Ding Ding Ding! Round 5 Salmond and Sturgeon

[Blurberoo]

New thread...

had an urge for a temporary name change - many combinations weren't available! I wanted RedactedbySquirrels but it wasn't available

Ah got a better one

I haven't selectively edited anything
you haven't Stats.
Most of us are guilty of posting the bits that suit our argument, to an extent, to be fair. But there is an awful lot on here i've noticed that only quotes a bit of something and then when you go back and check out the report you get a totally different picture - sometimes the point's even contradicted in the very next sentence!!

Well if the report is contradicting itself that’s not ideal, though I’ve not spotted this. I suppose the committee members not agreeing amongst themselves could give rise to that.

I don't understand why the politicians say 'the people will decide on 6 May'.

Not meaning to be obtuse but there won't actually be a question on the ballot paper on this will there?

I thought it important to get someone's name correct to ensure that anyone wanting to check anything looks for the correct person,
fair enough.
I saw some had said they'd voted SNP 'in the past' but didn't read it that this issue was the deciding factor in not voting SNP. Some of those saying that have been belligerently SNP from their first post, so I suppose that's why I'm surprised. sorry if I've misrepresented anyone.

Well if the report is contradicting itself that’s not ideal, though I’ve not spotted this. I suppose the committee members not agreeing amongst themselves could give rise to that.
It's not contradicting itself - I'm thinking of when it's laying out the two 'sides' of an argument (say, when there's a dispute over what happened) and then summarising which they'd found most convincing. I you just put one bit of it then it's a misleading!

that should have read: If you just put on bit of it then it's misleading

(one)

oh I give up - can't type today for some reason

@ATieLikeRichardGere that Andy Wightman take seems to sum up the whole shambles fairly.

I do think that posters on here, especially @StatisticallyChallenged, have been really helpful in posting summaries and relevant extracts from documents and proceedings without fear or favour. It’s unfair to say they’re cherry picking.

@happygolurkey I've not seen anyone here saying they had been going to vote SNP and changed their mind in the course of this thread, but I'm maybe wrong
Yeah you're wrong - I repeat I was an SNP voter but have changed my mind largely due to this debacle. I have been increasingly concerned about the way Scotland is becoming a 1 party state and this has solidified that. I'm also not voting SNP because of GRA, HCB and the apparent refusal to publish the OECD report. What happened to "judge me on education " ?

Again @happygolurkey
I saw some had said they'd voted SNP 'in the past' but didn't read it that this issue was the deciding factor in not voting SNP

Shall I make it very clear - yes I was an SNP voter - now I'm not and yes this is the final straw.

Nicola's face yesterday - like she'd won a great victory. So much for her sincere apology to the women in the case.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to discount a party, even one you generally support, on the basis of a single policy or cock up. Especially if it's one that you feel strongly that you couldn't in conscience ever support. So, as readsalot says, that could be over the GRA or HCB or over this whole harassment/ civil service debacle. Or even all three! No matter how much you may support the concept of independence, there is absolutely nothing to feel "guilty" for or feel you've betrayed your ideals if you don't vote for the candidate you feel most likely to deliver a referendum.

At the last GE I couldn't vote for my favoured candidate (sitting labour MP who is really good imo), because I couldn't try to vote an MP in who would support a party with a leader who was unable to sort out antisemitism in his own party. Some would say that was petty, that I'd jumped on a bandwagon, and I should have held my nose for the greater good. But it was just too much for me to say, actually, I'll overlook that because the party is better than the alternatives, mostly. So while I can understand why someone supporting independence would still vote SNP, I can also understand why they wouldn't. I suppose it's just where their ethics fall overall - whether independence is more important overall than women's rights, or free speech or competent governance or whatever. And that's for each individual to decide.

I know two people in RL who were going to vote SNP and have changed their minds. A woman in her mid 70's and a man in his mid 50's. One highly educated, one a manual worker. One English and one Scottish. One follows politics avidly and one far less so.They were uneasy about the HCB and NP and the OECD cover up but this is the final tipping point for them.
I have no doubt the SNP will romp home again but I think it will be smaller numbers than it might have been, although of course we will never know. NS and the SNP should be ashamed if no heads roll though.

I'm not sure we will ever know the truth of the allegations against Alex Salmond, not fully. There are too many people (on both sides) who are too entrenched and whose views depends on their narrative being "true", too much which is alleged to have happened without witnesses, for us to ever be sure.

Similarly, or consequently, we will never truly know to what extent (and "not at all" is included) members of the Scottish Government or the SNP sought to "bring him down", and if they did so, why. There are too many people with too many motives - including Salmond.

But something we do now know, pretty unequivocally, is that on two occasions the Scottish Government made it extremely difficult for them to be held to account. They withheld evidence from the Judicial Review, and they withheld evidence from the committee. Probably Hamilton too, realistically. This, to me, is really concerning. Of course there are times when, for reasons of national security and similar, governments can't be fully transparent. With the exception of protecting the identities of complainants this was not the case here - the government could and should have been forthcoming and open with evidence.

Instead they delayed, obfuscated and lied.

The (lengthy) section on the issues obtaining evidence should be alarming to everyone. If a search warrant, a court case, and a parliamentary committee cannot obtain accurate and complete information from the government then what chance do the rest of us have? We also know that civil servants were coached and in at least one case refused to appear without a raft of limitations being placed on the committee.

This is the committee's conclusion on the govt, but the full thing is worth reading. Note that Salmond was pulling similar shit behind the scenes (two cheeks of the same arse perhaps!) which I haven't pasted here because a) this is long enough and b) I'm talking about the government.

105. The Committee’s scrutiny has been significantly impacted by the delays in the provision of information from the Scottish Government and by its constant refusal to release legal advice. The Committee has been frustrated by the impression that on occasion it has not been given all of the relevant information simply because it has not struck upon all the right questions to ask to lead to the release of a particular additional detail. This perception has not been helped by the significant delays in providing the requested batches of evidence to the Committee.

106. This is an unacceptable position for a parliamentary committee to find itself in when trying to scrutinise the Scottish Government, particularly when both the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary stated there would be full co-operation with the inquiry.

Whatever happened to lead us to this position, this is not good enough

I am another one who would up until a couple of weeks ago probably have voted SNP based on NS's dealing with the covid pandemic. Although her rules are strict, and the last update was ridiculous, staying in basically full lockdown until 26th April, I thought she had done well on the whole. However, with this complete fiasco with Alex Salmond and the kidding on "I don't remember", I don't think I will be voting SNP, no idea who I will vote for though, don't have any faith in any of them.

The Committee has been frustrated by the impression that on occasion it has not been given all of the relevant information simply because it has not struck upon all the right questions to ask to lead to the release of a particular additional detail.

This is something I often encounter when trying to get information from the off shore part of our business. I think in their case, it's partly genuine misunderstanding but also just a way to buy more time. so if you ask for reports such as x,y and z, they come back saying they don't have any reports called x, y and z. You have to push them by describing what sort of thing you want. Eventually you get sent things but you are never sure if there are other things as you don't know specifically what to ask, and if you are too general you get nothing or some really random stuff. It's frustrating.

Yy statistically - I think you're spot on. It seems as if the committee were being treated as an irritation by the SG, who were looking to do the absolute minimum to fulfil the letter of their requests, but not the spirit. That is a ridiculous situation to be in, assuming (as NS kept saying) they were trying to cooperate fully with the committee to assess what went wrong and ensure it didn't happen again. Did they think the committee would be happy with partial evidence, or not ask for anything else, and just exonerate the SG from all bad behaviour as a result?! Because that definitely wouldn't make things better for future complainants, which they claim is their main concrrn...

I've voted SNP for the last twenty years, will still vote for independence, but cannot vote SNP in the coming election. My dilemma is now about to what degree I'm prepared to vote against them - that's a tricky one to figure out in a complicated electoral system and when I could never never vote for the Tories.

People also vote with their feet. The exodus south to better health care, better education has been a slow drip for years (assumption having known Teachers, Drs and nurses who made the move south)

Perhaps an indictor to why the education system and health system are failing.
This election should be lost and won on the Truth of the track record of the SNP. Then and only then can people vote on the facts. Which once again they cannot do because the OECD report is being hidden from them!! Another failing IMO. And another "keep them in the dark and feed them shit" moment that pervades the SNP. They even do it to their own by denying the finance committee to right see the books!!
One has to wonder what else is going on!!!

@noego - nowhere near enough people are asking about the OECD report

two cheeks of the same arse

I don't think that phrase has ever been more apt than in this clusterfuck 😁

I agree that the actions of the government in being as obstructive as they could has been a particular low-light throughout this. And it's depressing knowing that a) there's no immediate resolution to that (which means they could continue to rip the arse out of any given subject to their own agenda) and b) the make up of the Parliament & elected reps means there's not even the numbers & cross party co-operation to get momentum going to tackle this as an issue.

FWS having lost their JR today is a particular area of concern for me. I'm very concerned now at the direction another SNP/Greens coalition will go on GRA etc. especially when both Labour & LibDems have no inkling to tackle this either. Sturgeon now has the green light to do whatever she wants & neither the system nor women have the power to stop her. Nothing about the amount of power Sturgeon has is healthy.

[quote readsalotgirl63]@noego - nowhere near enough people are asking about the OECD report[/quote]
I thought we'd agreed to call it the disastrous OECD report? 😂

I agree that the actions of the government in being as obstructive as they could has been a particular low-light throughout this. And it's depressing knowing that a) there's no immediate resolution to that (which means they could continue to rip the arse out of any given subject to their own agenda) and b) the make up of the Parliament & elected reps means there's not even the numbers & cross party co-operation to get momentum going to tackle this as an issue.

I honestly struggle to understand how anyone, regardless of their view on Salmond vs Sturgeon, can think this is OK.

Agree re too much power too, there's a real lack of scrutiny and check and balances. I've definitely seen the benefit of the House of Lords recently; I'd be happy to do away with hereditory elements but actually I think there is value in having an additional tier of government who are not dependent on popularity to retain their positions and can therefore ask difficult questions and express views which may be unpopular at the time. It is easy for governments to get caught up in poll watching, following trends and their own hubris and there needs to be a way of mitigating that. Scotland seems sorely lacking.