Independence - how would you vote?

[H_B]

Bolded the key point for the benefit of our woodchopping readership.

Define "surfaced". The allegations surfaced long before then and the SNP did nothing about them.

Salmond even says :-

"Walker was expelled from the SNP in April 2012, and his conviction by a court of law reinforces his expulsion"

In other words, we expelled him before he had been tried of any offence, based on allegation, and now we feel vindicated when a court of law has found him guilty.

So the SNP are happy to take disciplinary action based on allegations unproven in a court of law.

They were made aware of these allegations prior to his election, and went ahead with his candidature anyway. That's why they are being shamed in public over this and why questions are being asked.

[Baxter Parp]

Car crash of an interview from Blair Jenkins there, over something so easily avoidable. His position was that they've done nothing wrong but they won't do it again

Because of the stushie BT cooked up, not because it was in anyway underhand. I'm assuming that Yes Scotland don't have the advantage of stolen or hacked material and don't want to give No Scotland any ammunition whatsoever. If BT make their complaint (egged on by the Unionist parties), Yes will be exonerated and No Scotland will look as petty and childish as they are.

[Baxter Parp]

Well that begs the question. Why did they not go to the Police instead of going to the SNP?

Reynard is a tit, which is why I have him on ignore. Allegations aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. You can't go and discipline someone based on hearsay.

[Baxter Parp]

Define "surfaced". The allegations surfaced long before then and the SNP did nothing about them.

Salmond even says :-

"Walker was expelled from the SNP in April 2012, and his conviction by a court of law reinforces his expulsion"

In other words, we expelled him before he had been tried of any offence, based on allegation, and now we feel vindicated when a court of law has found him guilty.

Based on concrete violations of the vetting process, not allegations. Get it right for once.

[nifty shade of grey]

According to Radio Scotland this morning, Walker's (ex) brother in law told the SNP of his behaviour when he first stood for election. The SNP carried out their own investigations and found no evidence. Who knows what form those investigations took - a phone call? a wee word in Mrs Walker's ear? Police? Whatever, at the time there was no solid evidence. Decades later, witnesses decided to come forward and Walker was immediately booted out of the SNP. None of us were party to any private discussions, so it's H_B's speculation that Walker's expulsion was based purely on allegations. For all we know, Walker admitted it privately.

By way of comparison, how long did it take Labour to persuade Eric Joyce to resign? How long will it take Johann Lamont to comment about the Falkirk debacle that followed? Or, seeing as Reynard mentioned firefighting, what about everyone's favourite pyromaniac Lord Watson? (expelled from the party in 2005, readmitted in 2012, and now a Labour member of the House of Lords).

Predictably the unionist media are all over this, and the £100 expenses "scandal". It's a useful deflection from the real scandal of email hacking.

[xbl]

Ah, so this is today's DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!! Story. Embarrassing.

[xbl]

Its certainly well worthwhile when the convicted wifebeater ws selected to represent a politicial party in spite of them knowing that he liked to cuff women around. I suppose when Shir Shean does it then its OK with the SNP.

Smacking women about doesn't appear to hamper a political career with the SNP.

So, pension figures?

[xbl]

Incidentally, is the new unionist line: "Vote No, because the SNP only excluded an MSP when he was charged with a crime, not before the allegations came to light"?

Really? Is this the new positive case for the union?

[vikingTON]

Define "surfaced". The allegations surfaced long before then and the SNP did nothing about them.

I think you'll find that The Herald, a Unionist paper not favourable to the SNP, has already defined what constituted the 'allegation', as opposed to gossip or rumour.

They were made aware of these allegations prior to his election, and went ahead with his candidature anyway.

Really? The SNP were aware of potential criminal activities committed by a candidate prior to his election? As a Law troll I hope you have quite a stack of evidence for that claim.

[Baxter Parp]

Incidentally, is the new unionist line: "Vote No, because the SNP only excluded an MSP when he was charged with a crime, not before the allegations came to light"?

Really? Is this the new positive case for the union?

Don't forget they paid the expenses of an academic who wrote an article for them and then they had the gall to give it to the Herald for publication.

[H_B]

According to Radio Scotland this morning, Walker's (ex) brother in law told the SNP of his behaviour when he first stood for election. The SNP carried out their own investigations and found no evidence. .

This isn't true.

The evidence was already in the public domain, and included comments in court from two judicial members. Judge dyer called Walker a "bully" and a "tyrant in his own home" Rob Armstrong's evidence was judicial comments and newspaper clippings.

Back in 2012 the Herald noted that :-

"Court documents also show that Walker admitted hitting his teenage former step-daughter over the head with a saucepan, as well as smacking the son of his then girlfriend."

And Walker certainly didn't admit the current charges privately as he vowed after to appeal his expulsion from the SNP. the problem for the SNP here is that they fucked up completely in selecting the violent disgrace.

They were made aware of his background and the allegations of abuse concerning Bill Walker long before they selected him as a candidate. It's a f**k up - but what seems to have happened is that some middle level party apparatchik has decided nothing needs to be done here. I doubt very much that either Salmond or Sturgeon was made aware of the complaints that Rob Armstrong took to the SNP.

This evidence, according to Mr Armstrong :-

"as I read from various documents which included judicial comment she (the SNP official to whom Armstrong was granted audience) realised that there were disturbing aspects that clearly she had been unaware of, and as such so was the SNP. She assured me that the documents and the substance of our discussion would be passed on, I think, to the 'Executive'."

The SNP also lied about that meeting :-

SNP spokesperson :- "Mr Armstrong visited Ms Sturgeon's constituency office in February 2008 and spoke with a member of staff, primarily about a child access issue"

Mr Armstrong :- "It is a totally inaccurate assessment of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was purely about Bill Walker."

[H_B]

I think you'll find that The Herald, a Unionist paper not favourable to the SNP, has already defined what constituted the 'allegation', as opposed to gossip or rumour.

Really? The SNP were aware of potential criminal activities committed by a candidate prior to his election? As a Law troll I hope you have quite a stack of evidence for that claim.

Oops.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/snp-knew-of-msps-violent-past-three-years-before-his-election-to-holyrood.17356156

"I wanted to provide her (Sturgeon) with information about Walker relating to instances of violence towards two women and a teenage girl.

"There were also instances of violence towards a young boy to whom I am related."

[xbl]

Incidentally, is the new unionist line: "Vote No, because the SNP only excluded an MSP when he was charged with a crime, not before the allegations came to light"?

Really? Is this the new positive case for the union?

Can hb confirm that this is a reason to vote union?

[vikingTON]

Oops.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/snp-knew-of-msps-violent-past-three-years-before-his-election-to-holyrood.17356156

"I wanted to provide her (Sturgeon) with information about Walker relating to instances of violence towards two women and a teenage girl.

"There were also instances of violence towards a young boy to whom I am related."

...says Rob Armstrong. Does Rob Armstrong have an independent witness to verify the disussion?

Otherwise it's one person's statement against a party statement.

[Frosty]

Strange that someone would approach a political party with allegations of physical abuse and not the Police?

"He's beating up his wife again, forget the Polis get down to the local SNP office and let Nicola Sturgeon know right away!"

Could it be there was not a scrap of evidence to back up the allegations?

When someone has been knocking multiple wives around over 5 decades I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some pretty clear signals about the type of person Mr Walker was.

Politicians are generally loathesome individuals so nobody is pretending this is just an SNP issue but it will be embarassing to them especially as Shir Sean's neolithic views on women will rightly get trawled out as supporting evidence.

[H_B]

...says Rob Armstrong. Does Rob Armstrong have an independent witness to verify the disussion?

Otherwise it's one person's statement against a party statement.

Ah right.. it's smear the whistleblower time is it? Nice.

Perhaps the SNP can bring forward the party employee responsible for the meeting with Armstrong, so he or she can be questioned about exactly what took place during that meeting and exactly what the nature of the meeting was, along with exactly what was disclosed to them by Rob Armstrong at the time.

That might help clear things up. We have Armstrong's public statement. Transparent and open. The SNP have responded with a party spokesperson on behalf of the employee. Let's hear from the branch member.

[Baxter Parp]

Oops.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/snp-knew-of-msps-violent-past-three-years-before-his-election-to-holyrood.17356156

"I wanted to provide her (Sturgeon) with information about Walker relating to instances of violence towards two women and a teenage girl.

"There were also instances of violence towards a young boy to whom I am related."

You're saying that Walker's brother-in-law handed hard evidence to Sturgeon's assistant? Or did he just say stuff?

[xbl]

Can hb confirm that this is a reason to vote union?

Well?

[Baxter Parp]

Ah right.. it's smear the whistleblower time is it? Nice.

Perhaps the SNP can bring forward the party employee responsible for the meeting with Armstrong, so he or she can be questioned about exactly what took place during that meeting and exactly what the nature of the meeting was, along with exactly what was disclosed to them by Rob Armstrong at the time.

That might help clear things up. We have Armstrong's public statement. Transparent and open. The SNP have responded with a party spokesperson on behalf of the employee. Let's hear from the branch member.

"The matter was considered by a member of staff at SNP headquarters and reasonable enquiries made, but there was no evidence of any complaint in law or legal proceedings into Mr Walker's conduct, and the inquiry was closed."

HTH.

[Colkitto]

When someone has been knocking multiple wives around over 5 decades I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some pretty clear signals about the type of person Mr Walker was.

Politicians are generally loathesome individuals so nobody is pretending this is just an SNP issue but it will be embarassing to them especially as Shir Sean's neolithic views on women will rightly get trawled out as supporting evidence.

Evidence? Facts?

Why on Earth would the SNP knowingly put a violent wife beater up for selection? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.