Scottish independence

Water John

Not fully au fait with the Salmond case and the date details of who knew what. But Salmond is pushing hard:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/26/alex-salmond-weak-leadership-hurt-case-scottish-independence

Not sure about him esp how he supported Trump buying the golf courses and nobody policing him.

BonnieSituation

The hope is that this story will have long run out of steam come May.

Ramasun

There's a lot riding on this Salmond court case. If it drags on and gets messy it could sabotage Scottish Independence ambitions for a long time.

BonnieSituation

Ramasun wrote: »

There's a lot riding on this Salmond court case. If it drags on and gets messy it could sabotage Scottish Independence ambitions for a long time.

It's one of the reasons that the SNP don't want to commit to a referendum the side of the election. This mess needs to go away.

Scottie99

Saren Arterius wrote: »

It took me about 15 seconds to Google it and discover that Scotland does NOT provide water to England. Scotland doesn't export any water at all

Another quick Google: On average, over the last four years, 72 per cent of UK electricity generation has taken place in England, 15 per cent in Scotland, 11 per cent in Wales and 2 per cent in Northern Ireland.

...and if you do a quick google, you find that England is will need water in the coming decades. There’s more FRESH water in Scotlands third biggest Loch, than the whole of England (google that)

Mr.Nice Guy

https://twitter.com/Sunday_Mail/status/1365935978628677633

It seems the court case is having some negative effects, although this SNP member says it's overstated:

https://twitter.com/ThomasCArthur/status/1365942383586770945

This episode reminds me of the infighting that plagued the Irish Home Rule party during Parnell's final years. I know Salmond regards Parnell as one of his political heroes, so I wonder does he see himself in a similar light.

It would be a great pity if these avoidable issues were to sway undecideds and tip the balance.

ancapailldorcha

I'm wondering if Johnson shouldn't have just done the referendum this year quickly while the UK was rolling out the vaccine and the SNP are infighting. It would have been a great way to kill it off for a while and maybe deflate the party.

That said, I think that Brexit will make a much bigger difference than the Salmond/Sturgeon story. I doubt people are going to be too bothered about this in the event of another IndyRef.

A Dub in Glasgo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This episode reminds me of the infighting that plagued the Irish Home Rule party during Parnell's final years. I know Salmond regards Parnell as one of his political heroes, so I wonder does he see himself in a similar light.

It would be a great pity if these avoidable issues were to sway undecideds and tip the balance.

The Scottish govt attempted to have Salmond jailed for years on made up charges. They then obstructed every inquiry / case that looked into the way they framed the complaints process. The whole thing stinks and it is not Salmonds doing

bob mcbob

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Scottish govt attempted to have Salmond jailed for years on made up charges. They then obstructed every inquiry / case that looked into the way they framed the complaints process. The whole thing stinks and it is not Salmonds doing

This is where we disagree - at the original trial Salmond's own lawyer said that Salmond had acted appallingly to women but not illegally. His nickname among people who worked for him was "the toad". There were complaints of sexual harassment twice over a 5 year period. Women were also told not to work alone with him at night.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/women-were-stopped-from-working-alone-with-alex-salmond?top

But now it is all the Scottish Gov's fault and he is the victim - sorry I don't buy it.

bob mcbob

This is from The Scotsman - a very pro-Union newspaper by no means friendly to Sturgeon and the SNP.

If his appearance in front of the investigating committee on Friday is anything to go by, we shall have to wait a while longer for that evidence. Salmond did not provide proof of his version of events, which is a story of powerful forces acting in concert to put an end to his career in public life.

The reason he provided no proof of a monstrous plot against him is, of course, that none exists. The reason there was an investigation into allegations of inappropriate behaviour against him was not because former colleagues wished to remove him from public life, but because two women came forward to make complaints. The reason there was a court cases involving several more women was that several more women made complaints to the police. It really is as simple and as depressing as that.

But Salmond – a man of colossal ego and vengeful nature – demands vindication and if that means continuing to pursue a narrative of himself as victim and the complainers as conspirators, well, so be it.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/alex-salmond-provided-no-proof-of-monstrous-plot-because-none-exists-euan-mccolm-3149403

Water John

When there are multiple accusers and despite accquital, like Trump I believe the women. Maybe there are faults in ways the SNP and civil servants conducted, but that would not negate Salmond's actions and behaviour.
I think he's using that cover to try and cleanse himself.

HalfAndHalf

bob mcbob wrote: »

This is where we disagree - at the original trial Salmond's own lawyer said that Salmond had acted appallingly to women but not illegally. His nickname among people who worked for him was "the toad". There were complaints of sexual harassment twice over a 5 year period. Women were also told not to work alone with him at night.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/women-were-stopped-from-working-alone-with-alex-salmond?top

But now it is all the Scottish Gov's fault and he is the victim - sorry I don't buy it.

So your point is that if someone acts appallingly they should be processed as a criminal, charged with sexual assault and run through a public trial for the world to see. Then, when they’re found not guilty it’s still their fault.

Wow! Please tell me you’re not a Guard!

Water John

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So your point is that if someone acts appallingly they should be processed as a criminal, charged with sexual assault and run through a public trial for the world to see. Then, when they’re found not guilty it’s still their fault.

Wow! Please tell me you’re not a Guard!

The level for criminal conviction is quite high. The civil court in this case would probably find otherwise. Politics would be much closer to the civil burden of proof. Simply based on the balance of probability. What the person on the Clapham bus would consider reasonable as to what occurred.

HalfAndHalf

Water John wrote: »

The level for criminal conviction is quite high. The civil court in this case would probably find otherwise. Politics would be much closer to the civil burden of proof. Simply based on the balance of probability. What the person on the Clapham bus would consider reasonable as to what occurred.

The level for criminal conviction should be quite high! Otherwise anyone can accuse anyone else of something. Nobody brought a civil suit though did they. The question there is why not?

But you can’t base anything on saying a civil court would have found him guilty. That’s whataboutery of the highest level.

As for the Clapham bus comment, I’ve no idea what you’re on about.

Water John

Politics is tied intrinsically to, public perception. Public perception has close similarities to the, civil level burden of proof. This civil burden of proof would, I maintain, go against Salmond.

In deciding what is reasonable, UK courts use the notion of, what would the common man aka the man on the Clapham bus would think.

HalfAndHalf

Water John wrote: »

Politics is tied intrinsically to, public perception. Public perception has close similarities to the, civil level burden of proof. This civil burden of proof would, I maintain, go against Salmond.

You seem to be using a lot of words to not say very much.

There wasn’t a civil suit so what you’re saying is absolutely irrelevant. It is also just your opinion, which only works in a jury of yourself.

You’ve also started this by quoting my initial post which has nothing to do with what you keep saying in a very wordy manner.

He was accused of something he was found guilty of, yet it’s supposedly his own fault.

Water John

This is a medium for opinions. My opinion is that on balance Salmond hasn't been a very nice person and a number of women attest to that. In the political space, that's what counts.

HalfAndHalf

Water John wrote: »

This is a medium for opinions. My opinion is that on balance Salmond hasn't been a very nice person and a number of women attest to that. In the political space, that's what counts.

So why did you quote my post to make an utterly irrelevant response to it then?

You’re dealing in hypotheticals. I was stating facts.

Also, let’s hope you’re not ever found innocent of what you’re accused of. Presumably we’ll all be able to sue you in civil court just because we think you’re guilty anyway. Am glad you’ve no sway in how life works. Jaysus!

ancapailldorcha

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Am glad you’ve no sway in how life works. Jaysus!

Next snide comment from you and it's a ban. Stop it.

HalfAndHalf

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Next snide comment from you and it's a ban. Stop it.

Let me rephrase. I’m glad life doesn’t work like that!

Thanks

bob mcbob

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So your point is that if someone acts appallingly they should be processed as a criminal, charged with sexual assault and run through a public trial for the world to see. Then, when they’re found not guilty it’s still their fault.

Wow! Please tell me you’re not a Guard!

In Scotland the police investigate crimes and law officers decide if there is enough evidence to go to court. That's the way the system works except according to Alex Salmond because in his case there was a high level conspiracy across civil service, police, law officers and politicians to bring him down.

You either believe in the system and it was felt that there was enough evidence to take it to trial or you believe Salmond. I know where I stand on this.

HalfAndHalf

bob mcbob wrote: »

In Scotland the police investigate crimes and law officers decide if there is enough evidence to go to court. That's the way the system works except according to Alex Salmond because in his case there was a high level conspiracy across civil service, police, law officers and politicians to bring him down.

You either believe in the system and it was felt that there was enough evidence to take it to trial or you believe Salmond. I know where I stand on this.

My posts clearly show I believe in the system. My issue is with this attitude that he was found not guilty, but sure the benchmark to convict is high so if it was a civil case then he’s guilty.

What next, a civil courts benchmark is too high so we’ll take it to the kangaroo court.

Let’s do away with the courts and try people by opinion instead. Ridiculous.

bob mcbob

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

My posts clearly show I believe in the system. My issue is with this attitude that he was found not guilty, but sure the benchmark to convict is high so if it was a civil case then he’s guilty.

What next, a civil courts benchmark is too high so we’ll take it to the kangaroo court.

Let’s do away with the courts and try people by opinion instead. Ridiculous.

Just to be clear on this it is Salmond who has brought this back into the public eye up by his ridiculous accusations. He was taken to trial and found not guilty. This however is not enough for him. He needs to be vindicated and the only way to do this is by accusing the complainants (and Scottish Gov) of some massive conspiracy against him. Pathetic really.

HalfAndHalf

bob mcbob wrote: »

Just to be clear on this it is Salmond who has brought this back into the public eye up by his ridiculous accusations. He was taken to trial and found not guilty. This however is not enough for him. He needs to be vindicated and the only way to do this is by accusing the complainants (and Scottish Gov) of some massive conspiracy against him. Pathetic really.

That isn’t in question, or what is being posted about.

It’s only pathetic if it’s untrue. Which at the moment is not looking the case.

If someone defamed you in this way would you happily accept it?

bob mcbob

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

That isn’t in question, or what is being posted about.

It’s only pathetic if it’s untrue. Which at the moment is not looking the case.

If someone defamed you in this way would you happily accept it?

And the evidence of this is where?

A Dub in Glasgo

Tomorrow will either see the end of Sturgeon or she has vanquished all before her. You know my views on this but the coverup is falling apart and that coverup has damaged the independence cause in Scotland

https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/status/1366827833939656707

Mr.Nice Guy

I've no dog in this fight tbh but I believe Sturgeon would be a huge loss to the independence cause. The Tories tonight are gleeful about this and are holding her to a standard they would never hold for their own party leader. That shows how much they fear her. I'm keen to hear what her side of the story turns out to be. It's going to be fascinating to see what effect this has on the May election.

Kermit.de.frog

Huge loss. She's kinda like their Éamon de Valera figure who everyone follows but no one knows why.

Who would replace her?

A Dub in Glasgo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Huge loss. She's kinda like their Éamon de Valera figure who everyone follows but no one knows why.

Who would replace her?

She is not gone, 8 hours of scrutiny by the committee today and unless James Hamilton finds she broke the Ministerial code, she is safe

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Serious posts only please. A post has been removed.