Colkitto Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Why would this be incredible? Because it's got f**k all to do with her! All this is turning into a smear campaign and designed to keep the story going by headlining Sturgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Because it's got f**k all to do with her! All this is turning into a smear campaign and designed to keep the story going by headlining Sturgeon. Ah so this is the classic claim that quoting a high profile person's words in relation to a story in respect of which they were asked for comment constitutes a "smear". Nicola Sturgeon was asked, in light of the allegations made against an elected representative of the party she is the leader of, whether she had any knowledge of the matter. She stated that she had no knowledge. The newspapers have reported that Nicola Sturgeon said that. This is called "news reporting". ETA: The fact that Sturgeon appears to have been unaware of Michelle Thomson's property dealings also suggests that Thomson may not have disclosed aspects of these business activities, including the possible Law Society investigation into her solicitor in relation to the transactions, during the selection process to become an SNP candidate. This is a legitimate piece of news concerning her conduct and is not a smear on Sturgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I have to say, I find it a little bit amusing that Nicola is (I assume truthfully) basically parroting the same line as Alistair Carmichael did when asked if he knew about the memo leak: "first I knew about it was in the papers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I have to say, I find it a little bit amusing that Nicola is (I assume truthfully) basically parroting the same line as Alistair Carmichael did when asked if he knew about the memo leak: "first I knew about it was in the papers". There's a very obvious difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 There's a very obvious difference. ... I know. I meant on a purely superficial level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troptimus Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 ETA: The fact that Sturgeon appears to have been unaware of Michelle Thomson's property dealings also suggests that Thomson may not have disclosed aspects of these business activities, including the possible Law Society investigation into her solicitor in relation to the transactions, during the selection process to become an SNP candidate. This is a legitimate piece of news concerning her conduct and is not a smear on Sturgeon. Can I ask about the screening process to stand as a candidate in the General Election? How much scrutiny is involved? Is it merely done on the word of the potential candidate or are background checks carried out in collaboration with the appropriate bodies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Can I ask about the screening process to stand as a candidate in the General Election? How much scrutiny is involved? Is it merely done on the word of the potential candidate or are background checks carried out in collaboration with the appropriate bodies? although what Michelle Thompson's done isnt illegal so not likely to show up on background checks, its embarrassing and hypocritical, therefore damaging to the SNP so I'm sure they'd ask questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The candidate is responsible for any declarations that they make. Their candidacy will then have to be endorsed by other people in the party who are either elected members or office bearers but in practice it will simply be a case that they have known them and the work they have done for the party rather than anything about their personal life. A political party , even one as super huge and great as the SNP, simply doesnt have the resources to run background checks on candidates. As sparky says, if it is dodgy as aopposed to illegal behaiour, and it is not declared, there is not much HQ can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troptimus Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Also, what are the rules surrounding MPs employing family members? Unlike members of the European parliament, who are banned from hiring their spouses or other relations, MPs are still allowed to employ people close to them. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/29/mps-continue-hire-relatives-as-staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Do we all agree that it seems odd that she would be selected with this in her past? I've heard of SNP candidates being rejected for less. quite concerned that someone who had been suspended by the law society would get through vetting to be honest as it seems likely to cause embarrassment once the press get hold of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Can I ask about the screening process to stand as a candidate in the General Election? How much scrutiny is involved? Is it merely done on the word of the potential candidate or are background checks carried out in collaboration with the appropriate bodies? I can't speak for the SNP but as an indication, the Lib Dem process involves filling in various forms and making declarations about conflicts of interest and the like, followed by a mandatory assessment day to check for basic competences. For contested selections you then have to satisfy the local party that any conflicts of interest or relevant business interests arising thereafter are promptly disclosed, failing which the local party can deselect you after their ballot. A lot of the process is incumbent on candidate disclosure because political parties simply don't have the resources, except perhaps for high profile seats, to vet candidates to the N-th degree. They couldn't have the kind of scrutiny and disclosure requirements of say US Presidential candidates even if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Do we all agree that it seems odd that she would be selected with this in her past? I've heard of SNP candidates being rejected for less. quite concerned that someone who had been suspended by the law society would get through vetting to be honest as it seems likely to cause embarrassment once the press get hold of the story. *She* wasn't suspended by the law society. The solicitor acting on her behalf in a number of property deals was. The pattern of conduct of the deals created unusual activity that he was duty-bound to report for the purposes of surveillance against mortgage fraud. It's not yet clear whether any mortgage fraud did in fact occur, or if Ms Thomson was a complicit party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I can't speak for the SNP but as an indication, the Lib Dem process involves filling in various forms and making declarations about conflicts of interest and the like, followed by a mandatory assessment day to check for basic competences. For contested selections you then have to satisfy the local party that any conflicts of interest or relevant business interests arising thereafter are promptly disclosed, failing which the local party can deselect you after their ballot. A lot of the process is incumbent on candidate disclosure because political parties simply don't have the resources, except perhaps for high profile seats, to vet candidates to the N-th degree. They couldn't have the kind of scrutiny and disclosure requirements of say US Presidential candidates even if they wanted to. These days the possession of a pulse would probably be enough for the Lib Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Unlike members of the European parliament, who are banned from hiring their spouses or other relations, MPs are still allowed to employ people close to them. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/29/mps-continue-hire-relatives-as-staff "Four were new Scottish National party MPs, including Paul Monaghan, MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, employing his brother as a communications manager, and Corri Wilson, MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, employing her son as a caseworker." There's two others as of August. Neil Gray employs his brother in law on a £38K salary. The other escapes me at the moment. It would have been 7, but Angus Robertson appears to have split with his wife, so she's no longer in his employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I have to say, I find it a little bit amusing that Nicola is (I assume truthfully) basically parroting the same line as Alistair Carmichael did when asked if he knew about the memo leak: "first I knew about it was in the papers". While Alistair was actually lying (as we all KNOW truthfully...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I can't speak for the SNP but as an indication, the Lib Dem process involves filling in various forms and making declarations about conflicts of interest and the like, followed by a mandatory assessment day to check for basic competences. For contested selections you then have to satisfy the local party that any conflicts of interest or relevant business interests arising thereafter are promptly disclosed, failing which the local party can deselect you after their ballot. A lot of the process is incumbent on candidate disclosure because political parties simply don't have the resources, except perhaps for high profile seats, to vet candidates to the N-th degree. They couldn't have the kind of scrutiny and disclosure requirements of say US Presidential candidates even if they wanted to. It's pretty much the same. If it's a local candidate standing, you tend to find that folk in the branch will know them, their history and anything dodgy they have gotten up to so any embarrassing stuff will get flagged up to HQ pronto - then usually the branch doesn't select them anyway if they have a history. I've never agreed with folk being parachuted in from other areas to stand and folk getting selected with hee haw service to the party, which is happening just now. A lot of 'if yer face fits' going on just now and I'm extremely uncomfortable with it. But then again, what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Ah so this is the classic claim that quoting a high profile person's words in relation to a story in respect of which they were asked for comment constitutes a "smear". Nicola Sturgeon was asked, in light of the allegations made against an elected representative of the party she is the leader of, whether she had any knowledge of the matter. She stated that she had no knowledge. The newspapers have reported that Nicola Sturgeon said that. This is called "news reporting". ETA: The fact that Sturgeon appears to have been unaware of Michelle Thomson's property dealings also suggests that Thomson may not have disclosed aspects of these business activities, including the possible Law Society investigation into her solicitor in relation to the transactions, during the selection process to become an SNP candidate. This is a legitimate piece of news concerning her conduct and is not a smear on Sturgeon. It's not exactly headline news, well not in my world anyway. The Unionist press were desperate to find an angle to get this story into the public gaze and headline it. So they asked Sturgeon a question about it and she says I didn't know anything about till I read it in the Sunday Times - BINGO! Brian Taylor on the BBC couldn't offer anything new from the news story he broke last night, but somehow tonight it's headline. Then Jabba Baillie makes an appearance saying questions need to be asked to make sure our MP's & MSP's are held to the highest standards. Funnily enough I can't remember making any comments regards self confessed liar Carmichael! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 It's not exactly headline news, well not in my world anyway. The Unionist press were desperate to find an angle to get this story into the public gaze and headline it. So they asked Sturgeon a question about it and she says I didn't know anything about till I read it in the Sunday Times - BINGO! Brian Taylor on the BBC couldn't offer anything new from the news story he broke last night, but somehow tonight it's headline. Then Jabba Baillie makes an appearance saying questions need to be asked to make sure our MP's & MSP's are held to the highest standards. Funnily enough I can't remember making any comments regards self confessed liar Carmichael! a bit disingenuous given that if it was a labour politician you'd be all over it like a tramp on chips. If the SNP didn t brand themselves as representing a new kind of politics, they wouldnt look as ridiculous, but as fide says, they have to be squeaky clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houston_bud Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 a bit disingenuous given that if it was a labour politician you'd be all over it like a tramp on chips. If the SNP didn t brand themselves as representing a new kind of politics, they wouldnt look as ridiculous, but as fide says, they have to be squeaky clean. Exactly. Imagine the furore if this had been Mundell, Murray, or Carmichael who had been accused of this. I noticed this morning, there was zero mention of this on the National's website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 If she is guilty of fraud then she committed some of it before she was an MP and, if I'm not mistaken, before she was even politically active. If she's done what's being accused then she knows what she's done it's an active crime. If you've done this then why expose yourself by standing for office? If I'd committed a load of fraud I would avoid any unnecessary scrutiny. It's very odd, why do people do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.