Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Scotsnet

Welcome to Scotsnet - discuss all aspects of life in Scotland, including relocating, schools and local areas.

Original poster

Salmond v Sturgeon Round 2.

996 replies

Cismyfatarse · 28/02/2021 18:29

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Dinnafashyersel · 03/03/2021 10:02

"The first minister says she did not record the meeting with Alex Salmond on 2 April immediately because she did not want to compromise the independence or the confidentiality of the process."

"Nicola Sturgeon says the terms of the procedure excluded her from any investigation into a former minister and she should not even have known an investigation was under way."

"In her view, any undue influence on the procedure would have been more likely to arise if those conducting the investigation had been informed that she knew about it."

For a lawyer to say this is breath taking. You cannot pretend you don't know stuff you know!!!! I don't now about misleading Parliament but as a fellow Professional ....

Has she never watched a crime drama let alone sat through the odd law lecture?

jabbathebutt · 03/03/2021 10:03

I'm working but trying to dip in and out of what is happening

littlbrowndog · 03/03/2021 10:03

Why is she attacking salmond

This is about her role in this

StatisticallyChallenged · 03/03/2021 10:03

@Graffitiqueen

This alleged fabricated rape if true is absolutely despicable. What I don't understand about it is why they picked a time and location that she wasn't at and there were independent witnesses to say she wasn't there?

Surely you would pick a time and location that she had been alone with Salmond and there would have been opportunity?

It just doesn't add up.

Maybe, just a suggestion, it was in her diary (as she was supposed to attend) but she forgot she didn't actually go? I believe the dinner is covered in his book too but I don't know how much detail so if he maybe only mentioned the celebrity but not the other attendees?

Hard to know but it's all very weird

jabbathebutt · 03/03/2021 10:05

she keeps forgetting to say 'allegedly'. That's bad.

TheShadowyFeminist · 03/03/2021 10:05

Ooft! FM, solicitor, doesn't use 'alleged' when talking of Salmond's behaviour.

She is never going to see her own, & her own government's, failings because it's far too easy to keep saying "but, Alex..."

IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021 · 03/03/2021 10:05

I just want to hear Jackie Baillie this is a lot of shite. It's not about him it's her handling!!

LexMitior · 03/03/2021 10:06

It’s untenable there was a decent case on the judicial review. I see a lot on evidence etc

But it’s important to note that generally, it is rare to have a legal case that is unlawful or really risky from the start. Usually as a lawyer you never have all the evidence and facts to make an assessment so you have a conservative assessment as to the risk of loss.

As the matter develops, documents provided and arguments exchanged, lawyers refine. They will adjust their risk assessment and they did.

I also wonder about the case being “stateable” - assume that is the equivalent to England and “respectable argument” in JR. Or is it? Interested to hear from Scots lega eagles on that.

daisyfraser · 03/03/2021 10:06

Why does she/they keep referring to 'behaviour' and alleged behaviours of which he has been cleared by a jury? Why is she permitted to keep repeating this stuff?
Wightman is a loser. How did he even get on this Committee?

Viviennemary · 03/03/2021 10:06

I just saw a snippet. She isn't coming over well. This faux bewildered look seems to be a tactic.

OldRailer · 03/03/2021 10:07

I kept expecting the convenor to shut that avenue down.

OldRailer · 03/03/2021 10:08

On that point and others. Ooft.

OldRailer · 03/03/2021 10:08

She's personalised this.

StatisticallyChallenged · 03/03/2021 10:09

@LexMitior

It’s untenable there was a decent case on the judicial review. I see a lot on evidence etc

But it’s important to note that generally, it is rare to have a legal case that is unlawful or really risky from the start. Usually as a lawyer you never have all the evidence and facts to make an assessment so you have a conservative assessment as to the risk of loss.

As the matter develops, documents provided and arguments exchanged, lawyers refine. They will adjust their risk assessment and they did.

I also wonder about the case being “stateable” - assume that is the equivalent to England and “respectable argument” in JR. Or is it? Interested to hear from Scots lega eagles on that.

Absolutely re info emerging- it just seems like they concealed a significant amount from their lawyers
sessell · 03/03/2021 10:10

Soft balls from Wightman. Very cosy.

littlbrowndog · 03/03/2021 10:11

Very soft balls

StatisticallyChallenged · 03/03/2021 10:11

@daisyfraser

Why does she/they keep referring to 'behaviour' and alleged behaviours of which he has been cleared by a jury? Why is she permitted to keep repeating this stuff? Wightman is a loser. How did he even get on this Committee?
He's a replacement
OldRailer · 03/03/2021 10:12

Soft balls? But it's often the easiest questions that are the most difficult to answer!WinkHmm

littlbrowndog · 03/03/2021 10:13

Oh yes the missing letter

TheShadowyFeminist · 03/03/2021 10:14

"they concealed a significant amount from their lawyers"

Exactly - even to the point of causing their own counsel significant professional embarrassment, having to repeatedly apologise to the court & for a court order to uncover the wilfully withheld documents.

There's absolutely nothing defendable about their handling of the JR & to try just makes her look incompetent in terms of her ability to assess anything similar.

Her handling of GRA reform certainly points to a ' tunnel vision' attitude to one perspective while refusing to even engage on concerns.

What she's currently doing is spelling out all her weaknesses that make her a poor FM. Not sure she even realises this.

StatisticallyChallenged · 03/03/2021 10:16

It wouldn't have been appropriate to go to external consultation on the policy

Pardon? It wouldn't be appropriate to consult people you wish to apply the policy to? Surely they're a key stakeholder?

Oh hang on, look at the Fws foi request, not consulting with affected groups is a speciality

littlbrowndog · 03/03/2021 10:17

Yes exactly statistically

daisyfraser · 03/03/2021 10:20

Why are we on this stuff? And why aren't we talking about HER behaviour on hiding documents and lying about meetings at her home?
Is this all time-wasting crap to pad out proceedings?

littlbrowndog · 03/03/2021 10:21

Ofgs sturgeon

Look at the hate crime bill. Sex is not protected

How can she just say that when a hate crime bill does not protect women

StatisticallyChallenged · 03/03/2021 10:21

@daisyfraser

Why are we on this stuff? And why aren't we talking about HER behaviour on hiding documents and lying about meetings at her home? Is this all time-wasting crap to pad out proceedings?
It's got 4 phases and they're doing it chronologically so policy development is first. But they're not half dragging it out
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.