SIGN UP

Will The S N P Civil War Effect The Election?

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 11:20 Tue 23rd Feb 2021 | News
101 Answers

Answers

1 to 20 of 101rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image
It may cause a few people to shift opinions. The SNP is really only so strong because Labour is so poor. Just think how many Scottish Labour politicians we had not that long ago - Gordon Brown for one. If they made more of a shift they could capitalise on this piscatorial rift - to everyone's benefit. Hope the Scottish Tories are doing something to capitalise as...
16:19 Tue 23rd Feb 2021
He is due to give evidence to-morrow so it's probably best to wait and see what all he says then.
Unlikely.
The SNP have a personalities clash, but the party is fairly united on policy.
At Westminster, both Labour and the Conservatives have done badly at the polls when their parties have been divided.
Acrimony between the SNP leader and ex-leader is entertaining for their opponents, but I doubt it will stop their supporters voting for them.
The SNP have a pretty big lead and the polls have them increasing that lead, not losing seats.
Unless Monsieur Saumond has something really damning and incriminating on Mme. Caviar that brings her down and forces her to resign, the SNP will bat this one off and carry on as normal....unfortunately.
It may cause a few people to shift opinions. The SNP is really only so strong because Labour is so poor. Just think how many Scottish Labour politicians we had not that long ago - Gordon Brown for one. If they made more of a shift they could capitalise on this piscatorial rift - to everyone's benefit. Hope the Scottish Tories are doing something to capitalise as well.
//this piscatorial rift\\

Oh, I do like that. The Salmon v the Sturgeon.
Aye, they'll roe the day they started all this.
Question Author
it's not your plaice to get involved doug!
Question Author
love "piscatorial" - I predict we'll see that again! BA
Thank you. TTT. :)
Salmond will not be attending the inquiry tomorrow.

At the last minute, part of his evidence was banned, and a redacted version published by the Scottish Parliament.

All very odd.
Question Author
yes sunk, sounds fishy ....
Eck loves an audience and Nikki a headline.

Strike a pose, there's nothing to it.

And the world turns.
it's a simple question in court, "Milud or Milady, may I enquire what th Government has had redacted from the statement - it is crucial that we see it, even if it is only in the confines of your fine quarters."
it had already been published, DTC; they've hastily withdrawn it but I expect it still lingers on on the internet.
// The government had to pay legal expenses of more than £500,000 to Mr Salmond after it admitted it had acted unlawfully during the investigation.
Mr Salmond was later cleared of 13 charges of sexual assault against a total of nine women after a High Court trial last year. //

The inquiry is about what went wrong during the investigation which cost the Scottish Government half a million quid.

The Committee seem to be doing their best to not find the answer. Almost as if some high up influential people have something to hide from the public.
I must say, I found it very impressive that he got off charges relating to nine different people. No wonder his lawyers cost so much - they were worth it.
jno,
Are you saying the jury got it wrong?

It might be a very brilliant lawyer to get Salmond off.
Or it might have been a terrible prosecution that never should have gone to Court.

We might, or might not eventually get an answer which?
// give evidence to-morrow so it's probably best to wait and see what all he says then.//
nope
there are some very odd "rules is rules is rules" going on. The tribunal ( I dont know its status but NOT criminal) says that only people whose evidence is published, can be heard

Easy - dont publish the statement and their evidence cannot be heard. Salmond says he has evidence which is relevant
and the tribunal are showing quite severe reluctance to listen to it.

the tribunal hasnt said that the evidence is actionable - and is usually protected from further action by further rules of the court but it all depends on how the tribunal was set up

The govt officer has said surprisingly that all this ( some of this) is secret govt stuff and must never see the light of day ! Salmond has said that it is an obvious govt cover up

You can see salmonds point

anyone got an URL to the good stuff?
the stuff on the govt site has apparently been redacted ( skewered)

My view?
as an inveterate tormentor of monkeys in cages ( govt ministers that is!) - people in power get in the end so they dont give diddly squat what happened, what the just course is. They just wanna get to the end of their stint, no questions asked, see the queen, get a large pension. go around the country being a sir - no matter who is in prison who shouldnt be ( etc)

I'm sure the jury did their job, Sunk. But a good lawyer can persuade a jury in a way that bad lawyers cannot - otherwise there wouldn't be any good lawyers, they'd be retraining as plumbers.
// I found it very impressive that he got off charges relating to nine different people.//

so that there is number, and if the charges go more than that, they must be guilty. No matter what.

Juries take their duty seriously - having been on one. we were very aware that if we found a 16 y o guilty he wd ( probably ) go to prison and that wd be the end of his life.

Also a witness to fact in a case where it was obvious they had the wrong man. Acquitted in 8 mins having been waiting around for two years. [ no not the game of thrones case where the victim pointed to the defendant and said "that is not the man" but hey never mind they carried on for another seven days. acquitted. no really?]

1 to 20 of 101rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Will The S N P Civil War Effect The Election?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.