Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Thorongil]

3 minutes ago, Rodhull said:

While I agree that having the party leader and party CEO being a married couple probably is a bad idea how would Salmond be in a position to tell anyone what they could do after he steps down as leader. He'd be in no position to make such demands unless he had already put it into the party rules.

WTF?  

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

It’s a known fact that Salmond gave Sturgeon this advice

 

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

There will be some kind of record of it then I presume?

 

3 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Go and look it up on the internet. Are you pretending you are unaware of this information?

I'm taking that as a no.

[Thorongil]

Just now, welshbairn said:

 

 

I'm taking that as a no.

It’s a yes.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

It’s a yes.

There is some evidence that it ever happened then?

Edited April 10, 2023 by welshbairn

[git-intae-thum]

It does appear to have been the catalyst for the fallout and was widely reported.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/1623379/exclusive-former-snp-adviser-on-why-peter-murrell-is-at-centre-of-sturgeon-and-salmond-rift/

 

 

 

[Thorongil]

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

There is some evidence that it ever happened then?

Correct.

[Trogdor]

There are two or three sources for Salmond warning Sturgeon and Murrell it's in the book "Break-Up: How Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon Went to War". Campbell Gunn (who worked for Salmond and then Sturgeon) also confirmed that it happened during their handover and I'm also sure it's in one of Salmond's biographies as well.

The reason why it's never really come up is because NS assured everyone there was no issue. You dont need to be Einstein or Hawkins to realise it was unhealthy and a pretty significant conflict of interest to have the CEO and party leader being one half of the same household.

[Leith Green]

Just now, Trogdor said:

You dont need to be Einstein or Hawkins to realise it was unhealthy and a pretty significant conflict of interest to have the CEO and party leader being one half of the same household

100% right.

That Sturgeon didnt act on that, or make sensible plans for the succession, are things that will undoubtedly haunt her waking hours.

[ScotiaNostra]

Anyone with half a brain would know that wasnt a good situation to have. Yet whenever it was mentioned it would be shot down by those supporters who never question anything. 

 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

57 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

There are two or three sources for Salmond warning Sturgeon and Murrell it's in the book "Break-Up: How Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon Went to War". Campbell Gunn (who worked for Salmond and then Sturgeon) also confirmed that it happened during their handover and I'm also sure it's in one of Salmond's biographies as well.

The reason why it's never really come up is because NS assured everyone there was no issue. You dont need to be Einstein or Hawkins to realise it was unhealthy and a pretty significant conflict of interest to have the CEO and party leader being one half of the same household.

Gunn wrote his book after Salmond and Sturgeon had fallen out.

Even then it's couched in terms of "I think' and "It may' - it's not actually facts but an opinion of what happened.

Is there anything from before that point by an actual witness?

Edited April 10, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Trogdor]

7 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The only source I've found is 6 years after - when Salmond and Sturgeon had fallen out.

Even then it's couched in terms of "I think' and "It may' - it's not actually facts but an opinion of what happened.

Is there anything from before that point by an actual witness?

I'd suggest you buy the books and read them. The book was written by David Clegg and Kieran Andrews. David Clegg was Political Editor of the Daily Record and broke the story about the complaints about Salmond. So he's not exactly a Salmond ally. Whereas Gunn could be considered one, I'm not 100% sure where Gunn sits.

Books being published after said events isn't unusual. Also a book published 6 years after was probably getting researched and written for a year or two in advance of that.

It certainly came out before the fallout. I've known it since before covid, I cannot remember the exact date though.

I expect the actual conversations would be private ones. So I doubt you'll get a witness as such.

I would suggest the fact it hasn't been denied either speaks volumes too.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 minute ago, Trogdor said:

I'd suggest you buy the books and read them. The book was written by David Clegg and Kieran Andrews. David Clegg was Political Editor of the Daily Record and broke the story about the complaints about Salmond. So he's not exactly a Salmond ally. Whereas Gunn could be considered one, I'm not 100% sure where Gunn sits.

Books being published after said events isn't unusual. Also a book published 6 years after was probably getting researched and written for a year or two in advance of that.

It certainly came out before the fallout. I've known it since before covid, I cannot remember the exact date though.

I expect the actual conversations would be private ones. So I doubt you'll get a witness as such.

I would suggest the fact it hasn't been denied either speaks volumes too.

As with many of these things (I remember similar with Brown and Blair) it comes down to who to believe.  In that case they were a pair of liars so it was difficult to tell who was telling the truth.  I personally think neither Sturgeon or Salmond come out looking good with the events of the last 5 years.

[Thorongil]

18 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Gunn wrote his book after Salmond and Sturgeon had fallen out.

Even then it's couched in terms of "I think' and "It may' - it's not actually facts but an opinion of what happened.

Is there anything from before that point by an actual witness?

My God! 

[Thorongil]

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

As with many of these things (I remember similar with Brown and Blair) it comes down to who to believe.  In that case they were a pair of liars so it was difficult to tell who was telling the truth.  I personally think neither Sturgeon or Salmond come out looking good with the events of the last 5 years.

Salmond comes out looking far better. Sturgeon’s legacy and reputation is in tatters and history will now be kind. Very few people now believe they didn’t try to fit Salmond up and even the hysterical press seem to have stopped their witch hunt. He’s becoming more electable by the day. 

ironically it is only the law which prevents the full truth of what actually happened from being widely known.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Just now, Thorongil said:

My God! 

Yes I know - imagine asking for actual facts and not opinions.

I actually looked for this last night and this morning and found nothing prior to 2018. 

That's not unreasonable, especially if we are dealing with lying politicians.

 

[Thorongil]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Yes I know - imagine asking for actual facts and not opinions.

I actually looked for this last night and this morning and found nothing prior to 2018. 

That's not unreasonable, especially if we are dealing with lying politicians.

 

So you DID look around for it and despite a complete absence of any denial or any evidence saying that it didn’t happen, you are choosing to go with “it might not have, it probably didn’t.” 

That’s odd.

[Trogdor]

1 minute ago, Thorongil said:

He’s becoming more electable by the day. 

He's certainly becoming more visible, in the last two weeks it's been like a renaissance. He's been on everything, smiling like a cheshire cat as he enjoys the schadenfreude.

Whether that translates to being more electable, I'm not convinced.

[Thorongil]

2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Yes I know - imagine asking for actual facts and not opinions.

I actually looked for this last night and this morning and found nothing prior to 2018. 

That's not unreasonable, especially if we are dealing with lying politicians.

 

As for lying politicians, yes, there’s loads to suggest Sturgeon is a liar. 

If you can find any evidence to suggest Salmond is a liar, please do let me know.

[Thorongil]

Just now, Trogdor said:

He's certainly becoming more visible, in the last two weeks it's been like a renaissance. He's been on everything, smiling like a cheshire cat as he enjoys the schadenfreude.

Whether that translates to being more electable, I'm not convinced.

His party only has to build a green like level of support on the list and they will hold the balance of power at Holyrood.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

9 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

So you DID look around for it and despite a complete absence of any denial or any evidence saying that it didn’t happen, you are choosing to go with “it might not have, it probably didn’t.” 

That’s odd.

I looked for ANY evidence prior to 2018 - there was nothing.

This means that it either happened but all parties agreed to keep stum about it until the falling out in 2018 or that there is a different version of events.

I'm just surprised that they managed to keep it quiet for 4 years without any inkling or rumour that the advice had been given. In modern political circles that is highly unusual.

Edited April 10, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh