Ding Ding Ding! Round 5 Salmond and Sturgeon

[Blurberoo]

New thread...

I wouldn’t like a purity spiral. I’d prefer the impurity spiral please, eminently more fun

This is pretty much on point.

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/opinion/columnists/alex-bell/3001420/alex-bell-scotland-shown-to-be-in-a-rotten-state-as-gang-ethos-takes-over-government/

"If bullying is part of the problem, then the SNP has nowhere to hide. Scotland has been politically bullied over the past decade. It’s not poverty, the NHS, education or economic growth that matters, but the universal fix of indy."

..."Sturgeon gets to stay on and fight an election, which she’ll probably win, but the whole episode shows Scotland to be in a rotten state.

Loyalty to the first minister trumps the values of accountability and responsibility. The gang ethos prevails."

..."Yet Sturgeon says top civil servant Leslie Evans will stay on and Sturgeon’s husband will remain as head of the SNP. What was a clear conflict of interest when she became first minister and Peter Murrell was chief executive of the party continues.

To the supporting cast of officials, special advisers, people in the Crown Office, Police Scotland and so on, there shall be no recriminations, so long as they all stay loyal to the firm.

And to the core legacy of Salmond’s dominant style, that we don’t need details on indy, just to know it will all be fine, there is still not a squeak of a challenge.

This is government by gang. Scotland the victim."

Wow. This thread really has moved even closer toward the gutter. I pity the two or three posters who are actually trying to have a grown up discussion.

Now we have:

-Those women lied

• NS has had the audacity to buy a house even although she hates the Tories (not quite sure of the logic of that one)
• more shitty comments pouring over her appearance and saying she looks old
• insinuations about her husband's private life
• the inevitable Krankie bullshit

Maybe this thread is a parallel for your views of the SG? Started well but ...

One of the “poor” womens allegation was that he squeezed her right buttock while she was having her picture taken with him at Stirling Castle . 7 people including some other women who were standing immediately behind them ( waiting for their pics to be taken with AS ) said this categorically did not happen . They were all clear on that .

The fabricated rape allegation is a shocker and I don’t understand why she got off with that.

Also allegations that he put his hands on a woman's thigh in the back of a car that was proven couldn't have happened and I think one was about almost but not touching someone's hair? - their trauma must be significant. Any genuine trauma should of course be supported, including perhaps being falsely accused - or are only women to be included in that?

I'm certainly open to believing that there could be further inappropriateness but there doesn't seem to be any other genuine cases come forward.

This has got nothing to do with the FM's personal life or her gender. It could be anyone!
It's about being professional and proficient for the role.

The worrying thing is that the person she shares her life with is the head of the SNP and the finances of the party are now being hidden from the elected members.
The judgment of Mackie is now being put back until after the election!
The OECD report is not being published until after the election.

There is a pattern here!!

At least we’re all agreed that Nicola Sturgeon is indeed A Woman.
Am I still allowed to say that ?

I think venturing an opinion on that would be problematic nowadays.

@forfucksakenett

Wow. This thread really has moved even closer toward the gutter. I pity the two or three posters who are actually trying to have a grown up discussion.

Now we have:

-Those women lied

• NS has had the audacity to buy a house even although she hates the Tories (not quite sure of the logic of that one)
• more shitty comments pouring over her appearance and saying she looks old
• insinuations about her husband's private life
• the inevitable Krankie bullshit

Maybe this thread is a parallel for your views of the SG? Started well but ...

Yes I wonder if the posters denigrating FM appearance also support #BeKind and @EverydaySexism initiatives. When it comes to it we all need to challenge this rubbish,for ourselves, for our kids It is sad that we encourage our daughters to stick in at school and work hard Do we also need to add the caveat, but keep yourself looking tidy, maintain a slender ankle. Oh and if you happen to attain a prominent role Expect to be called Jimmy Krankie and attacked for your appearance.

Seriously though, the Craig Murray business is upsetting me. I don’t actually know whether I think he was in contempt but it’s the treatment of him, the lack of action on others, the timing etc. that I find quite disturbing.

For sure if my husband had falsely been accused of rape I’d be an avenging angel.

The allegations about the Murrells private life being hidden away behind super injunctions reflect the whole attitude of the senior SG . Cover it up and obfuscation rules. Starts at top and filters down .

Have they ever addressed the super injunction allegations?

Heels and handbags : while this happens in an ideal world the reality is if you are in public life you have to have the skin of a rhinoceros. Simple as that . Girls I’m afraid have to learn that too . There’s a tough world out there .

Craig Murray situation is also dire . Just waiting for this thread to be shut down ..... surprised we’ve got this far .

Who are the Murrells?
You’re doing that misogynistic trope of refusing to call Ms Sturgeon by her surname and purposefully calling her by her husband name to minimise and diminish her

By all means scrutinise and debate the FM and elaborate on alleged shortcomings, that’s legitimate

Choosing to deny a woman her surname and referring to her by her husband name it’s sexism

I note you don’t call him Mr sturgeon...is that because it is not his name

I don’t think everyday sexism can even be called out under the new hate crime so I think we are good to go on that one.

But in all seriousness, NS sold the women out a long time ago so she has no sympathy from me.

I don’t know how the injunctions work , maybe some of the legal ladies can cast a light .

I think someone did some kind of FOI regarding the super injunction and found there was none and Nicola Strugeon denied rumours of an exotic double life or some such wording.

Of course the issue isn't that NS bought a house - it's that if things are as rumoured there is a significant disparity between the way in which she represents herself as FM and SNP leader and her actual life, and the house, and who she lives there with, is part of that. Of course she is entitled to privacy, but people are interested in their leaders whether you like it or not (and I think have a right to a certain amount of basic info whether or not that is indicative of character).

We take Boris Johnson's many failings in her personal life as relevant to his leadership credentials: there was certainly a fuss about his abandoning his ex-wife and selling their house out from under her when she had cancer, and a fuss about his violent bust-up with Carrie. If there are equivalent stories about NS they do need to see the light of day.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Who are the Murrells? You’re doing that misogynistic trope of refusing to call Ms Sturgeon by her surname and purposefully calling her by her husband name to minimise and diminish her

By all means scrutinise and debate the FM and elaborate on alleged shortcomings, that’s legitimate

Choosing to deny a woman her surname and referring to her by her husband name it’s sexism

I note you don’t call him Mr sturgeon...is that because it is not his name

They are Murrells in their private life . Will happily refer to them as Mr Murrell and Ms Sturgeon - only it takes longer to type - if that keeps you happy , have no axe to grind on that point .

@ATieLikeRichardGere

Seriously though, the Craig Murray business is upsetting me. I don’t actually know whether I think he was in contempt but it’s the treatment of him, the lack of action on others, the timing etc. that I find quite disturbing.

The date given for his sentencing is clearly political. It's shocking that this is allowed but with the SNP/Sturgeon vice like grip on the establishment, seemingly willing to jump when called upon, nothing surprises me.

SI you go to court, you specifically ban the print and tv,radio,online media reporting of a story. However it is never fully effective. Inevitably there are SM a reaches, rumours etc

SI in Scotland is not binding in England (different legal systems) or elsewhere

And finally judges are often reticent to grant SI

I would say nothing surprises me either but this actually does surprise me. Despite what else we’ve seen from the crown office, I still did not think this sort of thing could happen here and now but it does look like it is.

It's not called a super injunction in Scotland, is it? It's an interdict of some sort I think.

I’m not grinding an axe, it is a relatively uncontentious view women can and do have their own surname which reasonably should be accommodated in how they’re addressed

@ATieLikeRichardGere

I would say nothing surprises me either but this actually does surprise me. Despite what else we’ve seen from the crown office, I still did not think this sort of thing could happen here and now but it does look like it is.

This is from Murray himself:

"So my verdict was delayed exactly eight weeks from the hearing until today, instantly after the Holyrood and Hamilton inquiries were completed and Scots Parliament adjourned.

My sentencing is set for 7 May the day after the Parliamentary elections.

Total coincidence of course."

Link to tweet