Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

It's not really that though is it? If Salmond had evidence worth hearing that he could give to the hearing, why not do it before he appeared and before Nicola Sturgeon appeared. What possible reason is there to wait until Sturgeon's finished and then announce you have more? It looks desperate and pathetic.

Go back to the guy I quoted and read the 4 or 5 posts at that time. They're all echoing the same idea that Salmond should just shut up and he's embarrassing himself because the dear leader performed so well. 

There's a multitude of reasons, it can look how it wants but the fact is if you're upset that new evidence could come to light that seems even more pathetic and desperate. If said evidence proved Nicola had lied would you still think it's pathetic and desperate?

[DukDukGoose]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

It's not really that though is it? If Salmond had evidence worth hearing that he could give to the hearing, why not do it before he appeared and before Nicola Sturgeon appeared. What possible reason is there to wait until Sturgeon's finished and then announce you have more? It looks desperate and pathetic.

Aye. Similar to two of my kids having a fight. I ask them what happened. They give me their version but then one of them has something else to add that they didn't feel was worth telling me earlier on.

[GiGi]

Square that position with not wanting another referendum because a new result could come to light etc.

[Gordon EF]

4 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Go back to the guy I quoted and read the 4 or 5 posts at that time. They're all echoing the same idea that Salmond should just shut up and he's embarrassing himself because the dear leader performed so well. 

There's a multitude of reasons, it can look how it wants but the fact is if you're upset that new evidence could come to light that seems even more pathetic and desperate. If said evidence proved Nicola had lied would you still think it's pathetic and desperate?

Well, yeah. Obviously if this evidence is the smoking gun and proves he's been right and she's been lying the whole time, I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong and fair play to Alex Salmond. 

[DukDukGoose]

6 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Go back to the guy I quoted and read the 4 or 5 posts at that time. They're all echoing the same idea that Salmond should just shut up and he's embarrassing himself because the dear leader performed so well. 

There's a multitude of reasons, it can look how it wants but the fact is if you're upset that new evidence could come to light that seems even more pathetic and desperate. If said evidence proved Nicola had lied would you still think it's pathetic and desperate?

New evidence came to light in a couple of days?

3 minutes ago, GiGi said:

Square that position with not wanting another referendum because a new result could come to light etc.

[ayrmad]

14 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

To cut them some slack they did have a UK budget to discuss last night.

 

Correct. 

[SANTAN]

5 minutes ago, GiGi said:

Square that position with not wanting another referendum because a new result could come to light etc.

Referendums and having a time limit on providing evidence for alleged wrong doing isn't quite the A1 comparison you thought..

Large difference between not wanting and not supporting/allowing to.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, ayrmad said:

Correct. 

Which they discussed for 10-12 minutes then moved on to the hearing and then moved on to some pre-recorded bit about poverty that would have been dropped at light speed if the hearing had gone worse for Sturgeon.

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

New evidence came to light in a couple of days?

Evidently so. What if the evidence contradicts what the FM has just said on record? 

It's clearly more orchestrated than some are aware. 

[DukDukGoose]

Just now, Stormzy said:

Evidently so. What if the evidence contradicts what the FM has just said on record? 

It's clearly more orchestrated than some are aware. 

You said similar on Tuesday evening too.

[ayrmad]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Which they discussed for 10-12 minutes then moved on to the hearing and then moved on to some pre-recorded bit about poverty that would have been dropped at light speed if the hearing had gone worse for Sturgeon.

There was no point in raking over her bouts of amnesia, I certainly can't take her assertions about forgetting the Aberdein meeting and what was mentioned, there may well be something that Hamilton has that clears this up in her favour but I certainly don't believe such a forensic mind is so forgetful. 

[SANTAN]

5 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

You said similar on Tuesday evening too.

Quote me then.

I think you're making things up now, if not it should be easy for you to find. 

I've always believed the Salmond camp is orchestrated, it would be pretty mental for them to just freestyle everything, now is this the same as believing every word Salmond says or believing he will be successful or that Sturgeon should resign? 

The answer is no and funnily enough I've never made such claims. I've just sat back and enjoyed stirring the pot. 

[Gordon EF]

Just now, ayrmad said:

There was no point in raking over her bouts of amnesia, I certainly can't take her assertions about forgetting the Aberdein meeting and what was mentioned, there may well be something that Hamilton has that clears this up in her favour but I certainly don't believe such a forensic mind is so forgetful. 

It's one of these ones where it's up to individuals whether they believe this or not. I feel like it's being painted as if she's saying she had this meeting and then immediately forgot what it was about. It's clearly not that. It's that being asked about the events years later she's basically forgotten the exact timeline of events, is it not?

To show how easy it is, in his hearing Alex Salmond was asked at which of two conversations / meetings he was told about the name of one of the complainers and.... he couldn't remember. Now by the same logic, you could say "How could a person not remember such an important piece of information". He didn't forget it. He just forgot the precise circumstances and timeline in which he learned it.

[Guest]

I've just read the Daily Mail's alternate reality take on yesterday's proceedings, apparently NS is banged to rights, all charges (and more) were proven, she was "almost reduced to tears" and is "showing the obvious signs of someone who has been around too long and knows it's time to go".

"Failed those women" and "Failed the country" is another piece along with "her multiple storylines and memory loss"

Over and above that there's a big piece on "excitable cybernat" Humza Yousaf "tweeting" during the enquiry which is seen as outrageous and another bagging offence.

It's probably worth noting that there's no mention of Margaret Mitchells drunken ? / drugged up ? / plot lost ? rants or the constant "tweets", "interviews" and "press conferences" which have been issued by Ross, Davidson, Greene, etc, etc plus their Labour pal Baillie who even worse is on the bloody committee throughout this "inquiry".

Finally, anyone reading that garbage who was unaware would be led to the conclusion that she was banged to rights, smoking guns aplenty and her position was now untenable.

Dear oh dear oh dear...........

[DukDukGoose]

14 minutes ago, Pato said:

c'mon you must know how this stuff works.

Of course. Which is why myself and others would have an issue with it. All evidence should have been presented on Friday.

Unless of course it is new evidence which same to light after Sturgeon spoke yesterday.

[ayrmad]

5 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

It's one of these ones where it's up to individuals whether they believe this or not. I feel like it's being painted as if she's saying she had this meeting and then immediately forgot what it was about. It's clearly not that. It's that being asked about the events years later she's basically forgotten the exact timeline of events, is it not?

To show how easy it is, in his hearing Alex Salmond was asked at which of two conversations / meetings he was told about the name of one of the complainers and.... he couldn't remember. Now by the same logic, you could say "How could a person not remember such an important piece of information". He didn't forget it. He just forgot the precise circumstances and timeline in which he learned it.

But that won't be monumental to him as he'd already know the name of those he was less than gentlemanly towards, she's being told about her friend and idol, that day would live in my memory until dementia kicked in. 

[DukDukGoose]

11 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Quote me then.

I think you're making things up now, if not it should be easy for you to find. 

I've always believed the Salmond camp is orchestrated, it would be pretty mental for them to just freestyle everything, now is this the same as believing every word Salmond says or believing he will be successful or that Sturgeon should resign? 

The answer is no and funnily enough I've never made such claims. I've just sat back and enjoyed stirring the pot. 

Why would I need to quote you saying similar when you go on to admit that's how you've always felt?

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

3 hours ago, HTG said:

Not taking any of this well at all. 

 

She is a fucking cretinous disgusting c**t of a woman.

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, ayrmad said:

But that won't be monumental to him as he'd already know the name of those he was less than gentlemanly towards, she's being told about her friend and idol, that day would live in my memory until dementia kicked in. 

Really?

During one of our lockdown quizzes my mate had a round which was centred on WhatsApp conversations. He went back a couple of years and posted some really wild stuff and we had to guess who had made which comment. Most people couldn't remember their own comment let alone what others had said.

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Really?

During one of our lockdown quizzes my mate had a round which was centred on WhatsApp conversations. He went back a couple of years and posted some really wild stuff and we had to guess who had made which comment. Most people couldn't remember their own comment let alone what others had said.

What does that have to do with her hearing he was a sleaze ball.