Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Scotsnet

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

Salmond v Sturgeon round 4. What next?

968 replies

Cismyfatarse · 05/03/2021 18:09

New thread.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
GirlLovesWorld · 09/03/2021 10:12

I know @Blurberoo! It will never ever happen of course, but it's a secret wee dream of mine. I would crawl over hot coals for the opportunity (can't quite be arsed becoming an actual politician) Grin

StatisticallyChallenged · 09/03/2021 10:15

@Y0uCann0tBeSer10us

Two things stood out for me in this latest revelation. Firstly:

"He added: “That includes, for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (chief executive), Ian McCann (compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (chief operating officer) of the SNP together with Liz Lloyd, the First Minister’s chief of staff.
“There are others who, for legal reasons, I am not allowed to name.”"

I assume he is not allowed to name them because they are among the complainants, which raises the question - were some of the complainants part of this effort to damage him??

Secondly:
"He said the Crown Office told Kenny MacAskill last July there were no messages from Murrell – who is married to the First Minister – pressuring the police to investigate him.

Murrell later admitted sending texts to colleagues which appeared to show him urging colleagues to go to the police."
Did the crown office lie about the existence of evidence?

That clearly his allegation given the messages he read out (it seem to recall they included the one from H to another woman, J perhaps) but naming them would be dodgy as they don't appear as part of their story in any way so it would be obvious who they were. If he suddenly named "Jane Smith" who hadn't been discussed elsewhere it would immediately suggest she was a complainant.

But yes I think he does believe that some of them were involved.

Y0uCann0tBeSer10us · 09/03/2021 10:18

I definitely agree that we desperately need a second chamber to weed out some of shite coming out of Holyrood, but I have to confess I'm in two minds about a citizen's assembly. Whatever extra layer we had should be free from party political influence, but I also think it's important that the people overseeing legislation are suitably qualified to do so, and a random cross section of society is unlikely to be. If they are to be given expert guidance, who decides who the experts are? I think it needs a lot of careful thought.

GirlLovesWorld · 09/03/2021 10:23

Oh yeah I know, I'm not really advocating it, I just think it's a nice dream really. Probably comes from around the same time I was voting for the SSP Grin

WouldBeGood · 09/03/2021 10:26

I’d vote SSP if they were not pro independence. I’ve gone full circle to my fifteen year old self.

GirlLovesWorld · 09/03/2021 10:31

Same, I have no time for half measures or mealy mouthed promises any more.

I have been looking at the isp.scot website this morning which is obviously pro-indy but also anti self-ID. Interesting.

anon444877 · 09/03/2021 10:54

A second chamber of people with expertise - people who've made a significant contribution to public life outside of direct party politics would get my vote. Can you imagine the improvement in legislative quality? We need people who have experience of trying to implement poorly written legislation and policies to hold the first chamber to account.

Isn't the first chamber already a citizen's assembly since citizens elect politicians who typically these days have little experience outside of politics so they can be uncontroversial enough to pass the twitter test and get elected?

WaxOnFeckOff · 09/03/2021 11:00

Well, given her shouty rant at RD for heading off to the Lords, i guess NS wouldn't take up any position offered in Holyrood Scottish style Lords should that ever happen

WouldBeGood · 09/03/2021 11:01

@GirlLovesWorld yes, I think if I were pro Indy the ISP is a good shout

WouldBeGood · 09/03/2021 11:02

I think there are too many career politicians who are in it for their own advancement and not the greater good.

Y0uCann0tBeSer10us · 09/03/2021 11:03

I'm hearing more and more about the ISP from independence-supporting people as the SNP becomes more and more toxic. I think they could be in for a good election.

GirlLovesWorld · 09/03/2021 11:05

Yes, I'm sure you're completely right @anon444877 and it sounds more sensible than my idea Grin

I just....something in me rankles about the inequality in society though. If we elect those who have already made a significant contribution to law, business, whatever else, those are quite likely to be people who either had some sort of privileged start in life, or now live a life of privilege, or both.

Where are the little people voices? I don't think we authentically hear them in parliament necessarily because party politics dominates the individual's ability to think and speak freely.

I know that we vote and that's where our voices are 'heard' but it doesn't feel enough, especially when we don't have an ideal voting system.

TheShadowyFeminist · 09/03/2021 11:05

"I actually harbour a wee love for the idea of a citizen's second chamber where they can sit for a year, salaried."

I like the idea but have some reservations. Mainly, the highly motivated ideologues that are in so many areas (the 'coal face' of policy capture) & I think this would end up being swamped by such people. For me, it need to be a properly representative i.e. not full of fairly privileged & highly educated (degree level plus) people who are less likely to be the targets of some perhaps well intended but ill judged legislation. There's a lot of talk of 'lived experience' & 'diversity & inclusion' but there's still too few working class people getting their voices heard.

I think that more needs to be done to accommodate those who are swamped with responsibilities & who struggle to make time to speak up for themselves & those they care for, due to lack of support or a structure set up for those without the burden of caring responsibility. Making it harder for those people to actually engage with such processes means they don't get listened to.

I do think you need the targeted expertise in addition, but I dislike the very 'professional feminist' elite clique that's dominating the upper end of the women's third sector orgs. The 'intersectional gender architecture' & 'gender beacon' bollox is the epitome of that. I loathe things that are over intellectualised to the point it makes no sense.

Sorry, off on a rant-y tangent there!

TheShadowyFeminist · 09/03/2021 11:07

X-d with Girl.

I think we're saying effectively the same thing!

ATieLikeRichardGere · 09/03/2021 11:07

I think we know from the trial that H, A, J and G had spoken to one another, or at least that one of them had spoken to the other 3. It wasn’t entirely clear to me which. I think I know who at least one of those people is and what the alleged conspiracy theory plot around that is. Others would also point out that the allegation from H was challenged in terms of whether it could have happened, with multiple witnesses giving evidence to the contrary. Therefore I can see why a plot could be inferred here. But I really don’t want to think that it was a plot. If the women involved felt they had been genuinely wronged by Salmond through sexual misconduct then I can absolutely see how they could be angry and together agree that they should try and make him see repercussions and I think that was the “women supporting each other” interpretation put forward. But also they might not all have had the exact same motivations. So I’m not sure at what point it becomes a plot, or at what point the actions taken become unjustified. I think the problem is, a mix of things could be going on. That’s why it’s very unfortunate that we’ve got an additional layer of incompetence in how it was all handled because these things are even harder to tease out now.

GirlLovesWorld · 09/03/2021 11:08

@WaxOnFeckOff

Well, given her shouty rant at RD for heading off to the Lords, i guess NS wouldn't take up any position offered in Holyrood Scottish style Lords should that ever happen
No, it's got to be an elected second chamber.

Not sure she'd be getting elected to it now anyway....couple of months ago I'd have thought so, but there you go.

WaxOnFeckOff · 09/03/2021 11:10

Yes @GirlLovesWorld is was meant to be a sarcastic comment on all sorts of fronts :o

GirlLovesWorld · 09/03/2021 11:17

I know 

@TheShadowyFeminist your post is spot on. Maybe it should be a nerdy political hunger games and people get randomly reaped to serve in a second chamber for a year.

TheShadowyFeminist · 09/03/2021 11:18

nerdy political hunger games

That should have been the title for the election thread 😂

On balance I think I'd favour that process😁

GirlLovesWorld · 09/03/2021 11:20

Haha!

Oh wait - there's an election thread??

What have I been missing?!

ShowmetheSnowdrops · 09/03/2021 11:23

The House of Lords shows how effectively a second chamber can work and I’m all for it.
But, to establish one in Scotland, it’s yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy and govt.
Is that where spending should really be targeted ?

It’s a pity MPs and MSPs weren’t better at representing the needs and desires of the people who actually elected them.

StatisticallyChallenged · 09/03/2021 11:23

@ATieLikeRichardGere

I think we know from the trial that H, A, J and G had spoken to one another, or at least that one of them had spoken to the other 3. It wasn’t entirely clear to me which. I think I know who at least one of those people is and what the alleged conspiracy theory plot around that is. Others would also point out that the allegation from H was challenged in terms of whether it could have happened, with multiple witnesses giving evidence to the contrary. Therefore I can see why a plot could be inferred here. But I really don’t want to think that it was a plot. If the women involved felt they had been genuinely wronged by Salmond through sexual misconduct then I can absolutely see how they could be angry and together agree that they should try and make him see repercussions and I think that was the “women supporting each other” interpretation put forward. But also they might not all have had the exact same motivations. So I’m not sure at what point it becomes a plot, or at what point the actions taken become unjustified. I think the problem is, a mix of things could be going on. That’s why it’s very unfortunate that we’ve got an additional layer of incompetence in how it was all handled because these things are even harder to tease out now.
I have two of those I think so I get where the conspiracy allegation comes from with them. Not saying it's true, but that I understand it (I think).

If - big fat if - he's correct about conspiracy then I think you are correct about multiple motivations being in play.

WaxOnFeckOff · 09/03/2021 11:26

Maybe Holyrood could avail themselves of the existing Lords as their 2nd chamber to save money? Can you imagine how that would go down! :o

WaxOnFeckOff · 09/03/2021 11:28

@TheShadowyFeminist

nerdy political hunger games

That should have been the title for the election thread 😂

On balance I think I'd favour that process😁

You can use that as a title for the inevitable fight club that will start soon and posters interested in a slanging match heated debate could be referred there for a no holds barred discussion where you need to agree not to no reporting of comments.

Just a suggestion :o

Dinnafashyersel · 09/03/2021 11:31

Maybe Holyrood could avail themselves of the existing Lords as their 2nd chamber to save money? Can you imagine how that would go down!

Exactly what I was thinking Grin

Please create an account

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

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

Swipe left for the next trending thread