Independence - how would you vote?

[vikingTON]

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

Feel free to point out the "smear" against "the whistleblower" (source needed for this claim) in my post, thanks.

Otherwise I'll expect a hasty retraction.

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 SNP certainly could, but is under absolutely no obligation to do so. As it stands we're dealing with one person's word against another, the latter filtered through the party. You have already mysteriously judged that Armstrong's statement is "transparent and open", yet there is no good reason to trust his account more than anyone else's. He has no independent verification, no witnesses, no recordings or minutes.

For someone who not so long ago was slating a certain Nicola Sturgeon for failing to recall basic legal principles, you've rather conveniently put to one side the viability of serious allegations made without any supporting evidence.

[xbl]

So, when I said you were lying, you were indeed lying. .

Your point it that, on a subject three posters before me are already discussing, I shouldn't join this discussion?

Are you the thread police now? Should I ask you if you are permitting the topic already being discussed to continue to be discussed?

This hasn't worked out well for you, has it?

I'm just pointing out that you are smearing by association. Although its nice to have confirmation that you do indeed take Reynard's posts seriously. Looks like someone is getting a bit defensive about it!

[vikingTON]

Information they were already in receipt of from Rob Armstrong.

According to... whom?

[H_B]

You have already mysteriously judged that Armstrong's statement is "transparent and open", yet there is no good reason to trust his account more than anyone else's.

Yes there is. He has stated exactly what the meeting was about, and exactly what was discussed in it.

You might have a point if the actual person he had spoken to had gone public with a different version of events. They haven't. So it's not one person's word against another. It's one person's word against an SNP party statement.

If the SNP wish to dispute anything that Rob Armstrong has said in the article, now is the time to do it. Put up or shut up. Armstrong has said what he disclosed to the SNP.

In a statement, an SNP spokesperson said: "Mr Armstrong visited Ms Sturgeon's constituency office in February 2008 and spoke with a member of staff, primarily about a child access issue. As it did not relate to the work of the constituency, the staff member quite properly informed party headquarters of the points made. As we have made clear, we cannot comment further until the process is at an end, which will be when any appeal is lodged and properly discharged. At that time we will make a full statement."

I look forward to seeing what this "full statement" says.

[H_B]

According to... whom?

Rob Armstrong.

[xbl]

So, today's big Unionist Vote NO! story, HB is getting frantic about a former member of the SNP...

[vikingTON]

Yes there is. He has stated exactly what the meeting was about, and exactly what was discussed in it.

How do you know that this is the case?

I'm asking for some very specific evidence that supports Armstrong's version of events. Not conjecture, not you re-wording what he said: evidence. Without that it is impossible to state that he "stated exactly what the meeting was about".

Presumably you missed that seminar of 'Law 101'. Hanging around with your best pal Nicola in the GUU, presumably?

If the SNP wish to dispute anything that Rob Armstrong has said in the article, now is the time to do it. Put up or shut up. Armstrong has said what he disclosed to the SNP.

In a statement, an SNP spokesperson said: "Mr Armstrong visited Ms Sturgeon's constituency office in February 2008 and spoke with a member of staff, primarily about a child access issue. As it did not relate to the work of the constituency, the staff member quite properly informed party headquarters of the points made. As we have made clear, we cannot comment further until the process is at an end, which will be when any appeal is lodged and properly discharged. At that time we will make a full statement."

I look forward to seeing what this "full statement" says.

So you contend that the SNP are not rebutting Armstrong's claims, despite

1) Publishing a statement rebutting Armstrong's claims

2) Promising another statement in relation to Armstrong's claims

Yep: looks like a clear admission of Mr Armstrong's version of events by the SNP! Another stunning own goal!

[vikingTON]

Rob Armstrong.

And... anyone else?

[Ad Lib]

You really are a child, aren't you, xbl? Everything's got to be black and white. Either someone's saying something to support Scottish independence or they're saying something against it. It couldn't possibly be that this is a broad political thread where things not even remotely connected to Scottish independence *cough* your post about Lib Dems, Miranda and the Guardian *cough* are raised and discussed as matters of broad political interest.

I've met light switches with more nuance than you.

[vikingTON]

You really are a child, aren't you, xbl? Everything's got to be black and white. Either someone's saying something to support Scottish independence or they're saying something against it. It couldn't possibly be that this is a broad political thread where things not even remotely connected to Scottish independence *cough* your post about Lib Dems, Miranda and the Guardian *cough* are raised and discussed as matters of broad political interest.

I've met light switches with more nuance than you.

Erm, this is the 'Scottish Independence' thread, champ. If you want to test-drive whichever political perspective you've now latched onto by means of a lengthy dissertation, use the actual general politics thread.

[H_B]

How do you know that this is the case?

I'm asking for some very specific evidence that supports Armstrong's version of events. Not conjecture, not you re-wording what he said: evidence. Without that it is impossible to state that he "stated exactly what the meeting was about".

How exactly do you suggest such "evidence" is possible, of a meeting that wasn't recorded? Other than in Armstrong putting forward exactly what the meeting concerned, and the sNP taking the opportunity to rebut this, which they have singularly failed to do.

As I said, Armstrong has made an allegation - he has detailed exactly what he told the SNP official. If the SNP wish to dispute this version of events - let's hear it.

So far, they have not. In fact, they have admitted that Armstrong's evidence was passed on by the Shettleston official higher up the chain. This is where the SNP fucked up royally.

Clearly their thorough investigation failed to consider the evidence already available from the earlier court cases.

[xbl]

You really are a child, aren't you, xbl? Everything's got to be black and white. Either someone's saying something to support Scottish independence or they're saying something against it. It couldn't possibly be that this is a broad political thread where things not even remotely connected to Scottish independence *cough* your post about Lib Dems, Miranda and the Guardian *cough* are raised and discussed as matters of broad political interest.

I've met light switches with more nuance than you.

Thread title: Independence - How would you vote?

Meanwhile, there is another thread all about general politics, both Scottish and CDU, which political stuff is posted on. And yet, the legal beagles seem to be giving that a wide berth, preferring to smear by association. They are happy to post on it when it isn't focused on attacking supporters of independence. If you could see past your concern trolling, you would see this.

And of course, my post about the Lib Dems was a response to your post. You'll see I raised the issue on the stand alone politics thread. Where it was ignored, because apparently, none of the Glasgow Uni Law Squad see a problem with 9 hours of detention for partners of journalists.

[vikingTON]

How exactly do you suggest such "evidence" is possible, of a meeting that wasn't recorded? Other than in Armstrong putting forward exactly what the meeting concerned, and the sNP taking the opportunity to rebut this, which they have singularly failed to do.

As I said, Armstrong has made an allegation - he has detailed exactly what he told the SNP official. If the SNP wish to dispute this version of events - let's hear it.

So far, they have not.

Three claims that the SNP have not refuted Armstrong's version of events, despite the fact that their single statement on the matter, err, did.

Until that situation changes on either side, the factual basis of Armstrong's account cannot be ascertained. Though don't let logic, reason and a fundamental absence of evidence stop you pre-judging the issue based on your political interests.

[Ad Lib]

Thread title: Independence - How would you vote?

Relevance = Nil

You're not the topic police.

Meanwhile, there is another thread all about general politics, both Scottish and CDU, which political stuff is posted on. And yet, the legal beagles seem to be giving that a wide berth, preferring to smear by association. They are happy to post on it when it isn't focused on attacking supporters of independence. If you could see past your concern trolling, you would see this.

I do post on the other thread. But most people prefer to discuss things political here. So more stuff gets brought up here. Again, you're not the Forum Police.

And of course, my post about the Lib Dems was a response to your post.

Which at that point made absolutely no mention of Miranda whatsoever. Fail for you.

You'll see I raised the issue on the stand alone politics thread. Where it was ignored, because apparently, none of the Glasgow Uni Law Squad see a problem with 9 hours of detention for partners of journalists.

Again with the misrepresentation. He's not just "a partner of a journalist" and indeed who his partner is and what his partner's job is was not the reason he was stopped. He was an individual suspected of being in possession of illegally obtained material with potentially severe national security consequences especially if taken out of the country, the actual content of which could not be established to confirm or rule out that suspicion without efforts taken to decrypt it. He was allowed access to a lawyer (which he refused) and was released within the statutory time-period, which incidentally is shorter than the period of time you can ordinarily be detained without charge in a standard civilian situation. Indeed many people are lawfully detained without charge for much longer under Terrorism-related legislation, for up to 14 days.

[xbl]

As I said last night. Coffin of credibility, meet nail. Remember when you were a Libertarian? Remember when you were a Liberal? Now you're an authoritarian cheerleader.

And the reason that topics of this nature get brought up on here by your fellow Unionists is so that they can smear by association. Something which is obvious to anyone who isn't a concern troll posing as an independence supporter.

[Ad Lib]

As I said last night. Coffin of credibility, meet nail. Remember when you were a Libertarian? Remember when you were a Liberal? Now you're an authoritarian cheerleader.

Being a liberal doesn't mean you're against the police having the right to detain people suspected of being in possession of illegally obtained material prejudicial to national security.

And the reason that topics of this nature get brought up on here by your fellow Unionists is so that they can smear by association. Something which is obvious to anyone who isn't a concern troll posing as an independence supporter.

Your attempt to brand me a Unionist isn't big and it isn't clever. The reason topics of this nature are brought up here is for a whole host of reasons. For some, absolutely, it is because they want to attach embarrassment for "the SNP" or "the Tories" or "Labour" or "the Lib Dems" to the broader credibility of their positions and approaches to the referendum. For others though, it's just because a) no one properly reads the other thread b) it is a disjointed thread that almost exclusively is just a fragmented capybara "morning article" dump and c) many issues of political interest and notoriety just attract their own threads and d) people respond where others post.

[xbl]

It might not be big or clever, but it is accurate.

[Ad Lib]

It might not be big or clever, but it is accurate.

Except for, you know, everything that flows from the meaning of the word.

[vikingTON]

I genuinely forgot those three months pretending to be a Libertarian.

Reynard must be gutted at losing his only mate.

[SlipperyP]

anyone got an update of the 5 reasons to vote no?

Is the Beechgrove Garden still there?