Thorongil
-
Posts
1,816 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Thorongil
-
-
18 minutes ago, George Cowley said:
To the best of my recollection.
0 -
44 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:
Spot on
I think Sturgeon was asked about it at the inquiry into her government’s handling of the inquiry into Salmond. I can’t recall exactly but again there was no denial.
0 -
7 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
You're the one who asked "how many votes did they get from the Tories electorate?"
We are a representative democracy - the number of votes the Tories gets is irrelevant.
Yeah, that was an error as I have explained.
0 -
13 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:
It's astonishing that up until 6 weeks ago no one uttered a cheep about this common knowledge that had been going on for years.
Everything in the SNP garden was rosy.
It was only rosy according to the Sturgeon cult which rules the SNP. Dissenters were ruthlessly targeted for years, and many did speak out on these issues only to be disregarded as cranks and bad actors.
1 -
29 minutes ago, Thorongil said:
My apologies, all key Labour amendments including amendments around criminality and prisons.
Which party manifesto proposed Self-ID and how many votes did they get from the Tories electorate?
Apologies, this should have said “from the Scottish electorate”.
0 -
15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
Lolwut? Since when did legislation need the agreement of all parties?
It's also very clear in those manifestos or are you, as ever, being deliberately obtuse?
Self ID is not in any of those manifestos. And what are you talking about re “the agreement of all parties”?
0 -
Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:
The only incredible thing is your level of stupidity.
MSPs approved of amendment from Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy which ensuresd that the legislation will have no impact on the Equality Act 2010.
Amendment 145 was also appoved as the base for a wider amendment at Stage Three that created a general review of the Bill and its impacts, and include many of the areas for review proposed by MSPs at Stage Two.
Amendment 141 was also passed - to raise the three month “living in the acquired gender” period to six months if the applicant is aged 16 or 17.
Amendment 133 also passed, which would introduce an aggravator to existing criminal offences if the “circumstances of the offence are proven to be connected to the fact that the person has fraudulently obtained a gender recognition certificate.” This means that if a person was found guilty of a crime that they were enabled to carry out because they had obtained a GRC by fraud, then this can be taken into account when considering sentencing for that offence.
My apologies, all key Labour amendments including amendments around criminality and prisons.
Which party manifesto proposed Self-ID and how many votes did they get from the Tories electorate?
0 -
I don’t see any reference to Self-ID there. Labour even had all of its proposed amendments rejected and still voted for the bill.
quite incredible really.
0 -
3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
It's one explanation why any evidence regards the advice was not known before that point. After Salmond felt he had been shafted by Sturgeon et al he had no reason or lotslty to her to keep that advice secret.
Yes……meaning?
0 -
1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
If it were kicked back to them then HM Government would almost certainly consider the practicalaties as well. In any case we already have legislation in place that has cross-border issues - taxation for one.
As for your second point , we are not governed by polls but by elected representatives - the legislation was supported by MSPs of all parties (91% of Labour MSPs, 100% of Lib Dem MSPs and even 3 Tory MSPs) by a significant majority.
All of whom acted without mandate from the electorate on this issue.
The bill in its final extreme and dangerous form were not in any manifesto. Not even close.
0 -
38 minutes ago, Trogdor said:
Which is precisely why its important to understand that Salmond told him to step down. At which point, it was Sturgeon's judgement that he should continue and her judgement that is at question now.
What's clear to me now is that Sturgeon was a brilliant communicator and she cultivated an image of competence and being above reproach. What's happened subsequently has shown it was exactly that, a construct, her judgement was horrendous and her policy achievements minor but she was a proven election winner. All in all, a bit of an enigma.
Its hard not to feel like it's a big opportunity missed for the cause and all this crap, the constant drip drip drip isn't helping and will take its toll.
I feel for Humza as he's inhereted a shit show. He needs to get on and sort it or it'll finish him too.
I don’t feel for Humza at all. He was in the with the clique and until now has been absolutely loyal to them, refusing to accept any criticism of how the party was run. He’s also a serial liar and a complete incompetent.
2 -
1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
No - I'm saying that after that date Salmond had no obligation to keep quiet regards the advice he was suppose to have given.
And? Your point being?
0 -
20 minutes ago, welshbairn said:
Exactly what I said, I don't see the relevancy. Murrell started off working for Salmond in Buchan and was made CEO under his leadership of the party, he must have rated and trusted him.
The relevance of what?
0 -
5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
Let's see - what happened on 29 August 2018?
Again, what are you driving at? Are you suggesting that the date on which this became known has any relevant as to whether it actually occurred?
0 -
Just now, welshbairn said:
In comparison to what's going on now I don't get the relevance of whether or not Salmond said it was a bad idea for Murrell to remain CEO when Sturgeon became leader. It hardly makes him Nostradamus. Her disapproval of him working for RT seems to have riled him more, according to that Courier piece.
Your point being?
0 -
14 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
I looked for ANY evidence prior to 2018 - there was nothing.
This means that it either happened but all parties agreed to keep stum about it until the falling out in 2018 or that there is a different version of events.
I'm just surprised that they managed to keep it quiet for 4 years without any inkling or rumour that the advice had been given. In modern political circles that is highly unusual.
What’s 2018 got to do with it?
0 -
Just now, Trogdor said:
He's certainly becoming more visible, in the last two weeks it's been like a renaissance. He's been on everything, smiling like a cheshire cat as he enjoys the schadenfreude.
Whether that translates to being more electable, I'm not convinced.
His party only has to build a green like level of support on the list and they will hold the balance of power at Holyrood.
0 -
2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
Yes I know - imagine asking for actual facts and not opinions.
I actually looked for this last night and this morning and found nothing prior to 2018.
That's not unreasonable, especially if we are dealing with lying politicians.
As for lying politicians, yes, there’s loads to suggest Sturgeon is a liar.
If you can find any evidence to suggest Salmond is a liar, please do let me know.
0 -
Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:
Yes I know - imagine asking for actual facts and not opinions.
I actually looked for this last night and this morning and found nothing prior to 2018.
That's not unreasonable, especially if we are dealing with lying politicians.
So you DID look around for it and despite a complete absence of any denial or any evidence saying that it didn’t happen, you are choosing to go with “it might not have, it probably didn’t.”
That’s odd.
0 -
15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
And you just prove my point.
Which is?
0 -
1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
As with many of these things (I remember similar with Brown and Blair) it comes down to who to believe. In that case they were a pair of liars so it was difficult to tell who was telling the truth. I personally think neither Sturgeon or Salmond come out looking good with the events of the last 5 years.
Salmond comes out looking far better. Sturgeon’s legacy and reputation is in tatters and history will now be kind. Very few people now believe they didn’t try to fit Salmond up and even the hysterical press seem to have stopped their witch hunt. He’s becoming more electable by the day.
ironically it is only the law which prevents the full truth of what actually happened from being widely known.
0 -
18 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
Gunn wrote his book after Salmond and Sturgeon had fallen out.
Even then it's couched in terms of "I think' and "It may' - it's not actually facts but an opinion of what happened.
Is there anything from before that point by an actual witness?
My God!
0 -
5 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:
The motorhome and villa, dont seem to be out of their means. Id be very surprised if theres any issues related to them benefiting personally. I think this is more about complete inept governance of the finances that potentially crosses the line.
And then the hiding of said f**k ups and the deliberate actions taken to stop other people asking questions. Lying to auditors would also be bad and could cross the threshold to be fraud.
I think some of the magic £600k was spent on hefty salaries for their mates being given jobs in the party to do absolutely no work. Like Sue Ruddick in the COO job which was made up for her and the like of Biagi’s independence task force consultant role.
0 -
6 hours ago, welshbairn said:
There is some evidence that it ever happened then?
Correct.
0
The Gender Debate
in The Politics Forum
Posted
Indeed. It’s like they can’t read.