Does it matter if Sturgeon is guilty - do you know or care?

[sessell]

Evidence of a conspiracy to frame Alex Salmond has been building. There are compelling reports in the Times, Herald , Sky News and across the internet. But there is less reporting in Scotland and a lot of people seem to not know or care. I'm Scottish but I don't live there. I've been hooked by this as a story of power and corruption. I'm on the fence re independence, just don't know enough so don't have an axe in that debate. I've never been an SNP member. But I do care about justice and that no-one should be above the law, especially politicians when they are seeking to imprison their potential rivals.

After reading this affadavit from Craig Murray which brings it all together and is incendiary I'm pretty convinced there has been a conspiracy and that Sturgeon and her collaborators should face justice. Although the justice department (Crown office) also seem to be mired in this. Here is the affadavit www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/

I've shown this to a few people and have been shocked that a couple have said, yes it stinks but I like Sturgeon. I'd be interested in the views of Scotsnet. How much do you know about this? Do you care? Is it OK for our politicians to imprison their rivals, like Putin and co do, if you like their other objectives. Has Scotland become a corrupt nation? Is that OK?

Yes I care and it matters a lot. I'm very concerned about the way that poor conduct of politicians is allowed to slide these days, and they are not held to account and forced to resign if they do wrong anymore. That goes for all parties.

If our FM can't lead by example then how can they criticise the conduct of those in other parties?

@WaxOnFeckOff this has led to me knowing the word bicameral, so thank you 😃

Resulting from my investigations into Norway and its Parliament

I've never used the term so also a school day for me @WouldBeGood. :o

It essentially should mean much more robust legislation. As I understand, in the UK government a piece of intended change would have a group set up to evaluate and that group would be led by someone from a different party than the one proposing. Then all are able to discuss and have input as to any issues etc which have to be ironed out and then it goes through 2 chambers for approval. Makes it harder for the party in power to just force stuff through. Not saying that in practical terms that might still happen, but there is more scrutiny from outside before it gets implemented. That's got to be better for everyone.

Even our most populous areas don't come close to say London or several other English cities in terms of density.

Again, it's not relevant. The vast majority of people in Scotland don't live in parks and gardens, they live in housing estates or block of flats just as they do in London. We shop in busy shops and drink and eat in busy pubs and restaurants. We all have families we visit in their homes and in hospitals and kids who go to large schools.

Please stop using population density as a reason for Scotland faring better in their Covid stats. It's not that.

What else might it be? Maybe a clearer sense of purpose has been transmitted to us by our government? Maybe we're a bit more community-minded up here?

Maybe we're not being screwed over by Johnson and his nonsense?

@Chocolatedeficitdisorder I disagree that density is irrelevant - it seems obvious to me that if you have more bodies in one space the chances of being close enough to pick up a virus is higher. But actually, I disagree with the premise that we are doing massively better than England - I think it just presented that way. We have lower cases and deaths within 28 days of a positive test, but we also do a lot less testing, so this isn't a reliable metric for inter-nation comparisons. Excess deaths, which are much more definitive and the generally accepted standard of comparison, show our deaths to be only just behind England's (see chart). I think all of the UK is doing pretty much equally poorly. I'm not excusing Boris's mistakes, I'm just not excusing Nicola's either.

But this is derailing the thread, which is about corruption in the SNP and why some people don't seem to care.

I do think that population density cannot be ruled out as among the reasons Scotland faired better, alongside other reasons such as density of travel links and obviously policy decisions as well. There are a lot of other factors that we could examine to potentially explain the variation between regions (and you could carve these up in a few different ways, not just along the Scotland England border) and it is unlikely to be down to any single factor. In any case Scotland has not faired terribly well in a global context either. I think we should try to be scientific about this rather than politically or nationalistically minded. We might want it to be that we are more community minded in Scotland, but I’d like to see some evidence before jumping to that conclusion as well.

Do you have some evidence for that chocolate or are you conjecturing that it's the govt and not population density?

17% of Scotland lives in a rural location.

Rural Scotland is defined assettlements with a population of less than 3,000. The combined population of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee is roughly 1.43 million. The population of Scotland is 5.46 million. T

The figure of 17% living in a rural location is hugely misleading.

By that definition of "Rural" then for example Kelso, Jedburgh, Keith, Banff, Eyemouth, North Berwick , Alford and Laurencekirk are not "Rural". As anyone who knows these towns will know they are in reality very much rural.

There's nowhere in Scotland which compares to London, Manchester, Birmingham etc. No one in Scotland has a daily commute which compares with the London Underground in rush hour.

Can you explain why you believe that population density is not relevant when considering a disease which spreads person to person Chocolate?

If you want to talk about corruption, perhaps a close look at the current Tory government would be in order. Lots of Scots want independence. They will vote independence as a means to rid themselves of that ghastly shower. The alternative is to decide that we are prepared to stay stuck with them for god know how many years. Personally, I'd prefer a Labour government in a United Kingdom, but there's little chance of that, when Boris remains inexplicably popular down South.

OK, sure - can you point me to allegations, prefrably ones with at least some evidence, that BoJo was involved in a conspiracy to have a political rival jailed? I'm aware of plenty of jobs for friends/contract for mates and donors (classic financial corruption) but not of anything similar to this.

There doesn't always have to be whataboutery. IF this is true, it's grim as hell. The tories being corrupt doesn't make it less so.

Glad as always to see your common sense StaticallyChallenged in these threads.

It's come to a pretty pass that Wings Over Scotland is now a voice of reason if one wants to know what the SNP and Scottish Government is up to.

There's nowhere in Scotland which compares to London, Manchester, Birmingham etc. No one in Scotland has a daily commute which compares with the London Underground in rush hour.

Around some of the university campuses at five to nine MissBarbary?

I do think this is awful if it's true. Politics does have some fairly underhand business going on, but some of the civil service stuff around this is shocking to read — they're supposed to be impartial.

Scottish politics is in a bit of a mess in general though. The Lib Dems couldn't even hire a conference venue that was accessible for their own speaker (highly embarrassing), and Labour have lost it completely. The SNP is one-note for independence, and is trying to hold together and appeal to a lot of different views outside that. Honestly, the Scottish politician I've got the best impression of after meeting is Ruth Davidson.

@StatisticallyChallenged

OK, sure - can you point me to allegations, prefrably ones with at least some evidence, that BoJo was involved in a conspiracy to have a political rival jailed? I'm aware of plenty of jobs for friends/contract for mates and donors (classic financial corruption) but not of anything similar to this.

There doesn't always have to be whataboutery. IF this is true, it's grim as hell. The tories being corrupt doesn't make it less so.

Yes, I'd be happy to be on condemning BJ etc if the same was occurring. I just resent that people are happy to turn a blind eye at criminal activity by those who should be a shining example.

Does it not occur to anyone that if they are this deceitful, what other lies they might be telling in order to reach their goal?

Gosh Op that Craig Murray article makes for quite intriguing reading. Tbh I'd never really followed the saga of what NS supposedly did regarding AS. The short reports I saw online didn't suggest to me any major wrongdoings but it looks like I've misunderstood.
I would hope anyone accused of sexual harassment gets the book thrown at them but there's something about AS that makes me think he's not a womaniser. It almost makes sense that the allegations were made up.

@WaxOnFeckOff I agree with you. I wouldn't want to live in a country governed by people willing to do something like this.

Not Scottish but I do have family who moved up to the Highlands.
I didn't know anything really apart from Alex Salmond being found not guilty in his case. I've never liked NS but thought she was a very capable leader. Reading through Craig Murray's evidence earlier tonight I was aghast at the whole thing. If true, surely NS has to go?

I have another question on this murky matter that maybe someone on here knows the answer to.
Murrell has refused to go back in front of the parliamentary committee, and I think it’s fair to say there have been a lot of stalling tactics deployed. Is the parliamentary committee dissolved when the parliament is dissolved for the May election?
If so, what then?

It’s all super sleazy

@beepbeeprichie

I have another question on this murky matter that maybe someone on here knows the answer to. Murrell has refused to go back in front of the parliamentary committee, and I think it’s fair to say there have been a lot of stalling tactics deployed. Is the parliamentary committee dissolved when the parliament is dissolved for the May election? If so, what then?

I'm not sure what happens afterwards but I believe it would at least be dissolved during the election period - in 2016 it dissolved on 24th March. Parliamentary committees then reform but often with different members- how it would work for something like this if not all members came back...

@MissEliza

Gosh Op that Craig Murray article makes for quite intriguing reading. Tbh I'd never really followed the saga of what NS supposedly did regarding AS. The short reports I saw online didn't suggest to me any major wrongdoings but it looks like I've misunderstood. I would hope anyone accused of sexual harassment gets the book thrown at them but there's something about AS that makes me think he's not a womaniser. It almost makes sense that the allegations were made up.

There would have been gossip if Salmond was known to be a groper. Scotland’s political world is a small one and he had plenty of enemies. Word would have got out.

Allegedly there was plenty of gossip! I’ll clearly not change any minds here, as you all clearly loathe NS and are happy to believe the worst, but surely even the most ardent Tories on this thread can see that Boris Johnson is very unpopular in Scotland and to oust him and his cronies voting SNP is the only way to be rid? Serious question. What do you think Scots should do instead when nothing else will bring change?

but surely even the most ardent Tories on this thread can see that Boris Johnson is very unpopular in Scotland and to oust him and his cronies voting SNP is the only way to be rid?

I disagree with this premise entirely. Boris Johnson is a temporary thing, it has been barely a decade since there was a labour government (and Scottish prime minister) and it's likely the political cycle will get back round there soon. Starmer is much more electable than Corbyn ever was. At the risk of stating the obvious, voting SNP is a way to get SNP for another 5 years with everything that entails, whether that be the corruption, reduction in standards, obsession with Indyref causing huge amounts of division, erasure of women....

I think voting to split a country because you don't like the current party which is partially in power (I say partially because of devolution) whilst ignoring potentially more corrupt behaviour from another party is nuts.

And most people have not said they believe it - the discussion was why people don't care if it's true. Which clearly many don't, they will happily turn a blind eye

Oh behave. Firstly, wanting to find the truth and have people take responsibility for their actions doesn't mean you are a tory. Secondly, hating the SNP and or NS and or independence also doesn't make you a tory.
Thirdly, wanting to make a permanent decision to split, which is universally agreed will cause at least a decade of austerity, just to be rid of Boris is stupidity.

The sensible option if you don't want Tories is to vote Labour and get rid of Boris.

Otherwise you are stuck with this shower of incompetents.