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

Me, me, me, me, meee
Note no concern for the assaulted women's pain and shock. HER pain and shock

get lost @kurtrussellsbeard she's my mother not yours, she'd be the first to joke about her background, which is what I was doing myself.

personal attacks on me again? its getting rather tiring.

So now she's calling another QC a liar. Douglas hamilton. OMG deflecting it now onto AS "anger towards me." Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

@Northernparent68 I had a quick search and the letters are attached to this tweet if you’d like to search. Just a screenshot here, I don’t follow the author just wanted to find the letters

So far she is mostly not compelling. I think one of the few times is when she said she was very uncomfortable talking about it all, which I think is probably true.

I think it's probably the case that the policy development was a messy mad rush to get ahead of metoo. Maybe not intentionally corrupt or inept, just hurried. But somewhere down the line it went very wrong

@jabbathebutt what personal attack? I said nothing about your mother or you.

I disagreed with your comment that was posted here for all to see. A person's intelligence has nothing to do with their qualifications or political affiliations.

I think it's probably the case that the policy development was a messy mad rush to get ahead of metoo. Maybe not intentionally corrupt or inept, just hurried. But somewhere down the line it went very wrong

That might be a very charitable almost believable interpretation except for the specific first target of the new procedure and his comeuppance / swift exit being the primary reason for the rush.

What is the issue with criminality being discussed?

@jabbathebutt it wasn't clear you were joking about her background. It seemed you were suggesting that SNP supporters were thick. I thought this because you wrote 'she's intelligent enough to hate the SNP'

I rather think that is jabbas' point..

kurt interested you think the SNP won't do well?

Any thoughts on who the replacement would be and how they will act re Murrell remaining in charge of the Party?

Agree the: 'I'm a lawyer' is pretty desperate.

On Gangster Politics the Triggerpod has an interview with Trevor Phillips on my to watch list - if NS ever stops embarrassing the Nation - almost at the look away and distract myself point mind.

@StarryEyeSurprise

So, there it is.

Nicola answered all questions fully and honestly, and it’s clear she acted in the best way she possibly could have in such a difficult personal and professional situation.

The policy wasn’t targeted at Alex
Her office didn’t even have the report that was leaked to the Daily Record.
Legal advice showed that they were right to defend the case right up until the point when it didn’t.
As she should have, she took a very hands off approach to the whole thing, let the process play out.

There was no conspiracy, no smoking gun.

Margaret Mitchell doesn't understand the questions she appears to have had written for her.

I agree starry. I also think that @StatisticallyChallenged is totally correct and that things were hurried and rushed.

I agree that things have gone wrong here but I see nothing malicious or conspiratorial going on.

I also really disagree that reminding the committee that they could speak to people who could not appear was her telling everyone what to do. It's very clearly putting it out there that there is other evidence to be had that we can't all necessarily hear.

So in summary, a morning's evidence from Sturgeon is 50% "I know nothing" in the voice of Manuel from Fawlty Towers and 50% "a big boy/girl did it and ran away"?

I thought Starry was being ironic.

@Dinnafashyersel

I think it's probably the case that the policy development was a messy mad rush to get ahead of metoo. Maybe not intentionally corrupt or inept, just hurried. But somewhere down the line it went very wrong

That might be a very charitable almost believable interpretation except for the specific first target of the new procedure and his comeuppance / swift exit being the primary reason for the rush.

What is the issue with criminality being discussed?

I should say - I think it was developed with at least the knowledge that it would be used against Salmond.

Motivation is tricky - I think, from memory, that Salmond himself didn't allege maliciousness from the outset, but that this came about later as part of covering up the cock ups. That seems at least a workable theory imo

Daisy following on from my earlier points, given her complete disregard for standards of behaviour for herself and others within the legal profession probably best for her not to use the "I'm a lawyer" line.

"Maybe not intentionally corrupt or inept, just hurried. But somewhere down the line it went very wrong"

I agree - I think they were too deep into wanting to be part of the 'vanguard' as Salmond put it - saw it as a political opportunity- and failed to be able to take a step back and understand the implications of the process they were trying to rush through & the application of that procedure. Especially ignoring the police advice.

Instead of taking on board the criticism of their actions at a point that meant they could just reset & do it again properly, they doubled down, defended the indefensible & made decisions about police referral in opposition to the wishes of the complainants.

Their focus was on burying a Salmond, at whatever cost. Again, a wilful ignorance of the wider implications & costs. That's the crux here. It may not have been intentional. But it was their choices that ended up costing many so much.

@OldRailer

I rather think that is jabbas' point..

So a disagreement is a personal attack now?

Minimum pricing on alcohol?? What??

I am sorry but all the knowledge I have ever had about policy making and law suggests very strongly that this new policy was in reality targeted. Done quickly, with retrospective application, and unlawful.

If your civil service works correctly then this should not happen - and would anyone else like it, to have their Government make a policy that retroactively applied to them with criminal implications?

Forget Salmond: would any of you want that for yourself?

This saga supports my belief that the best argument against Scottish independence is the SNP.

@TheShadowyFeminist

"Maybe not intentionally corrupt or inept, just hurried. But somewhere down the line it went very wrong"

I agree - I think they were too deep into wanting to be part of the 'vanguard' as Salmond put it - saw it as a political opportunity- and failed to be able to take a step back and understand the implications of the process they were trying to rush through & the application of that procedure. Especially ignoring the police advice.

Instead of taking on board the criticism of their actions at a point that meant they could just reset & do it again properly, they doubled down, defended the indefensible & made decisions about police referral in opposition to the wishes of the complainants.

Their focus was on burying a Salmond, at whatever cost. Again, a wilful ignorance of the wider implications & costs. That's the crux here. It may not have been intentional. But it was their choices that ended up costing many so much.

Again I think I agree with this. You've been a very helpful poster @TheShadowyFeminist so thank you.

I don't like to think that they intentionally tried to bury Salmond but I accept that could be wishful thinking on my part.

I think they've looked at it in a really black and white way when sadly a far more nuanced approach was needed.

I think that Salmond has behaved inappropriately with women and this is how they have justified it in their heads. They haven't stepped back and considered the bigger picture.

Kurt sorry I don't know what you mean. I just took it as a throwaway comment, not a genuine point to be picked at.

I know Lex
This is the whole point. If she gets away with it then life will not be worth living in Scotland.
Sturgeon will think she can do what she likes and get away with it