lim said:
If anyone cares to, please can someone dissect this comment. What are the lies on each side?
"It has now come to a case of one person's word against another. Someone is lying through their teeth"
I'm quite bored of all the minutae of this but if you swing by WoS he'll give you chapter and verse."It has now come to a case of one person's word against another. Someone is lying through their teeth"
Lim said:
If anyone cares to, please can someone dissect this comment. What are the lies on each side?
"It has now come to a case of one person's word against another. Someone is lying through their teeth"
There are so many examples of it from Team Sturgeon, it's hard to know where to begin."It has now come to a case of one person's word against another. Someone is lying through their teeth"
Sturgeon said her meetings with Salmond were a party matter, yet the party CEO was not present.
The party CEO (also her husband) said under oath to the enquiry that the meetings were a government matter, yet no officials were present nor were any minutes taken, as per protocol for government meetings.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18939335.leake...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/seven-question...
Leslie Evans said yesterday under oath to the enquiry, that she had never met the accusers in person stating it would have been inappropriate, then later in the same submission said she had face to face meetings with Ms A & B.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/letter-reveals-...
Narnia Pete (party CEO) said he did not use WhatsApp, yet he sent messages to an SNP group chat suggesting that pressure should be applied to the Met Police to progress a prosecution against Alex Salmond relating to accusations of sexual impropriety made from Westminster. He later retracted this and provided a written clarification stating that he actually did have WhatsApp and had sent the messages. A convenient lapse of memory, or wilful deception, to avoid further scrutiny in front of the committee.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/638...
Sturgeon said she was first made aware of Salmond accusations in April 2018, but had a private meeting with Salmond's advisor Geoff Aberdein in March 2018, and Leslie Evans stated she was aware from October 2017 - if she did not inform the First Minister as part of her remit, that is an incredible dereliction of duty. Angus Robertson was first made aware of accusations from Edinburgh Airport in 2009 - once again it's somewhat incredulous to suggest Ms Sturgeon was unaware of these accusations.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scot...
These are off the top of my head - there are dozens of other inconsistencies if you care to look for them.
NoddyonNitrous said:
biggbn said:
As an NQT a move to online teaching does concern me. Ok, I may have an old school outlook, but for instance, I attended university in my forties and never missed a live lecture or tutorial. There was no need to attend the lectures, they were all online, but I cannot help but feel the nuances and immediate access to the speaker enhance the learning experience to a level that makes it incomparable to an online syllabus...this is one of the reasons I am making myself available to my pupils for every lesson. I think our responsibility as teachers goes more than teaching a regurgitation of a preordained syllabus. We need to create open, enquiring minds that question. We need to help create resilient adults who understand and respect the culture they have been born into and respect those of others. How can you teach that with a prerecorded lesson and headset? (Usual caveats of dangerous opinions corrupting the minds of the young apply....jeez, am still not over that haha )
The bit I have ?bolded / ?emboldened (English teacher please advise!) above is a hugely important part of senior schooling that is commonly lost to the teach-to-the-exam-curriculum-to-maximise-exam-grades culture that seems far too prevalent nowadays. Respect to you for prioritising it. )Roderick Spode said:
There are so many examples of it from Team Sturgeon, it's hard to know where to begin.
Sturgeon said her meetings with Salmond were a party matter, yet the party CEO was not present.
The party CEO (also her husband) said under oath to the enquiry that the meetings were a government matter, yet no officials were present nor were any minutes taken, as per protocol for government meetings.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18939335.leake...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/seven-question...
Leslie Evans said yesterday under oath to the enquiry, that she had never met the accusers in person stating it would have been inappropriate, then later in the same submission said she had face to face meetings with Ms A & B.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/letter-reveals-...
Narnia Pete (party CEO) said he did not use WhatsApp, yet he sent messages to an SNP group chat suggesting that pressure should be applied to the Met Police to progress a prosecution against Alex Salmond relating to accusations of sexual impropriety made from Westminster. He later retracted this and provided a written clarification stating that he actually did have WhatsApp and had sent the messages. A convenient lapse of memory, or wilful deception, to avoid further scrutiny in front of the committee.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/638...
Sturgeon said she was first made aware of Salmond accusations in April 2018, but had a private meeting with Salmond's advisor Geoff Aberdein in March 2018, and Leslie Evans stated she was aware from October 2017 - if she did not inform the First Minister as part of her remit, that is an incredible dereliction of duty. Angus Robertson was first made aware of accusations from Edinburgh Airport in 2009 - once again it's somewhat incredulous to suggest Ms Sturgeon was unaware of these accusations.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scot...
These are off the top of my head - there are dozens of other inconsistencies if you care to look for them.
yeah but juice etc. where's the juice? can somebody find the juice? i can't see the juice. you'd think there would be more juice. is salmond holding onto his juice? when does the juice arrive?Sturgeon said her meetings with Salmond were a party matter, yet the party CEO was not present.
The party CEO (also her husband) said under oath to the enquiry that the meetings were a government matter, yet no officials were present nor were any minutes taken, as per protocol for government meetings.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18939335.leake...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/seven-question...
Leslie Evans said yesterday under oath to the enquiry, that she had never met the accusers in person stating it would have been inappropriate, then later in the same submission said she had face to face meetings with Ms A & B.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/letter-reveals-...
Narnia Pete (party CEO) said he did not use WhatsApp, yet he sent messages to an SNP group chat suggesting that pressure should be applied to the Met Police to progress a prosecution against Alex Salmond relating to accusations of sexual impropriety made from Westminster. He later retracted this and provided a written clarification stating that he actually did have WhatsApp and had sent the messages. A convenient lapse of memory, or wilful deception, to avoid further scrutiny in front of the committee.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/638...
Sturgeon said she was first made aware of Salmond accusations in April 2018, but had a private meeting with Salmond's advisor Geoff Aberdein in March 2018, and Leslie Evans stated she was aware from October 2017 - if she did not inform the First Minister as part of her remit, that is an incredible dereliction of duty. Angus Robertson was first made aware of accusations from Edinburgh Airport in 2009 - once again it's somewhat incredulous to suggest Ms Sturgeon was unaware of these accusations.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scot...
These are off the top of my head - there are dozens of other inconsistencies if you care to look for them.
honest question. honest guv.
amusingduck said:
yeah but juice etc. where's the juice? can somebody find the juice? i can't see the juice. you'd think there would be more juice. is salmond holding onto his juice? when does the juice arrive?
honest question. honest guv.
honest question. honest guv.
So what is the lie Salmond camp is telling? Comments on articles tend to say, 'one of them is lying, both can't be telling the truth'. It seems to me Salmond is making claims about the botched investigation and highlighting inconsistencies, and that all seems fair enough.
So what is the lie, the Sturgeon camp/commentators are accusing Salmond of peddling?
Or is this just oversimplifying things for drama sake.
It's quite hard to find balanced journalism on this topic. As a general rule I read foreign press (the atlantic is a favourite) for insight into politics. But for hopefully obvious reasons, I'm having to head into murkier waters on this one.
Today's Scotsman's piece for instance ends 'The lasting impression will be that we have here a party headed by duplicitous charlatans who will lie and cheat their way to achieving their political objectives. '
Whilst the national isn't running anything at all weirdly enough.
biggbn said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
biggbn said:
As an NQT a move to online teaching does concern me. Ok, I may have an old school outlook, but for instance, I attended university in my forties and never missed a live lecture or tutorial. There was no need to attend the lectures, they were all online, but I cannot help but feel the nuances and immediate access to the speaker enhance the learning experience to a level that makes it incomparable to an online syllabus...this is one of the reasons I am making myself available to my pupils for every lesson. I think our responsibility as teachers goes more than teaching a regurgitation of a preordained syllabus. We need to create open, enquiring minds that question. We need to help create resilient adults who understand and respect the culture they have been born into and respect those of others. How can you teach that with a prerecorded lesson and headset? (Usual caveats of dangerous opinions corrupting the minds of the young apply....jeez, am still not over that haha )
The bit I have ?bolded / ?emboldened (English teacher please advise!) above is a hugely important part of senior schooling that is commonly lost to the teach-to-the-exam-curriculum-to-maximise-exam-grades culture that seems far too prevalent nowadays. Respect to you for prioritising it. )https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19006375.scotl...
£1.4m well spent...
More spending, lower taxes, more taxes, higher pay, fairness, freedom...
Who would have thought asking a group of people what they would "like" would have produced a wish list. Mini assemblies scrutinising the main assembly. More committees, task forces.
An oil tax, FFS. Just wait until they realise that the cost of decommissioning is about to be a "cost" which cannot be externalised.
I liked this bit:-
It also suggested “a credible, engaging and independent figure” should be used to “communicate government tax and spending information every quarter” to the public, possibly “in person or using characters and voice overs through animation”.
Part of me now actually wants independence just to see all of this come to fruition and for people to then wake up and say "... but, but, we voted for fairness as well as freedom...".
This is the best advert I can think of as to why democracy might ultimately fail. I think I would probably accept authoritarian capitalism - China Style - as an alternative to what awaits us!!!!
£1.4m well spent...
More spending, lower taxes, more taxes, higher pay, fairness, freedom...
Who would have thought asking a group of people what they would "like" would have produced a wish list. Mini assemblies scrutinising the main assembly. More committees, task forces.
An oil tax, FFS. Just wait until they realise that the cost of decommissioning is about to be a "cost" which cannot be externalised.
I liked this bit:-
It also suggested “a credible, engaging and independent figure” should be used to “communicate government tax and spending information every quarter” to the public, possibly “in person or using characters and voice overs through animation”.
Part of me now actually wants independence just to see all of this come to fruition and for people to then wake up and say "... but, but, we voted for fairness as well as freedom...".
This is the best advert I can think of as to why democracy might ultimately fail. I think I would probably accept authoritarian capitalism - China Style - as an alternative to what awaits us!!!!
NoddyonNitrous said:
biggbn said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
biggbn said:
As an NQT a move to online teaching does concern me. Ok, I may have an old school outlook, but for instance, I attended university in my forties and never missed a live lecture or tutorial. There was no need to attend the lectures, they were all online, but I cannot help but feel the nuances and immediate access to the speaker enhance the learning experience to a level that makes it incomparable to an online syllabus...this is one of the reasons I am making myself available to my pupils for every lesson. I think our responsibility as teachers goes more than teaching a regurgitation of a preordained syllabus. We need to create open, enquiring minds that question. We need to help create resilient adults who understand and respect the culture they have been born into and respect those of others. How can you teach that with a prerecorded lesson and headset? (Usual caveats of dangerous opinions corrupting the minds of the young apply....jeez, am still not over that haha )
The bit I have ?bolded / ?emboldened (English teacher please advise!) above is a hugely important part of senior schooling that is commonly lost to the teach-to-the-exam-curriculum-to-maximise-exam-grades culture that seems far too prevalent nowadays. Respect to you for prioritising it. )Lim said:
So what is the lie Salmond camp is telling? Comments on articles tend to say, 'one of them is lying, both can't be telling the truth'. It seems to me Salmond is making claims about the botched investigation and highlighting inconsistencies, and that all seems fair enough.
So what is the lie, the Sturgeon camp/commentators are accusing Salmond of peddling?
Or is this just oversimplifying things for drama sake.
It's quite hard to find balanced journalism on this topic. As a general rule I read foreign press (the atlantic is a favourite) for insight into politics. But for hopefully obvious reasons, I'm having to head into murkier waters on this one.
Today's Scotsman's piece for instance ends 'The lasting impression will be that we have here a party headed by duplicitous charlatans who will lie and cheat their way to achieving their political objectives. '
Whilst the national isn't running anything at all weirdly enough.
Salmond denied all the charges in court, and was also found innocent of 13 charges, and not proven on one count, which is very definitely not the same as 'admitted acting inappropriately'. As we have seen, Mr Salmond is not afraid of launching legal actions against those who have wronged him, and if he were so minded the above tweet may constitute a defamation action.
Scots Law said:
What is defamation?
39. Reputation has been described as an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual, and as forming the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well-being, for example, whom to employ.[17] This forms the basis of the law of defamation: a person’s character, honour and reputation should be protected.
40. Where a statement is made about a person which is false, derogatory in nature and is made maliciously, then the person concerned may be entitled to damages for solatium and patrimonial loss. Defamatory comments will most commonly be made about an individual. However, it is possible for companies, partnerships and voluntary organisations to be defamed.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/defamation-scots...39. Reputation has been described as an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual, and as forming the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well-being, for example, whom to employ.[17] This forms the basis of the law of defamation: a person’s character, honour and reputation should be protected.
40. Where a statement is made about a person which is false, derogatory in nature and is made maliciously, then the person concerned may be entitled to damages for solatium and patrimonial loss. Defamatory comments will most commonly be made about an individual. However, it is possible for companies, partnerships and voluntary organisations to be defamed.
Those playing chicken with Mr Salmond may want to reconsider their actions, because love him or hate him, the man has a long memory, and very, very good lawyers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff