[DAVETHOMAS90]

I'm not going to vocalise my own prejudice too much, but I'm trying to think of a metaphor - perhaps the way a bidon gets discarded, no longer required, in the final kilometre of a bike race to the summit - only a little more "constructive".

Just wondering how others might be reading this.

[TobyD]

 I find it very difficult to believe Salmond, his alleged mass conspiracy of the chief prosecutor, SNP, and whole government against him seems very unlikely. He took a job with RT, effectively the Russian state broadcaster.
However I wonder about organisations with several members of the same household at the top of them.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Toby, are you saying you don't believe Salmond, because he took up a role with RT? I don't think I'd use that as the basis of discrediting anyone's claims.

I think it's interesting with situations like this.
The idea of "conspiracy" can seem a bit far fetched on the face of it, but it doesn't take a lot to set in place certain wheels of motion, to allow things to be said and develop, to get someone out of the way. It can be a little bit like letting a boulder just tip over, and roll down the hill.

Having watched Sturgeon's husband, I don't believe his presentations, denying the nature of previous "meetings", and neither do I believe Sturgeon, about her claiming to have "fotgotten".

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

[chris j]

Been following this for a while now, something stinks.

The Executive has been downright obstructive (after promising the inquiry would have anything it asked for), to the point of disregarding two votes from the Parliament directly instructing them to hand over documents regarding the legal advice received on whether to proceed with the subsequently found to be biased investigation (that cost Scottish taxpayers half a million quid in paying Salmond's legal costs alone).

The performance of the head of the Civil Service (married to an SNP activist) last year in front of the committee was laughable for the amount of 'I have no recollection of that' type answers. If her memory is really that bad she'd struggle to run anything, let alone the Civil Service. The amount of times evidence from executive and civil service submissions has been 'corrected' after they've been caught out is just unreal. And then there's Nicola 'that was an SNP meeting so I didn't have to keep records or tell anyone' vs her husband Peter 'I don't have Whatsapp' Murrell, the chief executive of the SNP 'the meeting was definitely govt business as I knew nothing about it and wasn't even home and definitely didn't discuss it with Nicola afterwards'...

That the policy for investigations was apparently rewritten specifically to apply to the First Minister in the brief period between when the first complainant surfaced and when the complaint was officially made is fishy in itself.

Finally Alec's written evidence is submitted (the Spectator went to court to get a judicial decision that there would be no legal difficulty with this) and the Prosecutor's office leaps in to redact it to the point of irrelevance (we've thought deeply about this and we are completely impartial they say...). Never mind the conflict of interest and that they also provided the still undisclosed legal advice regarding the chance of success of the original prosecution.

Let's just say that whether there is anything to hide or not, Nicola's office and now the prosecutor's office couldn't have done a better job of making themselves look fishy with their twisting and turning to avoid giving a straight account of events. There may well be no conspiracy but there needs to be a much more effective system of checks and balances, separation of the Executive to avoid the even the appearance of politically motivated prosecution, and a greater ability of parliamentary committees to call the executive to account.

If this was happening in Westminster you can imagine what the outcry would be in the national media, but this has been simmering on for months barely gaining traction in Scotland while Nicola and the SNP's ratings have continued to rise (no political benefit of course from Nicola's daily party political broadcast (sorry I mean Covid briefing) provided gratis by the BBC). At worst I would say the head of the Civil Service and Peter Murrell will be lined up for the chop but Nicola willl brazen it out and carry on regardless.

[Fultonius]

What Chris & Dave said ^^.

I feel Sturgeon has got herself seriously caught in a mire, whereby there potentially were some genuine (actually, it doesn't even matter if they are genuine, as long as they were credible) complaints, presided over the process of implementing horrendous policy that was ill thought out, illegal, and by all intents and purposes only enacted for one thing - to get Salmond.

Then she probably wanted (speculating here) to step back and let "due process" take over and not be seen to interfere. Salmond has a very good point though, that not intervening to prevent a potentially illegal policy to be enacted is also a breach of ministerial code.

The problem with picking a fight with Salmond, is that you need to be very, very right, or very, very good at arguing otherwise he'll nail you.

I can't see her coming out this without either being forced to go, or being seriously tarnished and bringing down the reputation of Holyrood and the SNP (Sturgeon is not the SNP, but just present leader of the SNP.).

I see Gove circling over like a vulture, ready to pounce on the carcass of Holyrood and, if not shut it down, try to hobble it. He can fuck right off.

[chris j]

(Sturgeon is not the SNP, but just present leader of the SNP.).

True, but since the finance chap resigned last year 3 weeks before his budget over the teenage boy/hundreds of dodgy text messages mishap (did you know he's hanging on in till the next election, presumably for the pay-off if it's similar to Westminster, claiming expenses for accommodation in Edinburgh and making zero parliamentary contributions), there really isn't anyone credible or well known to follow Nicola on her side of the party, is there?

[chris j]

I feel Sturgeon has got herself seriously caught in a mire, whereby there potentially were some genuine (actually, it doesn't even matter if they are genuine, as long as they were credible) complaints, presided over the process of implementing horrendous policy that was ill thought out, illegal, and by all intents and purposes only enacted for one thing - to get Salmond.

Given Salmond's own lawyer was quoted after the trial saying something along the lines of 'my client may be a sleazebag but he's done nothing illegal' you have to feel for the women involved and how they have been treated through the whole affair, especially with how the subsequent inquiries have dragged on.

[webbo]

It’s all a bit James Vl like.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Great points Chris, and I'd tend to agree, but interesting other views too. I think it's why, at this stage, a more measured emphasis on the Ministerial Code is so important.

Been following this for a while now, something stinks.

Let's just say that whether there is anything to hide or not, Nicola's office and now the prosecutor's office couldn't have done a better job of making themselves look fishy with their twisting and turning to avoid giving a straight account of events. There may well be no conspiracy but there needs to be a much more effective system of checks and balances, separation of the Executive to avoid the even the appearance of politically motivated prosecution, and a greater ability of parliamentary committees to call the executive to account.

This.

We all have our biases, interpretations and opinions, prejudices we'd like to maintain. "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" is not good policy.

I think the word "conspiracy" can imply something overarching, and indeed, the word itself could be seen to discredit itself in that sense. However, the motivation to conspire against, will mean that any small act made or hindered in that way should not be measured or investigated on the basis of the existence of a conspiracy in and of itself, but the impact and consequences.

[lagerstarfish]

 So it's the Fish People versus the Newts/Lizards?

[TobyD]

Toby, are you saying you don't believe Salmond, because he took up a role with RT? I don't think I'd use that as the basis of discrediting anyone's claims.

I would.  It is a loudspeaker for Putin propaganda and little else.  If I were a politician in the UK I wouldn't go near it. However,  I'm certainly not saying that I think that Sturgeon's behaviour has been great either. 

[Loos3-tools]

What does that make the BBC?

[TobyD]

An excellent broadcasting corporation.

Not that it's relevant.

[Fultonius]

I can't see Sturgeon seeing out the week. Vote of no confidence, mounting documentary corroborated evidence of breaches, deputy FM releasing the legal advice.

Let's see what happens tomorrow!

[Loos3-tools]

An excellent broadcasting corporation.

Not that it's relevant.

Chortle, you crack me up, the BBC is good at turning your brain to custard. Although radio 3 is great as long as you turn the volume down when the news comes on. Back on topic Salmond does look pretty dodgy. Interesting he took a job with RT. I see Nick Clegg has become some sort of international jizz monkey at Facebook. Ha. Zuckerberg is a guy you can trust for sure. Never mind non can compete with the Blair creature. Thank goodness for Starmer, a cross between a toad and a worm, only 1000 days to grow a backbone. I say sturgeon for U.K. presidente

[TobyD]

An excellent broadcasting corporation.

Not that it's relevant.

Chortle, you crack me up, the BBC is good at turning your brain to custard. Although radio 3 is great as long as you turn the volume down when the news comes on. Back on topic Salmond does look pretty dodgy. Interesting he took a job with RT. I see Nick Clegg has become some sort of international jizz monkey at Facebook. Ha. Zuckerberg is a guy you can trust for sure. Never mind non can compete with the Blair creature. Thank goodness for Starmer, a cross between a toad and a worm, only 1000 days to grow a backbone. I say sturgeon for U.K. presidente

It's remarkable that in quite a few words, you say absolutely nothing that really makes sense. 

[Oldmanmatt]

An excellent broadcasting corporation.

Not that it's relevant.

Chortle, you crack me up, the BBC is good at turning your brain to custard. Although radio 3 is great as long as you turn the volume down when the news comes on. Back on topic Salmond does look pretty dodgy. Interesting he took a job with RT. I see Nick Clegg has become some sort of international jizz monkey at Facebook. Ha. Zuckerberg is a guy you can trust for sure. Never mind non can compete with the Blair creature. Thank goodness for Starmer, a cross between a toad and a worm, only 1000 days to grow a backbone. I say sturgeon for U.K. presidente

If this is the case, do you, Dan, sit glued to BBC News 24, 24/7?

Asking for a friend.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Toby, are you saying you don't believe Salmond, because he took up a role with RT? I don't think I'd use that as the basis of discrediting anyone's claims.

I would.  It is a loudspeaker for Putin propaganda and little else.  If I were a politician in the UK I wouldn't go near it. However,  I'm certainly not saying that I think that Sturgeon's behaviour has been great either.

Hi Toby.

I think I'd tend to look at it more on the basis that a lot of those in politics just not being particularly scrupulous about the positions they accept - i.e. they'll just use their previous position, potential perceived influence maybe (?), to secure a good pay cheque. In other words, Salmond accepting a post with RT, having little to do with the way it operates.

Maybe in that way, your view, and that of Loos, aren't that different.

Except for the Beeb being an excellent broadcasting operation - I don't agree 

Your earlier point though, is important, and agreed. So there are two cases here which weren't properly heard.

Self-interest in politics....
Next week will be interesting.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

It goes without saying - I'd hope - that the most important thing with any case or enquiry, is to ensure that everything is brought out into the open - to absolutely invite any enquiry.

Where there is an unwillingness to do that, or to obstruct that process, people generally have something to protect.

As an aside, we have the political opportunism of attempting to buy Scottish independence off the table, with the recent Scottish funding boost.

[Loos3-tools]

An excellent broadcasting corporation.

Not that it's relevant.

Chortle, you crack me up, the BBC is good at turning your brain to custard. Although radio 3 is great as long as you turn the volume down when the news comes on. Back on topic Salmond does look pretty dodgy. Interesting he took a job with RT. I see Nick Clegg has become some sort of international jizz monkey at Facebook. Ha. Zuckerberg is a guy you can trust for sure. Never mind non can compete with the Blair creature. Thank goodness for Starmer, a cross between a toad and a worm, only 1000 days to grow a backbone. I say sturgeon for U.K. presidente

It's remarkable that in quite a few words, you say absolutely nothing that really makes sense.

😂 I try my best. Sure RT is good for a laugh exposing some of the lies and double standards of the west to its own ends. And who can blame them eh. The beeb is a propaganda tool of the U.K. government and its wealthy cronies and ultimately tedious to boot.

[Loos3-tools]

Ps I find it a bit weird that everyone keeps using my name. Not because I’m concerned about it from a privacy perspective, it just seems like a unified ukb belittling tactic. 

[webbo]

Would you prefer if we all called you Knobhead rather than Dan.

[Loos3-tools]

Strangely enough yes! At least it would be clear

[Oldmanmatt]

Ps I find it a bit weird that everyone keeps using my name. Not because I’m concerned about it from a privacy perspective, it just seems like a unified ukb belittling tactic. 

Pretty sure it’s not.

Most people use their own name or a derivation of such. There are a few with , relatively, well known nicknames and a fairly small number with more obscure handles.

What would you call the tactic of abandoning a profile, coming back under a different moniker, usually trying to pretend it’s not the same person and repeating that process multiple times over a few months?

PS:
What has this got to do with the topic?

[tomtom]

Strangely enough yes! At least it would be clear

It’s easy enough to request a username change if that’s what you prefer?