Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 3 — Comment along with Sturgeon

999 replies

PolkadotsAndMoonbeams · 03/03/2021 13:16

Previous thread here.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
TheShadowyFeminist · 04/03/2021 14:25

It's all performative politics & it's just point scoring on either side. But still, having the focus on that instead of on the reason a commission hearing was necessary to extract relevant documents from a government with a duty of candour and a court order compelling disclosure is why sturgeon does this. Fraser is dim enough to both start & play the game she wants.

happygolurkey · 04/03/2021 14:25

kurtrussellsbeard Well I remember him asking her to apologise to the people she asked to trust AS.

yes, sorry, your right, that was the phrasing. Not 'for Alex Salmond' as i'd put in my post. apologies.

still out of order, and I think, pretty low

StatisticallyChallenged · 04/03/2021 14:26

Yes, whilst it was argumentative the question of why stuff was hidden from their own lawyers was a legitimate one.

kurtrussellsbeard · 04/03/2021 14:32

@WaxOnFeckOff of course that's what she's being asked to do. You really are splitting hairs.

It's the behaviour that's the issue. It's the behaviour that broke the trust. If not the behaviour what is she to apologise for? If he was merely grandstanding, although I doubt it, then it's even worse.

She has said quite consistently that the first she knew he acted inappropriately was when he handed her the letter after arriving at her house.

I believe that to an extent. I think whatever is in that letter was probably not illegal but way over the line and indefensible.

I think it was probably pretty common knowledge that he was, I don't even know how to put it tbh, flirtatious? Enjoyed the company of women? But he probably toed the line of acceptability that existed in the pre #metoo climate. Would that kind of behaviour wash now? No way.

LexMitior · 04/03/2021 14:39

@TheShadowyFeminist

It's all performative politics & it's just point scoring on either side. But still, having the focus on that instead of on the reason a commission hearing was necessary to extract relevant documents from a government with a duty of candour and a court order compelling disclosure is why sturgeon does this. Fraser is dim enough to both start & play the game she wants.
Yes I would agree with that and the twist makes it “relatable” with the electorate. That it’s a question of sorry.

That is absolutely childish. It’s a political culture where feelings are more important in the public mind than probity and decency in public life and independent standards.

Dinnafashyersel · 04/03/2021 14:40

Spectator running an interesting Headline.

Now calling it the STURGEON rather than the Salmond case.

Paywalled but the article is talking about the approach of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office. Accuses him and them of acting like Parliament is answerable to its lawyers rather than the other way around.

WaxOnFeckOff · 04/03/2021 14:41

I'm sorry but I and others have explained that it's not splitting hairs and I don't know what else to say.

She also said that she had read the Sky news alleged incident at the Airport so was aware that there were potential issues when she says she was first contacted. So we still have no idea what the truth is.

And yes, whilst in the current climate that type of behaviour wouldn't wash, you can't retrospectively criminalise it now. Joe Biden, currently held up as some sort of saviour from Trump is guilty of the same.

Dinnafashyersel · 04/03/2021 14:42

Should clarify the Speccie is using the term lawyers to cover Crown Officers as opposed to upthread where we are referring to Counsel. No wonder we all end up confused.

LexMitior · 04/03/2021 14:44

Expect more

StarryEyeSurprise · 04/03/2021 14:47

It was a disgusting question. Imagine the FM was male and Murdo asked him to apologise for asking Scots to vote for independence, solely because the FM (at the time of independence) had behaved inappropriately with women.

It just wouldn't happen.

  1. Independence is more than one individual
  2. It's very wrong to ever ask a woman to apologise due to a man's behaviour.

Just to re iterate, he was not asking her to apologise for asking Scots to vote yes. He was asking her to say sorry for asking people to vote because he deems that she's done something wrong because AS behaved inappropriately. That is such dangerous questioning.

kurtrussellsbeard · 04/03/2021 14:49

@WaxOnFeckOff you haven't explained it at all. In fact nobody has explained how she hasn't been asked to apologise for AS.

All of a sudden it's grandstanding, it wasn't really a question, he was trying to provoke a reaction 🤷🏻‍♀️

happygolurkey · 04/03/2021 14:51

kurtrussellsbeard It's the behaviour that's the issue. It's the behaviour that broke the trust. If not the behaviour what is she to apologise for?

exactly

Voluptuagoodshag · 04/03/2021 14:57

What was also scary was that some were calling for her to resign BEFORE she appeared before the committee.
Is this how things are now? That we don’t even listen to evidence before dismissing it?

Whoever thinks the baying for blood approach is the way forward is very much misinformed.

I hope that all parties across all countries come to realise that the electorate are sick of their posturing and just want some politicians with decent morals to get on with the job.

And I dislike the media headlines that appear as if they are fact when they are lust someone’s opinion. Hypothetical example:

HANG HER HIGH (said someone somewhere with an opposing view, in very tiny letters).

Voluptuagoodshag · 04/03/2021 14:58

‘Just’ someone’s opinion. Not lust. Confused

happygolurkey · 04/03/2021 14:58

StarryEye: 'It was a disgusting question.'

agree

WaxOnFeckOff · 04/03/2021 14:59

There are plenty of posts above saying it including mine.

She was asked to apologise for pretending that Alec Salmond was trustworthy when she believed him not to be.

There was a simple reply at her disposal which was "I'm not going to apologise as I have nothing to apologise for. When I campaigned with him I believed him to be trustworthy" end of questioning. She chose not to do that for some reason and instead go on about having been asked to apologise for Alec Salmond's alleged behaviour - which she was not.

LexMitior · 04/03/2021 14:59

That sort of crap is ridiculous. On both sides. It’s emotional and irrational. Back to facts being conformed and proven!

LexMitior · 04/03/2021 15:00

Confirmed!

happygolurkey · 04/03/2021 15:11

She also said that she had read the Sky news alleged incident at the Airport so was aware that there were potential issues when she says she was first contacted. So we still have no idea what the truth is.

sorry but this is just plain misinformation. She didn't 'read' a sky news story about an allegation. A press enquiry came in in november of that year about an allegation. She confronted Salmond, who denied it. There were no details, no names. There had been no complaints and ultimately the story didn't run, it came to nothing at that point. so there was nothing she could take action on. This is in her written evidence which has been on the scottish parliament website for yonks. She also went over it all again yesterday. Although the story came to nothing at the time, it left a lingering worry in her mind.

happygolurkey · 04/03/2021 15:13

"I'm not going to apologise as I have nothing to apologise for

she did say that!! she said she was willing to apologise for what she had done (which she did right at the start of her opening statements) but not for what she hadn't.

WaxOnFeckOff · 04/03/2021 15:14

I picked up the first bit wrong then. Okay but it still remains that the 29th March or 2nd April was not the first time she was aware of potential issues which she was worried about.

StarryEyeSurprise · 04/03/2021 15:16

@happygolurkey

She also said that she had read the Sky news alleged incident at the Airport so was aware that there were potential issues when she says she was first contacted. So we still have no idea what the truth is.

sorry but this is just plain misinformation. She didn't 'read' a sky news story about an allegation. A press enquiry came in in november of that year about an allegation. She confronted Salmond, who denied it. There were no details, no names. There had been no complaints and ultimately the story didn't run, it came to nothing at that point. so there was nothing she could take action on. This is in her written evidence which has been on the scottish parliament website for yonks. She also went over it all again yesterday. Although the story came to nothing at the time, it left a lingering worry in her mind.

Thanks happy-go-lurky.

I think AS's evidence had in it that the incident centred around him commenting on a women's 'killer heels'. Not much in that one.

WaxOnFeckOff · 04/03/2021 15:16

@happygolurkey

"I'm not going to apologise as I have nothing to apologise for

she did say that!! she said she was willing to apologise for what she had done (which she did right at the start of her opening statements) but not for what she hadn't.

Then what was the ramble about being asked to apologise for AS about then as that is not what she was asked to do? And then to repeat that same claim today. The question asked was basically, if she had behaviour she needed to apologise for in terms of asking people to trust Salmond.
StarryEyeSurprise · 04/03/2021 15:20

@Voluptuagoodshag

What was also scary was that some were calling for her to resign BEFORE she appeared before the committee. Is this how things are now? That we don’t even listen to evidence before dismissing it?

Whoever thinks the baying for blood approach is the way forward is very much misinformed.

I hope that all parties across all countries come to realise that the electorate are sick of their posturing and just want some politicians with decent morals to get on with the job.

And I dislike the media headlines that appear as if they are fact when they are lust someone’s opinion. Hypothetical example:

HANG HER HIGH (said someone somewhere with an opposing view, in very tiny letters).

Of course. Unfortunately, the truth and reality mean nothing for those calling her to resign.

The video the Scottish Conservatives made focuses on NS covering up for AS and lots of clips of the two of them ( from years ago) hugging etc. They couldn't get more wrong if they tried!! It's quite hilarious.

sessell · 04/03/2021 15:23

@happygolurkey

M.O. Deflect, personalise, smear. who am i smearing? Do you mean Aberdein? I'm sorry if that's the case. I genuinely wasn't meaning to do that. I do wonder a bit if he feels he's been weaponised in all of this.

as for deflection - quite happy to be taken to task over anything I've said, if that's what you mean

The smear I was referring to in this case was to @ShowmetheSnowdrops The superior air and contempt in your words are astonishing.

Snowdrop's snark was generally focused rather than at an individual, so it jarred when I saw your comment. That and your fairly regular deflections do remind me of the M.O. of the Sturgeon SNP. Having said that I'm glad that we have a good range of perspectives on this board. It makes for more interesting discussions.