Salmond v Sturgeon round 4. What next?

[Cismyfatarse]

New thread.

Does anyone know when Geoff Aberdein stopped being a SG Spad. Think he worked for NS as well as AS but not sure if he left same time as AS or after? Also what is he doing now? Feels relevant but also feel weird for wanting to know or caring.

Interesting seeing different perspectives from private and public sector. DH and I both private sector. DH now works with people who were privatised from the public sector and interacts with the public sector continuously. The cultural differences are huge in relation to oversight and due diligence.

GA hasn't worked for government for 6 years according to his statement

Link to Tweet Statement

@WaxOnFeckOff

And i would say if they have internal rules and regulations, they are pointless if they aren't monitored. Even stuff such as clear desk policies must exist?

😂 You would think...... Reality is its dependent on the dept! GDPR reviews are conducted but generally on what has been provided and all will have a designated person. Finances are always provided further up the chain and are reported as due course anyway. The parts of civil service which does have audits are generally the ones which need accreditation such as labs etc. But not all parts need accreditation. You have to remember that the civil service is huge even the Scottish civil service encompasses everything from food standards to marine Scotland, policy, education dept etc etc

I've said it before on this thread. It's depressing to see the indy poll move based on people's perception of current leaders. Leaders will come and go so thoughts on current leaders should be irrelevant.

@Graffitiqueen

I've said it before on this thread. It's depressing to see the indy poll move based on people's perception of current leaders. Leaders will come and go so thoughts on current leaders should be irrelevant.

I'm not sure I completely agree. Right now, based on what we're seeing (i.e. sheer ineptitude at something relatively simple) I'd have serious concerns about the ability of the current leadership to a) tell the truth about prospects, b) negotiate a settlement agreement competently and c) create the new functions, departments and policies which would be required by an independent country.

I suppose what I mean is I think it's maybe not unreasonable for someone to say "I theoretically believe in independence but I do not have sufficient faith in the current leadership to want to see them implement it."

@Graffitiqueen

I've said it before on this thread. It's depressing to see the indy poll move based on people's perception of current leaders. Leaders will come and go so thoughts on current leaders should be irrelevant.

Yes but it's equally an issue making the opposite decision because you don't like Boris. It should be a decision based on what would be best for the folks of Scotland based on proper facts and without factoring the EU. And also remembering that it's a permanent decision. Even then, things can change due to stuff from broadside.

@StatisticallyChallenged completely agree you have to have faith that the government has the ability to transition and set up departments in a way that doesn't effect people that task would be mamouth from job centre and benefits, pensions, to regulating oil and gas, offshore wind, nuclear and new ministry of defence.
If you don't have faith in the leadership and government then it's bonkers to vote for independence based on a ideology alone. Ideology doesn't pay bills, keep economies afloat or ensure that power supply isn't distributed!

I theoretically believe in independence and voted for it last time, but for a variety of reasons, I wouldn’t want to do it tomorrow. Questions around the competence and the integrity of the current administration definitely factor in, in and of themselves, and also with regards to how they would
interact with perceptions of the legitimacy of referendum taking place in the near term. So I don’t think I agree with you Graffitiqueen.

@Graffitiqueen

I've said it before on this thread. It's depressing to see the indy poll move based on people's perception of current leaders. Leaders will come and go so thoughts on current leaders should be irrelevant.

I think if there was a healthy balance & broad collaboration across Scotgov cabinet to effect policy etc. That might be true. But sturgeon prefers the 'presidential' approach to governance which means as a leader, she's far more in control of policy, narrative & implementation. She's got concentrated power & influence so a dislike of policy and/or implementation does cut across to dislike of her leadership style. And if she's going to sit for 8 hours and suggest her memory is so bad her grasp of details & facts is poor, that 'presidential' grip on all she surveys is affected. She cannot be both 'in command & across her [vast] brief' at the same time as being 'unaware' & 'cannot recall' or 'unsure' etc.

Sturgeon chose this 'style' of leadership. It's not reasonable to then expect general perception of her to be separated from her government/its policies/how they're implemented & prioritised etc.

One of the most eye opening things for me in this whole episode is the realisation that the basic standards of competence I had assumed of the civil service/SG (even if I'm not in favour of independence) were unfounded. They are either 1) so deeply corrupt that they've not taken notes on purpose and orchestrated a massive coverup or 2) so unbelievably inept that there are no records of key meetings and/or they've been lost, and NS was unable to find the information to answer basic questions that she surely knew she'd be asked, despite having been 'relishing' the opportunity to speak for months. Neither of these options describe an administration you'd want to lead a country through massive change (which the SNP would have to do in the short term), and I suspect this alone will lead to drop in support.

Thanks Shadowy

It's ironic that if the SNP do take a hit on this in terms of the election outcome, it will unlikely be at NS's expense, and will feed into the SNP preferred narrative to continue blame Westminster for all ills, while being the 'under dog' battling against the intransigence of the U.K. government. Effectively it's a 'win win' for Sturgeon - the wider SNP/Indy movement, not so much.

And I think that's why if feels utterly depressing to look at all this, knowing that there's very little that can be done to effect change - very much in the same way Scotland has little impact on U.K. government etc.

I'm still hopeful the Hamilton enquiry does its job & makes life v difficult for Sturgeon. But even that's not a guarantee that she'll have the integrity to do the right thing.

Worst case scenario is that they rule a small breach that she would be able to brush under on the basis that it would be petty to expect resignation over and folks would also add in support that poor wee Nicola was getting a hard time over something inconsequential so gains her more support.

She doesn't intend to resign regardless but obvs things are changing daily.

I think the intention was to drip feed so that people get fed up and each thing seems like a small thing as they don't consider the totality of the evidence. That may backfire though as it's keeping it going for longer and the election creeps ever closer.

For the anti indy folks I think the worse thing would be for her to go now and get a new broom with lots of promises in in good time for the election - where a new broom could be found is a mystery though.

On balance I think for me, i'm happy to see it kept in the news and each time another chip on the veracity of the NS submission and the failure of those around her also to add. There is still a huge core that will forgive anything in order to get indy, none of this will change that core vote, It's the undecided and the unconvinced that will be key.

My prediction was that it would damage but not remove her. The SNP will keep her, but she will have lost her competence badge and her candid critic of Westminster badge, along with integrity badge.

The other parties should and will play that all the time if they are smart. Make her cross, pull her down from her lofty position. The whole matter looks grubby and increasingly, so will she.

The SG would do well to have some very successful policy of its own right now to counter this - not a dream or aspirations but real. When people have doubts about politicians they look harder at what they and they are more critical.

I think the leadership is very relevant when it comes to independence.

I think a lot of people support independence because they like the leader (whether that was NS or AS) or because they were sold sunshine and rainbows by that leader.

Take the leader away, and the message changes, depending on the skills of the next leader. It might not come across as all wonderful in that next leader's message.

Plus this behaviour that people are finally seeing makes people question what the leadership in an independent Scotland will be like. We don't know who or what that leadership will be, so can only judge on the current leadership and that leadership ain't great.

Hope that's all making sense.

Still complete silence from the deputy First Minister Keith Brown. Wonder why he's keeping his powder dry? An eye for the main chance maybe?

I tend to think NS is damaged beyond repair even in the eyes of the SNP. She has been at the top for a very long time with a small tight group around her. The whole cabal has progressed and aged jointly without widening the team and bringing in the next generation. The grass roots of the Party is much younger and so it has always only been a matter of time.

Even if she does win a majority I would expect her and her husband to be forced to step aside from within her Party. What better way to properly wipe the slate clean ready for Indyref2?

Couple of things of note.

Tories still going ahead with VoNC in Swinney. Reasoning being he has been so obstructive as evidenced by the dripfeed all week that it is impossible to have confidence in his integrity. Hard to argue with.

Leaks all over twitter that it turns out NS previous short legal career is in fact highly relevant to the current proceedings.

@dementedma

Still complete silence from the deputy First Minister Keith Brown. Wonder why he's keeping his powder dry? An eye for the main chance maybe?

Keith Brown isn't Deputy FM, he's deputy leader of the SNP afaik. Deputy FM is Swinney

Can you expand/point me to relevant Twitter content @Dinnafashyersel?

Leaks all over twitter that it turns out NS previous short legal career is in fact highly relevant to the current proceedings.

Can you expand or direct please @Dinnafashyersel?

This is being talked about on Twitter as the possible story spiked that Jackie Bailie mentioned during questioning.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210303122310/petercherbi.blogspot.com/2021/03/first-interests-judge-recommended-for.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Link to a blog post archived

Soz, I got distracted when posting and repeated @StatisticallyChallenged request

I think it’s pretty obvious that if NS cannot handle this mess then it is very very hard to imagine her negotiating with the UK Government in independence successfully where arguably matters would be much tougher and there would be real pressure to deliver.

I don’t think she had ever really felt that pressure since she was parachuted in as leader. Her line has always been about the future of independence. That looks over.

I’ve just read that link and I am appalled. Looks like a trait then, not a one off situation.

She had a lot of naive people fooled.

Oh dear dear dear. sounds like more women failed by the FM.