Highlandmagar Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 31 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Isn't that always the case? Lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 6 hours ago, Salvo Montalbano said: I'm still confused as to how she can be found guilty of misleading parliament if it is simply the impression Salmond got that she'd help him and she never actually stated it as a fact. They seem to be taking the third guy's testimony as some kind of corroboration but again it's just his opinion on what was said and not anything written or recorded? If I met some celebrity at a book signing or somesuch and said "it would be nice to chat over a coffee one day" and they replied "haha, sure yes" would I be able to say that the impression I got was that they wanted us to be friends and sue them when they decided that actually going for a latte with some randomer from Waterstones wasn't actually on their agenda? You have to ask why it wasn't recorded. Clearly it should have been. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 Caught the end of DRoss being interviewed on the radio this morning. The guy was absolutely certain about everything; very clear and unambiguous views. Until he was asked about whether the leak should be investigated then he suddenly had no strong opinion. Very strange. I wonder if earlier in the interview he thought that if a FM breaching the ministerial code is a sacking matter then a Home Secretary doing so is also a sacking matter. Probably not. * I know Sturgeon has not been found guilty of this at this juncture. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 You have to ask why it wasn't recorded. Clearly it should have been.That still does not answer the point that 2 people can have quite different impressions of a meeting.Even more so 2 years down the line if they had to check their notes.If those are the paragraphs in the text then it is actually an appalling misunderstanding of the English language. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 BBC and Sarah Smith really are a disgraceHeadlines not matching the actual news story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 It's hardly the biggest deal on the planet in terms of govt spending. If there's been a poor process implemented then fair enough, find out what's wrong and fix it. There isn't a govt on the planet that doesn't call it wrong at some point. But if the head of govt was held to account for each and every one of these, there would be a never-ending cycle new heads of govt. The Conservatives would have been through 3 or 4 Johnsons, a couple of Patels, several Hancocks and a few Raabs just since December 2019. I've spent the last year working on the implementation of a project which went live on 1 January at a cost of £millions. Meantime on 1 January, the UK govt reduced the scope of the thing and indicated it'll go in the bin the minute they're ready to move away from the EU to an OECD equivalent. £500k is peeing in a pond. Patel spent that shouting at someone ffs.DAC-6? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 14 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Caught the end of DRoss being interviewed on the radio this morning. The guy was absolutely certain about everything; very clear and unambiguous views. Until he was asked about whether the leak should be investigated then he suddenly had no strong opinion. Very strange. I wonder if earlier in the interview he thought that if a FM breaching the ministerial code is a sacking matter then a Home Secretary doing so is also a sacking matter. Probably not. * I know Sturgeon has not been found guilty of this at this juncture. I heard him on an interview last week where he was asked a similar question but predictably he glossed over it on a tangent attacking the SNP. The man had a bad rep when he was on Moray Council, plus he's skating on thin ice regarding his constituency as he saw his majority drastically reduced in 2017. For the life of me I can never work out what an Elgin cooncil hoose loon has in common with the little englander tory establishment, obviously he cares not a jot for Scots people with a similar background to him and prefers to suck up to the Rees Moggs of his world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 4 hours ago, SandyCromarty said: Michelle Obama speaking about public service recently said, " It's not about us, it's about the people we serve", and the vast majority of the right minded Scottish people think that Nicola has served them brilliantly and she is the most capable politician that Scotland has produced. I wonder if the families of people in care homes in spring 2020 feel that Sturgeon has 'served them brilliantly'. The way the Tories and SNP's poll ratings have remained high despite the biggest peacetime disaster to affect the UK is almost completely down to nationalism . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 40 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said: I heard him on an interview last week where he was asked a similar question but predictably he glossed over it on a tangent attacking the SNP. The man had a bad rep when he was on Moray Council, plus he's skating on thin ice regarding his constituency as he saw his majority drastically reduced in 2017. For the life of me I can never work out what an Elgin cooncil hoose loon has in common with the little englander tory establishment, obviously he cares not a jot for Scots people with a similar background to him and prefers to suck up to the Rees Moggs of his world. Sandy - what a snob you are. What’s wrong with being raised in a Council house? I was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 That still does not answer the point that 2 people can have quite different impressions of a meeting.Even more so 2 years down the line if they had to check their notes.If those are the paragraphs in the text then it is actually an appalling misunderstanding of the English language. I'm sure I heard that nice auld wummin who is on telly for 10 minutes every Xmas Day recently say something like 'peoples' recollections may differ'. And everybody agreed, like. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tourette Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 Realistically, regardless of the outcome of this, the options for the Scottish electorate come May is :-Willie RennieAnas SarwarDRossGreensSNPDRoss will have a guaranteed vote from Sevco, armed forces, etc, but can’t imagine he’ll get any additional votes as a result of thisWillie Rennie will not gain any votes from this as he’s a personality vacuum Anas Sarwar may gain some votes on the basis of Scottish Labour being anti Trident but it realistically means nothing as UK Labour is pro TridentGreen - nobody believes they will win an election now, although it will almost certainly be different in 20 years time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: That still does not answer the point that 2 people can have quite different impressions of a meeting. Even more so 2 years down the line if they had to check their notes. If those are the paragraphs in the text then it is actually an appalling misunderstanding of the English language. Ambiguity would have been avoided if she had followed the rules. Simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, strichener said: Ambiguity would have been avoided if she had followed the rules. Simple. What are the rules for a party member meeting the party leader? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 Ambiguity would have been avoided if she had followed the rules. Simple.That will be for Hamilton to decide - and I've said elsewhere that if his report comes out badly then she has to go. The point is me being a pedant regards the English language - the second paragraph contradicts the first - it's clear that they don't understand the meaning of the word impression.How they can decide that one impression of events trumps another's is bizarre to say the least. There are probably better and simpler ways to say what they wanted to say - that they think the FM is lying. But that opens up a whole new can of worms.This is going to drag on and VT is absolutely right in saying that the only way for this to be resolved is for her to resign and let the electorate decide it - not a committee that's partisan on both sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 Well, you're not wrong. A book signing at Waterstones probably wouldn't have been as fucking pathetic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bernardblack Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, NotThePars said: Jiminy Cricket pipes up Keir Starmer is nothing more than a “told you so” politician. Complete after timer. Sort of fella that only tells you when he won a bet on a Sunday after blowing £100 through the week on losers Edited March 19, 2021 by bernardblack 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 37 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: What are the rules for a party member meeting the party leader? I don't know the party rules but Peter said it was Government business and as chief exec of the party you would think he would know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 1 minute ago, strichener said: I don't know the party rules but Peter said it was Government business and as chief exec of the party you would think he would know. Which one? The meeting he "wasn't really aware of"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Which one? The meeting he "wasn't really aware of"? I know, imagine all these people turning up at your door at a pre-agreed time and you not being aware of them being there. Even more surprising since they apparently hadn't discussed it. Edited March 19, 2021 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.329b34b754527a16c01c5961baaf55af.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.