Salmond v Sturgeon Round 2.

[Cismyfatarse]

As the conversation is interesting and the thread is nearly full. Does it matter if Sturgeon is guilty - do you know or care? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/4153007-Does-it-matter-if-Sturgeon-is-guilty-do-you-know-or-care

I think some people are very keen to try and make this committee a rerun of the trial - an effective distraction technique certainly!

ooops, wrong thread

Andy wightman got the push for supporting women -eventually
from the Green party - he resigned actually

In advance of tomorrow so it's out there:

www.scottishparliament.tv/

During the session there will be a Play arrow on the large box.

Tweet Link

John Swinney's statement about releasing the legal advice.

Says he's 'asked officials to check' documents relating to Salmond's claim that the JR wasn't conceded sooner as they'd hoped to sist it while the criminal case overtook the JR. They can't find any 🤨 They seem awfy good at not finding documents. 17 meetings about the JR & no documentation can be found. 🤔

like starry I'm also genuinely interested in this lie - I mean the actual wording, not people's interpretation of it, and when it was told. I'd really like to see a clear and accurate account of it. I've researched the internet but references I've found don't seem to me to prove a lie. i think the stuff I've seen has been well edited though so maybe I'm not getting the full picture (that bit that keeps getting shown all the time certainly has). I get that the wrong date was given of course - later corrected - is that what folk are constituting as the lie? I guess we will find out for sure later this afternoon though

(I think accuracy is important when the accusations are so huge)

There's plenty of information in the media if you want to inform yourself genuinely, or previous threads.

Looks like a consistent strategy of playing the man not the ball will be seen.

to a bit of mud raking re Salmond. i did refer briefly back to the trial - it was more about his insistence of 'no criminality here' rather than 'i didn't do anything wrong' - and how i felt that had been reflected in the tone of his evidence/answering of questions at the inquiry. It was really his evidence/comments about the procedure I was interested in talking about. But apparently it 'wasn't about that' anymore either. Completely agree the discussion shouldn't be a 're-trial'. This is running on long enough.
had never heard of 'astroturfing' before. hope it's me you're all talking about as it makes me feel like my life's a lot more exciting than it is

funny how I was told off yesterday because this was an 'evidence based discussion'. But simple question - about things at the very heart of the issue surely? - either get no answer, 'it's not about that anymore' or I'm 'playing a strategy'.
There's plenty of information in the media if you want to inform yourself genuinely, or previous threads. that's the odd thing - there actually isn't - not on that point. I have spent a bit of time looking. as I say, I suppose this'll be scrutinised this afternoon

Yes looks like Geoff Aberdein is killing off rumours there is anything sensational that's going to come from him, further to what he's left in the hands of parliament as I've seen speculation about his role in the press. I suspect the SNP trying to contain the story before they move into electioneering.

'playing the man not the ball'
ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non of the SNP after all.

As far as I know, Sturgeon telling parliament that the first time she heard about the allegations was 2nd April is not disputed. What's disputed is whether she intentionally mislead parliament (which hinges on the nature of the meeting of the 29th March and therefore on Aberdeen evidence) and whether she corrected the record when she should have (i.e. when she was reminded about the earlier meeting)

astroturfing the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public.

as I say, I'd never heard of this before, but I do get a bit suspicious of threads sometimes - and now I've heard about this a lot of things fall into place. Sometimes you'll get a thread started by someone and it's their very first post on mumsnet - they claim the issue doesn't relate to them too much personally but wondered what others thought (say it is attacking a person for example and they'll say, 'I'm surprised, I actually quite like so and so.. or have no real feelings about so and so.' Then two or three posts later along comes someone equally uninvested and neutral about the issue. whose never thought too much about it before until now either. A few posts later they have to hand stacks and stacks of information that it seems like it would take months to research. the original poster's disappeared by now - but pops up now and again, say if, the suddenly very well informed poster gets stuck or asked an awkward question.
Anyway, apologies. Straying away from the thread there - and there is definitely more important things going on. Geoff Aberdein's statement for example - very interesting indeed

@happygolurkey

Andy wightman got the push for supporting women -eventually from the Green party - he resigned actually

You need to read his emotional interview with Mandy Rhodes in Holyrood magazine - he makes it very clear that he felt bullied and pushed out on this issue.

@happygolurkey

astroturfing the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public.

as I say, I'd never heard of this before, but I do get a bit suspicious of threads sometimes - and now I've heard about this a lot of things fall into place. Sometimes you'll get a thread started by someone and it's their very first post on mumsnet - they claim the issue doesn't relate to them too much personally but wondered what others thought (say it is attacking a person for example and they'll say, 'I'm surprised, I actually quite like so and so.. or have no real feelings about so and so.' Then two or three posts later along comes someone equally uninvested and neutral about the issue. whose never thought too much about it before until now either. A few posts later they have to hand stacks and stacks of information that it seems like it would take months to research. the original poster's disappeared by now - but pops up now and again, say if, the suddenly very well informed poster gets stuck or asked an awkward question.
Anyway, apologies. Straying away from the thread there - and there is definitely more important things going on. Geoff Aberdein's statement for example - very interesting indeed

and then there is also sock puppeting to add to the mix.

As far as I know, Sturgeon telling parliament that the first time she heard about the allegations was 2nd April is not disputed.
But has it become 'undisputed' because of the constant repetition or because it's fact? i've never seen the actual wording. in the clips i've seen she has said she heard from salmond, then there was the meeting with the others. I have not heard her categorically say that was the first time she had ever heard the allegation. as i say, i think everything I've been able to find has been pretty heavily edited, so it could be that she did say that - I've just not seen/read it word for word.
Thanks for replying though, I appreciate that you are at least one person on this thread who bothers to answer questions rationally.
I guess the actual wording will come out this afternoon anyway

sock puppeting
. That's a new one on me too

he makes it very clear that he felt bullied and pushed out on this issue.
i've read that. you're right. I did find that very emotional. I've no doubt he felt bullied out. he did resign though. The Greens have seriously lost the plot. It's a shame, didn't know much about him till recently but he seems very genuine. I think he's been about the best in the inquiry in terms of not having a political axe to grind.

this is all by the by now, but two other names I could have mentioned earlier in terms of good characters at parly are Jeanne Freeman and Johann Lamont - very brave of her the way she's stuck up for womens rights of late

'playing the man not the ball'
ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non of the SNP after all.

Daisy I'm not in the SNP. as i said before, think i've voted for them twice - does that make me The SNP?
by the way, I share your concerns about the Hate Bill. Then again, I'm not too worried about getting done under it - from some of your posts I can see why you might.

@anon444877

all I can remember about the trial is the QC on the train being so indiscrete I wondered if that itself was a setup.

It's all a bit samey, muddled party organisation, overlapping investigations with the police's job, leaning on the lord advocate, not being able to decide if a meeting was party business or government business, rushing through policy at pace to suit their own ends. All a bit overall the end justifies any means.

I know that QC of old. He's been indiscreet in a number of ways for many years now.

that's interesting 52 amazing that he seems to have gotten away with it til now. My DF was in the general law area and he could completely believe it.

Anyone watching the Lord Advocate? I’m interested to hear how people think he’s coming across?

I always wonder about the 'felt bullied' - I assume Wightman felt bullied because he was being hounded and bullied over the issue, inclined to absolutely believe that.