UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: DAVETHOMAS90 on February 28, 2021, 04:44:36 am
-
https://youtu.be/0xzMIqpQ_SQ
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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?
-
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.
-
It’s all a bit James Vl like.
-
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.
-
So it's the Fish People versus the Newts/Lizards?
-
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.
-
What does that make the BBC?
-
An excellent broadcasting corporation.
Not that it's relevant.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :blink:
-
Would you prefer if we all called you Knobhead rather than Dan.
-
Strangely enough yes! At least it would be clear
-
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. :blink:
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?
-
Strangely enough yes! At least it would be clear
It’s easy enough to request a username change if that’s what you prefer?
-
As a man who likes to go incognito, why make yourself the topic of the thread?
-
Christ on a bike
Back on topic the bbc is widely regarded as a broadcaster of propaganda. From before covid to the present day. For fear of putting any non MSM articles up there is this recent interview and article in the express
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1379741/BBC-news-bias-warning-NHS-coronavirus-lockdown-latest-covid-19-vn/amp
-
I know you guys love the guardian
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/bbc-leftwing-bias-non-existent-myth
-
Closer to topic
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18524343.bbc-bias-highlights-need-media-change/
-
And everyone loves RT
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rt.com/uk/516764-alex-salmond-sturgeon-bbc-false/amp/
-
Christ on a bike
Back on topic the bbc is widely regarded as a broadcaster of propaganda.
Isn't the topic the current travails of the SNP leadership? :-\
At least the RT link is tangentially related, even if it isn't actually about it.
-
Christ on a bike
Back on topic the bbc is widely regarded as a broadcaster of propaganda. From before covid to the present day. For fear of putting any non MSM articles up there is this recent interview and article in the express
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1379741/BBC-news-bias-warning-NHS-coronavirus-lockdown-latest-covid-19-vn/amp
Ummm....
Reporter:
This just in!
The BBC is biased, says...
*checks notes...
....
....
*checks notes again.
...
...
*turns notes upside down.
...
...
*Turns to producer.
Reporter:
The Express newspaper? Is this a joke?
Producer:
Yeah, and it’s corroborated by the RT.
And, get this, there’s this bloke that keeps harping on about how unreliable and biased the Guardian is, too, aaanndd he says THEY think the BBC is biased, as well.
*Reporter punches producer and shoves camera where sun don’t shine.
-
Got to feel a bit sorry for the BBC, what with both the left and right wanting to censor it for bias against them.
-
Yes it must be a terribly uncomfortable position for them as they bend over for the ministry of truth.
-
Robin Aitken explains it well here. 10 mins well spent. It seems whatever his experience was at the BBC is mirrored here on ukb.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yiwOguRX560
"It’s time the scales fell from our eyes. We should see the BBC for what it really is: a subtle propaganda machine for a particular view of the world. We should demand that the BBC lives up to its promises – and if it can’t then it should lose the license fee privilege. The BBC’s version of impartiality is a con perpetrated by an arrogant intellectual liberal-left elite. It’s time for change."
-
I haven’t had chance to listen to that thing by Robert Aitkin, but I do know he is known for arguing that the BBC has a left wing bias. The article you posted in the Guardian argues a right wing bias. There does seem to be a bit of a difficulty in maintaining both positions at the same time. I don’t really use the BBC except for a bit of random radio 4 listening in the car sometimes so I have no view except to note the seeming inconsistency.
-
It’s an interesting piece. Left - right division appears to be a thing of the past. The intellectual liberal elite world view, which he talks about so well, is the source of discontent.
I posted the Guardian opinion piece as an example of their standard BS
-
It’s an interesting piece. Left - right division appears to be a thing of the past. The intellectual liberal elite world view, which he talks about so well, is the source of discontent.
I posted the Guardian opinion piece as an example of their standard BS
And this post as an example of your standard BS?
Not sure you grasp the difference between opinion pieces and evidence.
You also seem to be very suggestible and easily swayed, as long as your “sources” are full of colourful rhetoric.
You have also trotted out the old “Liberal Elite” trope, which has to be the greatest straw man of the 21st century.
It’s very weak, Dan, not really evidenced argument.
The simple truth is, the BBC is run and staffed by humans. It shows cant in both directions, simply because it often reflects the personal opinions of the presenter and production staff, even where they try to hide it.
As an example, I’m pretty sure Kuenssberg is a true blue Tory and given her prominence, hardly a mouth piece of the left.
Actually, that’s called balance. Not the best way to get it, perhaps, but humans aren’t great at this.
Did you notice what you did, though, Dan?
Your bias argument (political cant) was immediately shot down with reality, so you shifted your argument to a poorly defined “Liberal Elite” bias (which, apparently, is neither left nor right, but “intellectual”).
Dan, do you actually think that everybody with an education beyond a couple of GCSE’s is some sort of brainwashed, pseudo-intellectual drone?
Dude. Stop.
Edit:
Dan, “he talks about so well”.
Don’t you grasp the difference between “telling a story” and “proving a theory”?
Tolkien puts forward a detailed and convincing case for the existence of Ents, that doesn’t make them real.
And, please can the Mods split this? It’s just another Dan hijack and a long way off topic.
-
If more people believed in ents the world would be a better place. The secret life of trees is a pretty convincing case for Tolkien’s symbolism
-
If more people believed in ents the world would be a better place. The secret life of trees is a pretty convincing case for Tolkien’s symbolism
If more people believed in Ents, I think we would need to take a close look at what had got into the water supply.
-
Back on topic
The topic being Sturgeon or Salmon, or your soapbox based rage against whatever machine you are choosing today?
-
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. :blink:
No, it's because you turn up every month under some daft pseudonym which is as convincing as Baldrick's disguise.
-
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. :blink:
No, it's because you turn up every month under some daft pseudonym which is as convincing as Baldrick's disguise.
To be fair to Baldrick, Dan’s plans are usually less cunning.
-
So, back on topic, Nicola made the whole affair sound perfectly reasonable when she spoke in front of the commitee. Though if it is all so straightforward, there are an awful lot of questions to be asked about her government's actions then and since.There might not have been any ill intent but it does look rather like the Scottish Executive has dragged its heels at every step to cover up absolutely shambolic incompetence.(which the uncharitable might say runs through minor departments such as Health, Education, any dealings with business & industry...)
The Lord Advocate declining to comment on whether not complying with a search warrant could be a criminal offence was also quite special and I'm sure will be quoted by defence lawyers for a long time to come!
-
That seems to be a pretty fair analysis Chris, and if I read your post correctly more or less in line with most of the better informed pundits. The SNP probably weren't engaged in some mass conspiracy mafia hit job against Salmond, but neither have they acquitted themselves perfectly in the investigation. Either way its extremely unlikely to result in Sturgeon losing her leadership, or it derailing the gradual slide towards independence. The way that the opposition parties are all piling in, trying to get her for different reasons is pretty unseemly and seems to make it still more unlikely that they will succeed in getting rid of her.
-
I'm still on the fence over how "active" a role Sturgeon had in this whole debacle. I can see it could be the case that she stayed out of it as much as possible so as to leave it "due process" but a fear that may be being charitable.
I think David Davis has some very strong points in this, especially around the separation of powers. https://youtu.be/DmUBy74A7Tw
-
Wow. Thant's an impressively forensic presentation by Davis.
What stinks most, is the repeated abuse of process - complete disregard for it - to satisfy some sort of political invective.
What price accountability?
Thanks for posting that, Fultonius :thumbsup:
-
I'm not impressed. Davis is a well known friend of the sex pest Salmond and to get that information and release it using Parliamentary privilege probably required some similar breaches of codes to what Salmond is complaining about in the Scottish government.
I agree the process needs to be followed and mistakes must be dealt with, but very few people seem to be focussed on the other side of this case: the awful treatment of some women by a senior politician. The signals from this to me are just as important as dealing with any mistakes in the process the Scottish government used to try and deal with them.
To me the failure of the UK systems to deal with sexual crimes against women is one of the biggest UK scandals of modern times and it's important our political leaders take that very seriously. There is so much distrust in the system that only about 15% of women report sexual violence. Of the rape cases that ARE reported only a few percent lead to prosecution... and prosecutions have dropped again in the latest data.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118
-
I'm not impressed. Davis is a well known friend of the sex pest Salmond and to get that information and release it using Parliamentary privilege probably required some similar breaches of codes to what Salmond is complaining about in the Scottish government.
I agree the process needs to be followed and mistakes must be dealt with, but very few people seem to be focussed on the other side of this case: the awful treatment of some women by a senior politician. The signals from this to me are just as important as dealing with any mistakes in the process the Scottish government used to try and deal with them.
To me the failure of the UK systems to deal with sexual crimes against women is one of the biggest UK scandals of modern times and it's important our political leaders take that very seriously. There is so much distrust in the system that only about 15% of women report sexual violence. Of the rape cases that ARE reported only a few percent lead to prosecution... and prosecutions have dropped again in the latest data.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118
On the latter point, as mentioned on the other thread, this is largely the “fault” of CPS and the Courts, isn’t it?
And, surely, the difficulties arise from the evidential standards required to achieve prosecution. I can’t imagine a prosecutor not pursuing a serious crime, where a realistic prospect of conviction exists, surely?
It must boil down to the difficulty of evidencing any charges preferred and no amount of institutional attitude adjustment is going to change that. So, are we faced with accepting lower standards of evidence in such cases?
A lower threshold for what constitutes an offence?
I’m fully aware, some charging decisions seem inexplicable, on the face of it, but also I understand how complex these things can actually be, below that veneer. Actually, acutely aware and frustrated by it.
Isn’t the alternative a sort of “Witch trials” scenario?
-
I'm not impressed. Davis is a well known friend of the sex pest Salmond and to get that information and release it using Parliamentary privilege probably required some similar breaches of codes to what Salmond is complaining about in the Scottish government.
I agree the process needs to be followed and mistakes must be dealt with, but very few people seem to be focussed on the other side of this case: the awful treatment of some women by a senior politician. The signals from this to me are just as important as dealing with any mistakes in the process the Scottish government used to try and deal with them.
To me the failure of the UK systems to deal with sexual crimes against women is one of the biggest UK scandals of modern times and it's important our political leaders take that very seriously. There is so much distrust in the system that only about 15% of women report sexual violence. Of the rape cases that ARE reported only a few percent lead to prosecution... and prosecutions have dropped again in the latest data.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118
Whether Salmond was, or is a sex pest is neither your right to claim, nor particularly relevent. I think it's undeniable that he crossed professional boundaries, but making up pure fabrications of actual attempted rape to put in him in jail and concocting a bodged policy to try to get him....
Do you really think the Salmond Sturgeon affair is going in increase trust in the system? Do you think an innocent* (proven, in court) man should go to jail to prove a point?
I didn't realise until yesterday, despite having read countless hours worth on this whole affair, that one of the senior civil servants, who was the first and main complainant, was involved in creating the complaints policy even after she had lodged the complaint?
*of criminality, not of inappropriate behaviour which while not conceded, has certainly been alluded to even by his own counsel.
Can we not find a way through this that:
- Doesn't put anyone innocent in jail
- Isn't a politically motivated witch hunt (against either Slamand or Sturgeon)
- Separates powers in Scotland, so that the Lord Advocate is not a member of the government
- Strengthens the policies on abuse
- Reduces potential abuse of power/corruption in Holyrood?
-
I think its a lot worse that you are insulting the women who genuinely believe he attempted rape and the police and public prosecuters professionality in the prosecution; he has admitted enough himself to be regarded as at least a sex pest. I think it's about time sexual predators in powerful positions were dealt with better. Also that women in general get the fair treatment they deserve in the UK when victims of this horrendous crime wave (in the hundreds of thousands of rapes a year alone compared to under a thousand homicides).
Of course this political mess won't increase faith in the system but any mess is better resolved than buried. In my view public safety is even more serious.
I'm not familiar enough about the detail of Scottish law to assess the position of the Lord Advocate but I do know the similar duties are held by the Attourney General in the UK government (who attends cabinet). I certainly won't be taking lessons on this case from David Davis who is a friend of Salmond and who is releasing information he technically shouldn't have under the same alledged complaints his pal is upset about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_officers_of_the_Crown
-
I think its a lot worse that you are insulting the women who genuinely believe he attempted rape...
Your sentiments on the fair treament of women in such cases is admirable and I agree. However, in the Salmond case presumably the 12 people who really matter i.e. the jury, also insulted the claimants? They found him innocent on all counts after all. It is my understanding from the available in-court reporting that the defence on the most serious charge (attempted rape) was that the claimant was not actually there at all on the night in question, for which the defence produced several corroborating eyewitnesses. If that is incorrect I will hold my hands up, but it adds a bit of context - i.e. that charge does not seem to have rested on interpretations of degrees of wrongdoing, or "his word vs her word". The defence was that is was a fabrication. Which for better or worse is what the jury, by implication, must have believed. I suspect that is what Fultonius is referencing.
-
The defence was that is was a fabrication. Which for better or worse is what the jury, by implication, must have believed.
A "not guilty" verdict means that the jury couldn't be sure of guilt. They may have thought he definitely didn't do it, probably didn't do it, or probably did do it. All we know is that they were unsure whether he definitely did it.
-
The defence was that is was a fabrication. Which for better or worse is what the jury, by implication, must have believed.
A "not guilty" verdict means that the jury couldn't be sure of guilt. They may have thought he definitely didn't do it, probably didn't do it, or probably did do it. All we know is that they were unsure whether he definitely did it.
Nope. In the worst case, and as far as I'm aware a few of the other cases, the defence was that the situation did not occur. Concrete eyewitness accounts of the day of the alleged rape, from friends of the complainant, said that she was not there.
There was one case out of the whole lot which was "not proven", in Scotland "not guilty" is stronger than elsewhere, it means the jury believed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it did not occur. "Not proven" also means that no sentence is given, but it's the "on the fence" option, whereby there is maybe a stronger suspicion of guilt, but not enough evidence to convict. That said, it's all very muddy with no legal definition, and both are full acquittals.
I do believe Alex Salmond has questions to answer, and had a retrospective complaints procedure been in place that was competent, legal and fair, he potentially would have been found in breach of whatever guidelines they had.
One man's potential guilt does not excuse the incompetence and flagrant disrespect for due process that occurred.
-
I mistakenly answered assuming the case had been heard in England (or rather omitting to consider that it was heard in Scotland). My mistake. "Not guilty" even in Scotland doesn't mean innocence being proven beyond reasonable doubt, it just means that guilt wasn't proved to that standard. Anything that falls short of being proven beyond reasonable doubt in Scotland could be either "not proven" or "not guilty" - the difference between the two verdicts being vague at best. As in England there is no real concept of "innocence" in the criminal law. The current guidance is that no direction is given to a jury about the difference between the two verdicts, with the strange result that they presumably have no clear idea about the legal difference between the two (if indeed there is one). I agree that the fact that in the Salmond case the jury used both not proven and not guilty verdicts does suggest that they considered "not guilty" as more exculpatory, but based upon the standards of proof there is still the possibility for a person to be not guilty on the criminal standard but liable on the civil standard. That said, I accept that juries are are rarely that sophisticated so the chances are that by "not guilty" they genuinely thought that it was more likely than not that he didn't do it.
Anyway, it's not been a good day for Nicola Sturgeon.
-
I think its a lot worse that you are insulting the women who genuinely believe he attempted rape...
Your sentiments on the fair treament of women in such cases is admirable and I agree. However, in the Salmond case presumably the 12 people who really matter i.e. the jury, also insulted the claimants? They found him innocent on all counts after all. It is my understanding from the available in-court reporting that the defence on the most serious charge (attempted rape) was that the claimant was not actually there at all on the night in question, for which the defence produced several corroborating eyewitnesses. If that is incorrect I will hold my hands up, but it adds a bit of context - i.e. that charge does not seem to have rested on interpretations of degrees of wrongdoing, or "his word vs her word". The defence was that is was a fabrication. Which for better or worse is what the jury, by implication, must have believed. I suspect that is what Fultonius is referencing.
My points on Salmond is that he is a sex pest by his own admission. That should be unacceptable on its own for a political leader. Ru made the points on not guilty simply doesn't mean innocent. I accept what the defence position was but all the jury decision means on all cases was that the prosecution didn't make their cases beyond reasonable doubt. There are lots of other women who have raised concerns about him, but chose not to formalise it, including airport staff. I see it as simply impossible that all the evidence against Salmond was fabricated.
As a general point juries must be making wrong decisions regularly as legal research has exposed many problems and although greater care is made in rape and sexual assault prosecutions, conviction rates are still incredibly low compared to other violent crimes. There is also plenty of research evidence in law that juries need improved training. There are problems with the way victims are treated by the system and by defense lawyers. Defense lawyers not uncommonly talk of fabricated evidence when they know full well such cases are exceedingly rare and that false testimony would be a criminal offence and clear evidence of that would be a reason for an internal investigation of failed policing and prosecution process.
I thought the committee verdict on the news last night was the most likely one (split on union/indepedance lines with the green MSP being the deciding vote); it's so politicised with a May election due I can't see Sturgeon resigning on that decision. The leaks are typical of this investigation and the words on the actual report may not even say Sturgeon knowingly misled Parliament.
I have little 'skin' in the Scottish politics and believe in the Union. I am a feminist, so will tend to believe women who have complained to the police (and where decisions were made on strict process to prosecute) over known sex pests.
-
Whilst I think it's important to know exactly what a jury finding means, I also think that a not guilty verdict should generally be accepted as innocence for practical purposes, albeit accepting there is ambiguity, because there is no other system of proving a greater degree of innocence (you could be sued in a civil trial, but you can't sue yourself to prove a point. Unless you sue for libel when someone accuses you like Johnny Depp did - so far that hasn't panned out that well).
-
My points on Salmond is that he is a sex pest by his own admission. That should be unacceptable on its own for a political leader.
No argument there. Sexual misconduct is unacceptable, just as a political leader misleading parliament is unacceptable..
I thought the committee verdict on the news last night was the most likely one (split on union/indepedance lines with the green MSP being the deciding vote); it's so politicised with a May election due I can't see Sturgeon resigning on that decision. The leaks are typical of this investigation and the words on the actual report may not even say Sturgeon knowingly misled Parliament.
The claim of political bias against Sturgeon works both ways. The 4 SNP's on the committee who voted in favour of Sturgeon were biased towards her. All non-SNP members, not just Tory, found against her. Political bias doesn't hold up as a reason for Sturgeon to dismiss the verdict.. (unless you're biased, then it works as a reason..).
Ru made the points on not guilty simply doesn't mean innocent. I accept what the defence position was but all the jury decision means on all cases was that the prosecution didn't make their cases beyond reasonable doubt. There are lots of other women who have raised concerns about him, but chose not to formalise it, including airport staff. I see it as simply impossible that all the evidence against Salmond was fabricated.
You see it as simply impossible because you're qualified to say after presiding over all the evidence and giving it careful consideration?
Or you see it as simply impossible because, as you admit below, you're biased in favour of believing female accusers over 'known sex pets'?
BTW what is a 'known sex pest' in the eyes of the law? Is it a legal category that affords less legal rights to a human? Or is it just an Offwidth category that counts for nothing in the eyes of the law?
And, wasn't one of the findings of the judicial review that quashed the discredited SNP/government inquiry into Salmond that they 'went fishing' for complainants? When you start fishing, depending where you tread it risks muddying the waters.
There are problems with the way victims are treated by the system and by defense lawyers. Defense lawyers not uncommonly talk of fabricated evidence when they know full well such cases are exceedingly rare and that false testimony would be a criminal offence...
And we wouldn't want people to be wrongly accused of a rare criminal offence, would we..?
Rape or sexual assault for instance. Those would be pretty horrendous things for anyone to be wrongly accused of. Unless you're starting with a legal bias against those 'known sex pests'.
I have little 'skin' in the Scottish politics and believe in the Union. I am a feminist, so will tend to believe women who have complained to the police (and where decisions were made on strict process to prosecute) over known sex pests.
I believe in the equality of women and men, including their equal capacity for honesty and dishonesty.
I'm thankful that you at least will never have the power to do much more than complain about it. Surely any fair legal system needs fewer pious social justice crusaders and more fair objectivity. If women and men have equal capacity for honesty and dishonesty then the law shouldn't work on premises based on gender - that greater weight is given to a female saying something is so than to a male saying it isn't.
-
Ru made the points on not guilty simply doesn't mean innocent. I accept what the defence position was but all the jury decision means on all cases was that the prosecution didn't make their cases beyond reasonable doubt.
I know where you are coming from with this, namely that a lot of rape cases are prosecuted badly/never even get to court, but there is no alternative beyond treating people found not guilty as innocent in practical terms. If I ever end up in court for something and am found not guilty, then I would expect to not have it held against me. Its quite a dangerous precedent to say that not guilty doesn't mean innocent; as Ru says, in every practical sense that is exactly what it means in relation to those specific charges.
-
I get that but I believe all those women, rather than a known sex pest talking of a massive conspiracy. Instead of Sturgeon being praised for a serious attempt to drive supportive policy on behalf of abused women, the mistakes (still mostly alledged) have taken over most of the focus. The whole affair is making the situation with reporting even worse according to some.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/05/salmond-inquiry-having-chilling-effect-on-women-say-experts
-
The claim of political bias against Sturgeon works both ways. The 4 SNP's on the committee who voted in favour of Sturgeon were biased towards her. All non-SNP members, not just Tory, found against her. Political bias doesn't hold up as a reason for Sturgeon to dismiss the verdict.. (unless you're biased, then it works as a reason..).
You see it as simply impossible because you're qualified to say after presiding over all the evidence and giving it careful consideration? Or you see it as simply impossible because, as you admit below, you're biased in favour of believing female accusers over 'known sex pets'?
BTW what is a 'known sex pest' in the eyes of the law? Is it a legal category that affords less legal rights to a human? Or is it just an Offwidth category that counts for nothing in the eyes of the law?
And, wasn't one of the findings of the judicial review that quashed the discredited SNP/government inquiry into Salmond that they 'went fishing' for complainants? When you start fishing, depending where you tread it risks muddying the waters.
And we wouldn't want people to be wrongly accused of a rare criminal offence, would we..?
Rape or sexual assault for instance. Those would be pretty horrendous things for anyone to be wrongly accused of. Unless you're starting with a legal bias against those 'known sex pests'.
I believe in the equality of women and men, including their equal capacity for honesty and dishonesty.
Surely any fair legal system needs fewer pious social justice crusaders and more fair objectivity. If women and men have equal capacity for honesty and dishonesty then the law shouldn't work on premises based on gender - that greater weight is given to a female saying something is so than to a male saying it isn't.
sex pest
nounINFORMAL•BRITISH
a person who sexually harasses or assaults another person.
I'm using Occam's razor on the views of a sex pest on a massive fabricated conspiracy vs quite a large number of women who have reported problems with him. Impossible is maybe a bit emotive but it's highly improbable.
Fishing for complainents as you described it is what happened legally in quite a few prominent cases of powerful people with multiple accusers. It's ensuring those who suffered abuse are not hiding it out of fear. The same requirements as any case apply to any decision to prosecute.
Yep the committee bias works both ways and both sides would claim in similar circumstances the result is meaningless.
I've ignored the tiresome 'ad hom' stuff as my concerns are not about one women versus one man. It's about many women alleging problems with someone in a position of power who admits to be a sex pest. It's also about prosecutions of serious sexual offences being terribly low in the UK. Less than 1% of the women who say they have been raped results in any conviction. There is plenty of legal research presenting real problems in and potential solutions to this shameful situation.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffendingvictimisationandthepaththroughthecriminaljusticesystem/2018-12-13
-
Its quite a dangerous precedent to say that not guilty doesn't mean innocent
The problem I have with this is that I, for one, find it difficult to simultaneously hold as true that a) these women are telling the truth and b) Salmond is innocent. You kind of have to pick a side to settle the cognitive dissonance. I'm with Offwidth in choosing to side with the women.
-
I really feel like this is an unedifying discussion to get involved in, because I agree with you with regard to the problems with conviction rates, but it is logically incoherent to imply, as you do, that Salmond is guilty regardless of being found not guilty. One cant simultaneously say more prosecutions are needed, but when a prosecution fails, continue to repeat the accusations that have failed to pass legal muster surely.
The problem I have with this is that I, for one, find it difficult to simultaneously hold as true that a) these women are telling the truth and b) Salmond is innocent. You kind of have to pick a side to settle the cognitive dissonance. I'm with Offwidth in choosing to side with the women.
Yeah, I don't disagree. I don't know enough to have an opinion on Salmond or the case to be honest; my point was more to say that you or I can believe that he should have been found guilty, but in the eyes of the law he is to all intents and purposes innocent, and that should carry some weight I think? The alternative is to be tried in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law. But its an uncomfortable discussion because my instinct is to believe women who allege sexual assault as well.
-
Offwidth. I've probably missed something so apologies if I have. When did Salmond say he was himself a sex pest?
-
The problem I have with this is that I, for one, find it difficult to simultaneously hold as true that a) these women are telling the truth and b) Salmond is innocent. You kind of have to pick a side to settle the cognitive dissonance. I'm with Offwidth in choosing to side with the women.
Yeah, I don't disagree. I don't know enough to have an opinion on Salmond or the case to be honest; my point was more to say that you or I can believe that he should have been found guilty, but in the eyes of the law he is to all intents and purposes innocent, and that should carry some weight I think?
I'm saying it's almost certainly a fact that Salmond has sexually harassed women when in a position of political power. I'm also saying there is a significant chance from legal research that anyone in such a trial might not be innocent of charges despite a not guilty verdict.
On the second point from Colin I'd reverse the positions:... who thinks all those women are conspiring in lies and he is completely truthful? Given this is partly a case in law it's not 'either or' due to the reasonable doubt test. This is the crux of the political fuss. I see a well meaning process that probably failed in some respect. Salmond claims it's all made up to get him (with a few harmless strokes and cuddles).
-
Offwidth. I've probably missed something so apologies if I have. When did Salmond say he was himself a sex pest?
My label is from the wider evidence. What he admitted to was mostly detailed here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/24/salmond-has-questions-to-answer-about-past-conduct-says-sturgeon
-
Thanks for clarifying.
Easy to be misunderstood.
-
My points on Salmond is that he is a sex pest by his own admission. That should be unacceptable on its own for a political leader.
No argument there. Sexual misconduct is unacceptable, just as a political leader misleading parliament is unacceptable..
I thought the committee verdict on the news last night was the most likely one (split on union/indepedance lines with the green MSP being the deciding vote); it's so politicised with a May election due I can't see Sturgeon resigning on that decision. The leaks are typical of this investigation and the words on the actual report may not even say Sturgeon knowingly misled Parliament.
The claim of political bias against Sturgeon works both ways. The 4 SNP's on the committee who voted in favour of Sturgeon were biased towards her. All non-SNP members, not just Tory, found against her. Political bias doesn't hold up as a reason for Sturgeon to dismiss the verdict.. (unless you're biased, then it works as a reason..).
Ru made the points on not guilty simply doesn't mean innocent. I accept what the defence position was but all the jury decision means on all cases was that the prosecution didn't make their cases beyond reasonable doubt. There are lots of other women who have raised concerns about him, but chose not to formalise it, including airport staff. I see it as simply impossible that all the evidence against Salmond was fabricated.
You see it as simply impossible because you're qualified to say after presiding over all the evidence and giving it careful consideration?
Or you see it as simply impossible because, as you admit below, you're biased in favour of believing female accusers over 'known sex pets'?
BTW what is a 'known sex pest' in the eyes of the law? Is it a legal category that affords less legal rights to a human? Or is it just an Offwidth category that counts for nothing in the eyes of the law?
And, wasn't one of the findings of the judicial review that quashed the discredited SNP/government inquiry into Salmond that they 'went fishing' for complainants? When you start fishing, depending where you tread it risks muddying the waters.
There are problems with the way victims are treated by the system and by defense lawyers. Defense lawyers not uncommonly talk of fabricated evidence when they know full well such cases are exceedingly rare and that false testimony would be a criminal offence...
And we wouldn't want people to be wrongly accused of a rare criminal offence, would we..?
Rape or sexual assault for instance. Those would be pretty horrendous things for anyone to be wrongly accused of. Unless you're starting with a legal bias against those 'known sex pests'.
I have little 'skin' in the Scottish politics and believe in the Union. I am a feminist, so will tend to believe women who have complained to the police (and where decisions were made on strict process to prosecute) over known sex pests.
I believe in the equality of women and men, including their equal capacity for honesty and dishonesty.
I'm thankful that you at least will never have the power to do much more than complain about it. Surely any fair legal system needs fewer pious social justice crusaders and more fair objectivity. If women and men have equal capacity for honesty and dishonesty then the law shouldn't work on premises based on gender - that greater weight is given to a female saying something is so than to a male saying it isn't.
This. As well as others. Nige, Spidermonkey, Plattsy etc.
First, one must give credibility to both sides in any case, and I'm not speaking without experience. It's important that all cases are heard in the right and proper way.
There are two processes. One serves to reinforce whatever prejudices we may hold, and wishfully support for whatever reason or agenda we choose. The second, is about the limit of what we can say and know, however much we might want things to be different.
That's why this enquiry is so important - and how it is conducted. I want to see a political system that increasingly serves fair and reasonable representation, that is more transparent, and invites enquiry at national and local level. I'd like power to be about the level of scrutiny one can bear, even invite, not obfuscate.
-
Except it's a Parliamentary enquiry not an independent one (which might have avoided some of the crazy polarised political bias).
One might even say the same about prosecuting Salmond. Its hard enough as it is to get convictions in such cases, so what were the chances of a fair jury assessment of the facts of the cases once it was politicised by the defence?
-
Except it's a Parliamentary enquiry not an independent one (which might have avoided some of the crazy polarised political bias).
One might even say the same about prosecuting Salmond. Its hard enough as it is to get convictions in such cases, so what were the chances of a fair jury assessment of the facts of the cases once it was politicised by the defence?
Ok. I agree that crimes of this nature are hard to prosecute and have no idea what the answers there are.
However, do you realise it was the Jury that found the verdict, not “ the system”?
Regardless of the nature of the defence, the jury obviously found it compelling or at least, did not find the prosecution evidence compelling. He wasn’t exonerated by technicality.
I detest feeling obliged to defend “him”, but the alternative is to allow witch hunts and pseudo lynchings.
-
I'm saying it's almost certainly a fact that Salmond has sexually harassed women when in a position of political power. I'm also saying there is a significant chance from legal research that anyone in such a trial might not be innocent of charges despite a not guilty verdict.
Is that on a ‘no smoke without fire’ basis? Don’t they do ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in Scotland?
-
It's more that I think the ability to run a fair jury trial for a political leader is doubtful (impossible to avoid bias, which could work either way depending on circumstances). I'd favour using the special circumstances usually reserved for trails of major organised crime leaders.
-
The latest attack blog against Sturgeon, claiming Salmond was a known 'groper' in 2012. I'm not convinced Sturgeon knew early on, from this line of argument, as it would be very dumb to set up a system she must have known would entrap her (on the basis of when she first knew about it and what she did about it) as well as Salmond. Some in the SNP clearly knew though and I buy that that would not have gone down well prior to the referendum (an incentive to cover-up). I look forward to the days when leading politicians who are known sex pests are dealt with promptly following process.
http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-most-ignorant-woman-in-scotland.html?m=1
-
Does the launching of Salmond's ALBA party play right into the hands of Tories? Based on the FPTP, splitting the SNP majority in a few constituencies will do the Conservatives a favour won't it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56555096
-
Not quite sure what you mean Chris?
Alba should have no impact on the constituency vote (unless people shy away from voting SNP due to seeming division or whatever other reason).
On the list vote, SNP gain very little due to the d'hondt system penalising them for doing well in the constituency.
The tories mainly got in on the list last time, so I can't see them either gaining in the constituency, or the list.
Voting SNP 1&2 is just willful wasting of list votes.
-
Alba should have no impact on the constituency vote (unless people shy away from voting SNP due to seeming division or whatever other reason).
This, in a general election.
-
I'm not sure about that logic. Alba are supporting SNP and encouraging people to vote SNP in the constituency vote.
In my opinion, the SNP have been a bit too long in power with a bit too little genuine opposition. The whole Salmond Sturgeon affair has been a shit show, but I think Scotland came come out the other side better off because of it.
Stu Campbell is an arse, but he's usually got a good point when it comes to polls & election predictions.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/panic-attacks/
Having a quick glance through the constituency results, I would think there is far more to be gained on the list side, than is likely to be lost on the consistency side.
Salmond may* be a sleazy prick, but he's pretty astute and dead focussed on independence, so I doubt he'd have jumped in unless he thinks it is likely to work.
*or may not, depending on who you chose to believe
-
The whole Salmond Sturgeon affair has been a shit show, but I think Scotland came come out the other side better off because of it.
I held off writing this after Salmond announced his Alba party to see what effect that might have, but I really can't see how anything has changed for the better.
Sturgeon was exonerated by the Hamilton inquiry with the ringing endorsement that "it's not impossible she was telling the truth". At the same time Hamilton insisted on publishing a memo alongside his report complaining that it had been redacted to the point of being misleading. The MSP committee that found that the parliament was mislead, among many other failings, has been kicked into the long grass, being partly sunk by the Scottish Tories badly judged and hopeless motion of no confidence that they could never win. Some on here dismissed the report as partisan, as the block of 4 SNP members voted against the conclusions while the Labour, Tory and Green members voted for it. It should be noted that the Green party has been in an unofficial coalition to support the SNP and was bidding to formalize it and have ministerial representation after the next election, so for their member to vote to condemn the SNP and executive must have been pretty damning.
The head of the Scottish Civil Service was condemned by the inquiry for creating and overseeing the whole flawed process, yet has Sturgeon's confidence and remains in post with no sanction. The inquiry exposed a culture of secrecy, obfuscation, covering up and turning a blind eye within the SNP, Executive and Scottish Civil Service to an astonishing degree. The Lord Advocate feels able to threaten MSPs on the committee with contempt of court, while declining to comment on or take action over whether an office in the Scottish government not obeying a search warrant might be committing an offence. His office feels free to act as censors, threatening prosecution and fines over publication of Salmond's evidence, which had already been cleared for publication following the court action by the Spectator. This has been criticised by a large group of lawyers and other legal types from within the Scottish establishment.
Outside this, the SNP has, for the last 14 years overseen the decline of the NHS and education systems, failure of, for example their drug policy resulting in by far the highest proportion of drug-related deaths in Europe, and an increase in child poverty. The difference in education achievement between rich and poor, which is suddenly such a focus, was a priority that Nicola said she should be judged on at the last election, yet the level is barely changed since the SNP came to power, after improving markedly under the previous Labour administration. Since Alex Salmond handed over to Nicola, support for business has been limited to a few spectacularly ill-judged high profile interventions, which have then typically been starved of the funding needed to make a success and cost the Scottish taxpayer tens of millions in redundancies or other costs.
On top of all this, you can bring the personal behaviour and attitudes of the SNP ministers into the mix - the Scottish Civil Service has a level of complaints of bullying from ministers that is higher than in all the other national parliaments and assemblies combined, and there has been a steady drip feed of resignations within Holyrood and Westminster that shows a pattern of poor judgement at best, Derek Mackay being possibly the highest profile recently. Given Blackford's campaign against Charles Kennedy shortly before his unfortunate death, there is a very strong justification to give the SNP the Tories' old moniker of the Nasty Party.
Yet despite all this, the SNP are on course for a possible majority, in an electoral system designed to make it difficult for any one party to achieve a majority. Nothing will change, the same characters will continue in power, and Scotland will probably have another vote on whether to start an independence process that, if Scotland rejoins the EU, will result in a hard border with England.
Is this really better?
(Sorry for the rant...)
-
Why do you think the SNP has such strong support if their performance is poor? (Asking from an English perspective where the same could be said of the Tories.)
Do you think, as some suggest, that Boris is their best recruiter?
-
Why do you think the SNP has such strong support if their performance is poor? (Asking from an English perspective where the same could be said of the Tories.)
Do you think, as some suggest, that Boris is their best recruiter?
I could venture a guess, also from an English perspective, it boils down to one word, independence.
The SNP have very effectively made their campaign for independence a proxy fix for everything that many Scots are dissatisfied with in their country and lives. The Brexit campaign essentially did the same thing, to make a political / idealogical campaign which was initially a niche interest for a few into something that seems to enough people will change things.
I have no set opinion on whether this is truer in Scotland or not, or really how I feel about the whole thing. It just strikes me that Sturgeon is very good at presentation. It helps her that no-one is presenting any positive case for the union, mostly just dire warnings about economy, borders and currency, which is more or less how the remain campaign rolled, and look how that went.
-
Nicola Sturgeon is an excellent communicator, though she along with PHS have been picked up by the Office for Statistics Regulation (Scottish ONS) for quoting downright false numbers a couple of times over the last year (for example last summer claiming that the virus level was 5x higher in England than Scotland). The SNP are also in the wonderful position of being in power without responsibility - anything bad is blamed on Westminster 'not giving us what we need'. Conversely, anything good coming from Westminster seems to be attributed to Holyrood - for example there were polls last year suggesting a majority of Scots believed the furlough scheme was devised and funded from within Scotland.
And all she really has to do is not be Boris...
-
And all she really has to do is not be Boris...
Sadly this. Scottish Labour hold no power so tactically holding your nose and voting SNP is the best thing to do to keep Tories at bay.
Sadly not enough for us locally, we are lumped in with the Deeside wealthy, so we are stuck with that twat Bowie again.