Ding Ding Ding! Round 5 Salmond and Sturgeon

[Blurberoo]

New thread...

@forfucksakenett

If you feel you need to do that then that's absolutely fine 🤷🏻‍♀️ surely you see the irony though? This thread shows how easy it is to get caught up in something and for that moral high ground to be thrown out the window.

Some of these “poor” women “lied” or exaggerated their experiences. The jury said there was only one unproven case . So not quite sure how they should be viewed or how much sympathy they require .

Lizzie Lloyd seems to have ducked out of view -

Apparently there are 2 super injunctions out so Murrells personal life cannot be discussed in press .

@Blurberoo yes, it’s really weird that this is all a big “secret”.

It’s part of why I find them disingenuous and untrustworthy. I’m not a fan of people who are not what they seem.

*allegedly. Who knows? It’s all so murky

I just think they've pretended and lied for so long that they've boxed themselves into a corner such that it would be a big deal to suddenly announce it. Or that she thinks core SNP supporters wouldn't like it, or maybe she thinks it's something to be ashamed of which would equally not go down well.

Seems to be the modus operandi to swill about in a world of secrets.

I think most folk couldn't give a toss about someone's sexuality nowadays.

It's all a bit Iago from Othello, I am not what I am.

I can believe it’s a marriage of convenience - so many are - but finding it hard to believe the specifics of those rumours and the super injunction part!

I couldn't give two hoots about their sexuality though I do mind if they have lied. But I think at this stage any public acknowledgement would involve the most enormous hoo-ha and that would inevitably be distracting and let loose some real unpleasantness in the press and among some sections of the public. I can see how they've got themselves into this situation in a way - but they have access to very good media management, have lots of the Scottish media clearly on side, and think they could have found a way to get the story out positively if they'd done it before now rather than trying to enforce legal controls and the inevitable leaking out in scandalous drips and drops.

Side stepping all the FM frothers who get in an indignant haze at mere mention of her name
And no I don’t have cult like devotion, I’m not a sycophant. I simply think Ms Sturgeon has been a calm and able leader during covid

I think Salmond will continue to harbour a gripe & grudge that he will habitually seek legal redress, additional inquiries etc in order to pursue his claims that he has been misrepresented, demonised etc. I think he’ll seek to habitually undermine Ms Sturgeon and be a omnipresent complainer. I don’t know how he’ll fund the legal fees, I suppose he has supporters

@OhBuggerandArse

I couldn't give two hoots about their sexuality though I do mind if they have lied. But I think at this stage any public acknowledgement would involve the most enormous hoo-ha and that would inevitably be distracting and let loose some real unpleasantness in the press and among some sections of the public. I can see how they've got themselves into this situation in a way - but they have access to very good media management, have lots of the Scottish media clearly on side, and think they could have found a way to get the story out positively if they'd done it before now rather than trying to enforce legal controls and the inevitable leaking out in scandalous drips and drops.

I think it could have been done in stages. Announce that they've split up but remain friends, one comes out and then the other, they've found new love etc etc.

I'm not so interested in all that sort of gossiping over the pair of them. More concerned with their vice like grip on power in Scotland. The behaviour that's been highlighted through the committee & the extent of the reach of 'protection' for sturgeon is what shocks me the most.

Most of the gossip has eluded me so far. But the one thing that always fascinated me was the makeover sturgeon had. She still looks uncomfortable to me. It's just not her natural image & although it presents her in an 'acceptable' way to the public in the PR view it just doesn't look right.

Just seen this:

"Craig Murray sentencing deferred til the day after the election 7th MAY"

How is that not political? Seriously? This is just ridiculous.

She’s called Ms Sturgeon, FM doesn’t use her partner surname. That’s not her name. Purposefully identifying the FM as Murrell (her husband name) is an attempt to undermine, diminish and erase her individuality. The act of refusing to use her correct surname is powerful and a blatant attempt to erase or undermine her and her prominence.

Women refusing to address other women by their given and chosen name is deeply misogynistic. It is like refusing to acknowledge Ms as a status and insisting it’s either Miss or Mrs when you know the person has a preference for Ms

Titles, and words matter and it is really risible to purposely and wrongly address a woman. Esp when you chose to ignore her identifiable known name

Heels while I agree there is alternate view of this.
Many including me had no idea that the FM was married to the Chief Exec of the SNP who rose through the ranks through a 30 year association with Alex Salmond. It is farcical to suggest that the political fortunes of all 3 are not intrinsically linked.

It is striking that even now AS is seeking to use NS as a shield to demolish while keeping the facade in place.

But the one thing that always fascinated me was the makeover sturgeon had. She still looks uncomfortable to me. It's just not her natural image & although it presents her in an 'acceptable' way to the public in the PR view it just doesn't look right.

I agree. She is roughly the same age as me and from very similar background. My DDs met her and were aghast at how old she looked and how much makeup she was wearing and how much she seemed a persona rather than a person. Their comments put me in mind of all the Hollywood starlets like Marilyn Munro who seemingly had the World including the President at their feet but were in reality little more than marionettes.

I wouldn’t say people using the term ‘Murrell’s’ is to reduce the FM to being someone’s wife, more to highlight the anti-democratic situation where she is leader and her husband is chief exec, a situation bound to end badly for obvious reasons.

But I take your point @HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

again, off topic but was looking to see what NSs image used to be like and came across this Daily Fail article comparing 2001 to 2015 (when the article came out).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025973/Why-not-calling-Scotland-s-Lady-Krankie-Nicola-Sturgeon-living-proof-women-sexier-age-income-office.html

I'm not saying that we should be voting based on someone's looks and not slagging off, but it does show the evolution of the image presented.

You know it’s not Ms Sturgeon name yet you chose to purposefully address by her husband name. It’s a blatantly undermining

It is desperately sad to see women enact such pettiness upon other women. Words matter, and you know the significance and impact of declining to use Ms Sturgeon name, that’s why you are doing it

Re. the makeover, my favourite ever photo of her was when she was walking the balance bar in jeans and a white shirt. Back in the glory days - no-one else would have dared in case it went wrong, she was confident and relaxed and looked human and relatable. She was really good, which is why it's so heartbreaking that things have gone so wrong.

Also I love this one of her and a nice baby grinning at each other. I can see why people are really drawn to holding on to that image of her - but there's too much murky water under the bridge now.

I'd suggest that Ms Sturgeon and her party have done a lot more damage to women than someone calling her Mrs Murrell.

I think she looks great in the coral suit in that article @RedactedTaeFeck, I actually think she looks so well because she's right in her comfort zone.

I think she looks tired and drawn now, but after this year who doesn't?

I just came here to post about the Craig Murray dates!!! What is going on? Even if it’s innocent, the optics are terrible so why would you do this??

Come the fuck on, slagging off a woman on basis of her appearance and make up. It’s shocking and misogynistic. Commodification of women, as the sum of their appearance. Linking a woman’s worth or usefulness to appearance

By all means one can have a justifiable and robust conversation about female politicians but don’t reduce it to their appearance or attire.
I do not like Priti Patel but I have compelling ideological reasons, it’s not about her appearance. I don’t reference her appearance or attire or make up

Jess Phillips routinely talks about the everyday sexism and casual put downs women in politics face. And here it is on mumsnet too regard ms sturgeon

I think it’s important to know they are married. In the interests of transparency.

I was unaware of this until relatively recently.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

You seem to be reading a different thread to me so I'm going to leave it there.