Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Paco]

I always hate political whataboutery but it really is remarkable that in this week of all weeks, the Scottish Conservatives are going tonto about someone breaking the ministerial code and losing money on legal challenges:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/priti-patel-reaches-six-figure-settlement-with-ex-home-office-chief-philip-rutnam

Can we expect UK Government legal advice to be released? How long has it been since they knew they couldn’t win the case? Will Douglas Ross lodge a vote of No Confidence in the Home Secretary? When did Boris Johnson find out about these allegations?

[Granny Danger]

Just now, Paco said:

I always hate political whataboutery but it really is remarkable that in this week of all weeks, the Scottish Conservatives are going tonto about someone breaking the ministerial code and losing money on legal challenges:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/priti-patel-reaches-six-figure-settlement-with-ex-home-office-chief-philip-rutnam

Can we expect UK Government legal advice to be released? How long has it been since they knew they couldn’t win the case? Will Douglas Ross lodge a vote of No Confidence in the Home Secretary? When did Boris Johnson find out about these allegations?

Beat you to it in another thread.

 

 

 

 

And smug about it...

[ayrmad]

35 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Your opinions are your every right, but do I take it that you find Douglas Ross and Ruth Davidson wholesome and truthful politicians?

Sturgeon is head and shoulders above the rest, that's part of the problem, you need a competent opposition to keep them honest. 

That's my polite reply, I'd get a chap at the door if I posted my opinion of them. 

[GiGi]

6 minutes ago, Paco said:

I always hate political whataboutery but it really is remarkable that in this week of all weeks, the Scottish Conservatives are going tonto about someone breaking the ministerial code and losing money on legal challenges:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/priti-patel-reaches-six-figure-settlement-with-ex-home-office-chief-philip-rutnam

Can we expect UK Government legal advice to be released? How long has it been since they knew they couldn’t win the case? Will Douglas Ross lodge a vote of No Confidence in the Home Secretary? When did Boris Johnson find out about these allegations?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781

Quote

Sir Philip said Home Office staff had come to him with allegations against Ms Patel, including "shouting and swearing" and "belittling people".

His resignation led the Cabinet Office to launch an inquiry into whether Ms Patel had broken the code governing ministers' behaviour.

Boris Johnson's standards chief Sir Alex Allan found that she had - but the PM rejected his findings and kept her in post. Sir Alex resigned in response.

The double standards in reporting on the Salmond inquiry to this is shameful. It can't be shared enough.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

He's been around for much longer than his attachment to Scottish independence, and anyone familiar with him before that will tell you that his primary interest is obtaining attention for Stuart Campbell, being seen to be "right", and "destroying" any opposition to the position he's taken. Very similar to that Ben Shapiro laddie. You wouldn't know if they actually believe what they're saying; the important thing is the argument.

Those two post on here, they must do...

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Not surprised to see the Sturgeon fluffers (and one or two should hang their heads) celebrate the fact that their woman is still on her feet after the second round of what will, whether you like it or not, be a long and bruising contest.

Of the three options I suggested she had on the other thread, she clearly went mainly with option 2 (contortions of language), with a dose here and there of option 3 (flat-out lies). She deflected where she could, relying on hundreds (yes, hundreds) of occasions on qualifiers and caveats, only resorting to lying where elements of her original story are baked in (with one bizarre exception). The contrast with Salmond's appearance, both rhetorically and in its relation to evidence, was astonishing (and remember that she and her govt are still suppressing evidence).

The bit I underestimated was the continuation of the smears against Salmond; the fact that she went tonto on that from the very beginning (where he was restrained every time he was invited by the committee to go for her), is pretty significant, not just for this controversy, but also for what happens next in Scottish politics.

One possible conclusion is therefore that deflection, lies, and smears are all she's got; that she's so far in, there's no other way out.

Another, kinder, conclusion is that going down that route makes sense as a political calculation: i.e. she's talking to the people who already believe what she says, making sure they have no reason to change their minds, and writing off Unionists and SNP rebels as a lost cause.

Either way, I hope you're also celebrating the fact that the SNP (and the independence movement) appear to be led by a Poundshop Tony Blair: she'll not only look you straight in the eyes when she's lying to you... but she wants you to feel her pain as she does so (she's searched her soul, you know, wrestled with her conscience... but woke the next day utterly convinced that all the lies she tells are justified in the end... Thank Christ she doesn't have access to military forces...)

So what happens next for the independence movement? Impossible to say with any confidence, and impossible to say what the best (achievable) outcome actually is. But I think it's inevitable now, unless something appears left-field over the next couple of days, that there will be some kind of formal split and realignment.

There is one scenario in which that ends well; another nine in which it ends very badly. Worrying times.

As for Sturgeon, there's still only one way this ends; the only variable is time.

 

[Only half-way sensible thing I could find on it is this, btw: https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comment-sturgeons-performance-was-a-masterclass-in-obfuscation-and-deflection

... and that's coming from Jim Mitchell, as opposed to Margaret 'Strangelove' Mitchell.]

[Lurkst]

51 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

She was a list MSP to between 1999 and 2007, but has been a constituency MSP since then, so never as FM. 

Correct, now somewhat ironically ousting Salmond's QC to be Gordon Jackson from his Govan seat.

 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I assume SLab are going to abstain on the Tory VoNC?

They seem to be relying on Hamilton's report now.

It will be interesting what happens if Sturgeon is shown to have breached one ministerial code to avoid breaching another ministerial code.

You would think he would perhaps exonorate the First Minister but make recommendations regards the ministerial code?

Also, but does anyone know if Hamilton has scope to make recommendations regards future investigations/procedures to deal with such cases?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Not surprised to see the Sturgeon fluffers (and one or two should hang their heads) celebrate the fact that their woman is still on her feet after the second round of what will, whether you like it or not, be a long and bruising contest.
Of the three options I suggested she had on the other thread, she clearly went mainly with option 2 (contortions of language), with a dose here and there of option 3 (flat-out lies). She deflected where she could, relying on hundreds (yes, hundreds) of occasions on qualifiers and caveats, only resorting to lying where elements of her original story are baked in (with one bizarre exception). The contrast with Salmond's appearance, both rhetorically and in its relation to evidence, was astonishing (and remember that she and her govt are still suppressing evidence).
The bit I underestimated was the continuation of the smears against Salmond; the fact that she went tonto on that from the very beginning (where he was restrained every time he was invited by the committee to go for her), is pretty significant, not just for this controversy, but also for what happens next in Scottish politics.
One possible conclusion is therefore that deflection, lies, and smears are all she's got; that she's so far in, there's no other way out.
Another, kinder, conclusion is that going down that route makes sense as a political calculation: i.e. she's talking to the people who already believe what she says, making sure they have no reason to change their minds, and writing off Unionists and SNP rebels as a lost cause.
Either way, I hope you're also celebrating the fact that the SNP (and the independence movement) appear to be led by a Poundshop Tony Blair: she'll not only look you straight in the eyes when she's lying to you... but she wants you to feel her pain as she does so (she's searched her soul, you know, wrestled with her conscience... but woke the next day utterly convinced that all the lies she tells are justified in the end... Thank Christ she doesn't have access to military forces...)
So what happens next for the independence movement? Impossible to say with any confidence, and impossible to say what the best (achievable) outcome actually is. But I think it's inevitable now, unless something appears left-field over the next couple of days, that there will be some kind of formal split and realignment.
There is one scenario in which that ends well; another nine in which it ends very badly. Worrying times.
As for Sturgeon, there's still only one way this ends; the only variable is time.
 
[Only half-way sensible thing I could find on it is this, btw: https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comment-sturgeons-performance-was-a-masterclass-in-obfuscation-and-deflection
... and that's coming from Jim Mitchell, as opposed to Margaret 'Strangelove' Mitchell.]

In all seriousness, you did superbly well to type that through floods of tears, so fair fucks for that.

[emoji23]

[GiGi]

Who exactly should hang their heads in shame, then? Either way I'm glad you've got it all figured out for us.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 minute ago, Day of the Lords said:

In all seriousness, you did superbly well to type that through floods of tears, so fair fucks for that.

Suspiciously quick off the mark there...

I've left your keys on the worktop, btw... Ciao for now.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 minutes ago, GiGi said:

Who exactly should hang their heads in shame, then? Either way I'm glad you've got it all figured out for us.

SandyCromarty and whoever said 'Queen Nicola'.

No need to thank me...

[jamamafegan]

I knew ghosts say “boo” but I didn’t know they also say “boo hoo hoo”

[Frank Grimes]

1 hour ago, Rugster said:

Over 5,000 new members since yesterday.

More than the Scottish Lib Dem’s have in total 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

10 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Suspiciously quick off the mark there...

I've left your keys on the worktop, btw... Ciao for now.

You're almost as creepy as your hero 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Who exactly should hang their heads in shame, then? Either way I'm glad you've got it all figured out for us.

It's amazing how people see things differently.

Both Salmond and Sturgeon were impressive and ran rings round the committee - ably helped by morons like Mitchell and ACM.

As I have said all along, I don't think there was or is any conspiracy - that the real issue is that Sturgeon (quite rightly) took a back seat on the investigation.

If anything the committee have been questioning the wrong people - one person springs immediately to mind.

I'm not saying the Scottish Government are blameless - far from it - but this whole affair shows that internal investigations in a political environment just don't work - there needs to be a different independent framework in place to deal with any future incident.

I also think this shows that committees of politicians judging other politicians isn't the best way to deal with things.

[betting competition]

5 hours ago, TheScarf said:

Did anyone get the total of new SNP members yesterday?  Was over 1000 last I heard.

 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 minute ago, Day of the Lords said:

You're almost as creepy as your hero 

 

Square go.

Absolutely nothing creepy about Bowie.

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

It's amazing how people see things differently.

Both Salmond and Sturgeon were impressive and ran rings round the committee - ably helped by morons like Mitchell and ACM.

As I have said all along, I don't think there was or is any conspiracy - that the real issue is that Sturgeon (quite rightly) took a back seat on the investigation.

If anything the committee have been questioning the wrong people - one person springs immediately to mind.

I'm not saying the Scottish Government are blameless - far from it - but this whole affair shows that internal investigations in a political environment just don't work - there needs to be a different independent framework in place to deal with any future incident.

I also think this shows that committees of politicians judging other politicians isn't the best way to deal with things.

Relieved (genuinely) that we agree on something: the committee were atrocious in all sorts of different ways yesterday and have been throughout (Wightman gets a pass for having a functioning brain, although he really shouldn't be in politics).

Nobody should be surprised that both Salmond and Sturgeon bodied them in their very different ways... but you need to look again at why Sturgeon had to do it in that particular way.

And remember... these cretins are somehow going to have to put together a report. I can't see it.

 

[Detournement]

Sturgeon admitted herself that it is difficult to believe that her chief special advisor was involved in this for a month without ever mentioning it to Sturgeon.

Sturgeon's version of events is that her closest colleagues who she works with every day were actively involved in this but decided not to tell her about it. No reason is given as to why Evans, Lloyd, McKinnon and presumably others decided to keep their boss out the loop. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 minute ago, Detournement said:

Sturgeon admitted herself that it is difficult to believe that her chief special advisor was involved in this for a month without ever mentioning it to Sturgeon.

Sturgeon's version of events is that her closest colleagues who she works with every day were actively involved in this but decided not to tell her about it. No reason is given as to why Evans, Lloyd, McKinnon and presumably others decided to keep their boss out the loop. 

Sturgeon is lying. A child can see that.

We just don't know - because we're being prevented from knowing - the extent to which she's lying.