Salmond v Sturgeon round 4. What next?

[Cismyfatarse]

New thread.

@TheShadowyFeminist

I'm currently listening to Craig Murray talk through some issues & not quite sure where it's heading.

Don't bother with this 'vlog'- nothing of great interest.

I do feel kind of sorry for Craig Murray. 7 weeks he's been waiting for his verdict.

^Paul Hutcheon
@paulhutcheon
·
11m
NEW: The Scottish Tories say they will give Nicola Sturgeon a "last chance" to quit on Tuesday.

If not, they will proceed with a Vote of No Confidence on Wednesday.^

Super busy with work so not up to speed with the thread, what do we think will happen to her if there's a VONC?

I think it all turns on the Greens. They’re super-woke so may keep her in office in return for commitments on Self-ID etc in the next parliament.

I think the Greens will keep her in place. Patrick Harvey already condemning the 'politics' of the committee and setting his stall out in advance of the report. I think it must be as a PP said - there is literally no-one else vaguely qualified to take up the mantle as the head of the Indy movement, so they are all doing everything to try and prop her up because independence transcends integrity apparently.

Harvie has been toadying up to the SNP over this on twitter. I'd dearly love that arrogant wee scroat to get voted out in the upcoming election. Cant stand him.

He's been 'bought' already. I suspect he's expecting GRA priority next parliament session.

I think they're waiting for someone they hope will be elected.

How can NS accuse the committee of baseless assertions? Surely they will have to set out the basis of their decision in a report.?!?!

Exactly graffiti. The BBC report on it says:

The committee said it was "hard to believe" that Ms Sturgeon did not know of concerns of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond before November 2017 - which is when she says she was first alerted to any issues....

...(NS's) spokesperson said the suggestion that the committee had found it "hard to believe" that she did not previously know about allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond was "not supported by a single shred of evidence"...

...The spokesperson also accused the committee of ignoring and suppressing evidence which supported Ms Sturgeon's evidence that she told Mr Salmond in April 2018 that she would not intervene on his behalf.

I'm sure the report will explain why they found it hard to believe, based on the evidence they heard. I can't believe they've just plucked that disbelief out of thin air - given it was given on oath. Only if something else contradicted it, or led them to believe that it wasn't entirely true.

On the second thing - I'm sure it was part of the evidence she presented that she said she wouldn't intervene on his behalf? That's not disputed - and AS said it was true too - so surely there is no particular need to have it backed up by any other evidence? However - AS said that earlier she had said she would (if it came to it) - so she changed her mind. Which is fine - everyone is entitled to change their mind - but it doesn't make it untrue to say that they had earlier said something different. And it hasn't been "suppressed" at all, surely?

God - I'm so confused.

"God - I'm so confused." I suspect this is the point. Kick up enough dust that most people can't really follow what's happening, and hope enough believe the 'Poor Nicola the victim' line before the election. I suspect if the general population truly understood the level of corruption in the SG they'd be screwed.

I bet that SNP woman who had to resign over buying some shoes on expenses is kicking herself that she didn't just brass neck it!!

I am suspicious about the leak tbh. Maybe I've been watching too many double crossing spy dramas but I'm not buying the "it was one of the unionists" line which is spreading widely. It might have been - but I can also see how it would suit the SNP to leak this and feed in to the "poor Nicola" line

Me too statistically the SNP's tactics have been obvious since Nicola's first 10 mins of testimony, if not longer so who benefited?

The statement from the SNP members of the committee is outrageous. 🤬

Just seen it - I know she's released I statement about the leak but interestingly I note Fabiani hasn't signed that...

This is truly ridiculous

The statement is quite frankly pathetic and extremely unprofessional. The report will have to give the basis and evidence for the committeedecision.

Extremely interesting that Fabiani didn't sign it.

Just seen their statement too. That's convinced me more that it was an SNP leak. The only 'side' taking the piss out of the whole process was the SNP/Scotgov & they're the ones now gaining from the faux outrage over the leak, being able to shout 'squirrel' before the actual report is published & the most damning parts are quoted. It's about controlling the narrative & smacks of the same BS Murrell pulled when asked Qs & repeatedly reverted to 'concerns' for the women & court orders.

God they're just so pathetic

Pathetic is absolutely the word. The Public Accounts Committee at Westminster regularly hands the PM of the day their arse and they respond like grown-ups.

These statements are beyond juvenile.

Something is happening on twitter. Trying to find the 'source'...

It's almost like they thought that as there was a pro Indy majority in the committee, that they had this stitched up from the start and are now throwing their toys out of the pram. 🤔

Thankfully andy wightman has integrity. Most of the time anyway.

Think I'll be making a donation to his fund to run in the highlands - politics needs more people with real integrity and not just the appearance of it.

Do you mean they're trying to find the leaker? Or something else

Something else. Cant see where it's come from but it's a 'theory' over where the whole thing kicked off. Very near the knuckle.

'Thing' = the Salmond stuff, not the committee

@TheShadowyFeminist

Something else. Cant see where it's come from but it's a 'theory' over where the whole thing kicked off. Very near the knuckle.

I'm curious now!