Salmond v Sturgeon Round 3 — Comment along with Sturgeon

[PolkadotsAndMoonbeams]

Previous thread here.

No she's making the point that it is a dangerous precedent.

@StatisticallyChallenged

I think it's a risky road to go down, and it's problematic to start creating retrospectively applied policies and potentially laws. It's easy to think "well I don't care, X is a crappy thing to do and I wouldn't have done it so..." but times change and standards change and you could easily find yourself on the receiving end of something in future.

NB I'm not saying anything he was accused of was appropriate at the time before anyone tries to misconstrue what I mean. I mean once you start saying it's ok to make rules restrospectively it is a very slippery slope

My point would be that to do so elsewhere in the UK is very very difficult and you have many lawyers who would have to okay that to do it.

I am really amazed that this point does not bother some. May I say you do not demand very much from your leaders if that is okay with you! What works for one case often then gets applied to another later on.

Sturgeon, if she gets off with this, is a dictator-in-waiting.
Why are her supporters so blind to this ?
I suppose they think that they will be different. Won't matter saying: 'But I voted for youse. I'm on your side'.

Can they not see what Yousaf is doing to their human rights? What Swinney tried to do to their human rights with Named Person? What Sturgeon tried to do to her political opponent? To destroy him. Put him in prison for the rest of his life because he was inconvenient.
And yet they seem to think this will apply to 'others' and not to them.

Don't say you weren't warned

"Saying that, I'm still on the fence re indy - I just don't think a leading party with this level of corruption is a good foundation for a new country."

Why are indy and the SNP the same thing? They're very much not. The SNP might be the vehicle which allows independence to come to fruition, but a general election would have to be called, and there's no certainty whatsoever that they would win, given that their main political purpose would have been achieved already.

I'm an indy supporter, and a bit of a floating voter outside of that issue. Don't make the mistake of giving up on a change for the generations, because you don't like a leader or party who will be gone in a decade or less.

@GirlLovesWorld

I don't know if I'm missing something, but isn't it more that the law is being adjusted as there was a gaping flaw in it, that someone who had left public office couldn't be investigated?

I'm not being goady or anything, that's how I understood it, is that incorrect?

This isn't law. It didn't go through the rigor and scrutiny that a law would go through.

she looks like she needs Beta Blockers

@GirlLovesWorld

I don't know if I'm missing something, but isn't it more that the law is being adjusted as there was a gaping flaw in it, that someone who had left public office couldn't be investigated?

I'm not being goady or anything, that's how I understood it, is that incorrect?

Yes, the original policy did not accommodate historic complaints. They tried to fix this, but applying something retrospectively is a very difficult thing in some ways. But, we're not talking about something that was once legal becoming illegal. So, on balance the SG believed this policy was legitimate.

Is she going to get away with it? All this vague, waffle and lots of "I think" and "I felt". She makes it all personal and emotional where it should be professional and objective.

Today committee deputy convener Margaret Mitchell said that that it had 'faced delay, obstruction, obfuscation' from the Government in its requests for evidence, and said some documents remained outstanding.

Ms Sturgeon replied: 'I would not accept the characterisation.'

🤐

@QuentinWinters

Is it making retrospective rules to put in place a policy for dealing with historic accusations of harassment? I don't think it is, the alternative is men get away with harassment because victims don't come forward. Its a shame we have moved on from #metoo so quickly back to "innocent until proven, mens lives ruined, yadda yadda"

Er yes. It’s quite a basic public law issue. I know Scottish lawyers know about it. Do you know much about why that might be a bigger problem for Scotland or are you okay with it?

From bits I have seen today it looks like obfuscation and word soup was the approach NS decided to take from the get go. Lots of ordinary people watching are left trying to see through a fog.

Are there going to be any lessons learnt/changes made on the basis of today or will it be business as usual tomorrow? - genuine question.

I suppose, as with most things in politics, any genuine and real change can only really happen at the ballot box.

@GirlLovesWorld

"Saying that, I'm still on the fence re indy - I just don't think a leading party with this level of corruption is a good foundation for a new country."

Why are indy and the SNP the same thing? They're very much not. The SNP might be the vehicle which allows independence to come to fruition, but a general election would have to be called, and there's no certainty whatsoever that they would win, given that their main political purpose would have been achieved already.

I'm an indy supporter, and a bit of a floating voter outside of that issue. Don't make the mistake of giving up on a change for the generations, because you don't like a leader or party who will be gone in a decade or less.

I completely agree. The goings on of individuals or a political party has no barring on independence. The SNP are a means to an end.

Not getting independence and Scotland stuck within the UK under almost constant Tory control is horrifying.

Great to see Fabiani wasting so much time in such an unpleasant fashion

Fabiani is so unprofessional!

"Put him in prison for the rest of his life "

AS was in danger of being imprisoned on a whole-life tarriff? I highly highly highly doubt that.

Men who rape women to death with weapons in this country don't get imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

Sharp intake of breath from someone there.

(Either that or a yawn, which after 8 hours, I could see.)

I hope she's taking notes, or she's never going to be able to answer this lot!

oooft that was awkward...

Oh god I'm behind and so intrigued now 😂

what is mitchell going on about?

Not - oh last week, sexual offences were ok , now we're making them wrong. That's what you're saying from your comparison with speed limits. 🙈

Please retract this. I have never in my life said sexual offences were ok. We’re is your proof of this? It was an explaining someone gave on here to explain how a retrospective law would work in any situation.

Have you found your link to corroborate your earlier statement, that the Brazilian variant was found in uk schools yet?

@GirlLovesWorld

"Put him in prison for the rest of his life "

AS was in danger of being imprisoned on a whole-life tarriff? I highly highly highly doubt that.

Men who rape women to death with weapons in this country don't get imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

Fairly AS was in the frame for a life sentence - but it’s a sliding scale of seriousness and no, he would have got a WLO (that’s Ian Brady level). But no, he would have had to be very violent to get a life sentence.

Margaret Mitchell speaks for so many of us.

Fabiani not so much.

this is so embarrassing televised live on the bbc

I don't know, but I don't think these are going to be answered!

Although the Civil Service question was quite interesting.