Well the poor old BBC had to relegate this "sensational" story to a 15 second video clip of Ruth Davidson making a bit of a fool of herself. 

 

Not sure what the eventual outcome will be, but at the moment it seems like those who want to see Sturgeon fall on her sword over this, may well be disappointed.

On 3/5/2021 at 2:10 AM, shy coconut said:

Well the poor old BBC had to relegate this "sensational" story to a 15 second video clip of Ruth Davidson making a bit of a fool of herself. 

 

Not sure what the eventual outcome will be, but at the moment it seems like those who want to see Sturgeon fall on her sword over this, may well be disappointed.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-news-live-london-telling-080504066.html

Mebe Jim'll Jinx It can help; last chance.

So Sturgeon has been found not to has breached the ministerial code.

 

Interestingly in the BBC's 4th ranked story of the day, after leading with it on many days,

they couldn't find Ruth Davidson for comment on the outcome.

 

The Tories have gone all in on this story, which at the very worst , seemed like she may 

have mis remembered the date of a particular meeting with Salmonds team.

 

Hardly the crime of the century in my mind and a load of expensive fuss over nothing more than a vague breach of protocol. It is little wonder to me that the SNP are so dominant in Scottish politics when the main opposition parties are such a shambolic shower of ****

 

 

Nicola Sturgeon cleared of breaching ministerial code over Alex Salmond saga

An independent inquiry by senior Irish lawyer James Hamilton had been examining whether the first minister misled the Scottish Parliament over what she knew and when.

...

Mr Hamilton said he was ... of the opinion that Ms Sturgeon had not breached any of the provisions of the code.

When the history of Scotland's independence is written, of course the Salmond affair will be writ large, but the real story of how the final nails were hammered into the coffin of the union will, I suspect, be based around how the Tories utterly mismanaged their response to it, and were repeatedly exposed as the opportunistic, utterly inept charlatans they truly are.

 

The feelings of disgust among normal Scots at just how the Nasty Party cheated and lied and leaked and politicised the whole debacle has lost them any moral high ground they may have been able to claim if they had acted otherwise, and driven sentiment in the opposite direction. The Tories have been made to look utterly foolish and utterly mendacious through their own stupidity. Dross and Baroness Rape Clause have nobody but themselves to blame. 

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

When the history of Scotland's independence is written, of course the Salmond affair will be writ large, but the real story of how the final nails were hammered into the coffin of the union will, I suspect, be based around how the Tories utterly mismanaged their response to it, and were repeatedly exposed as the opportunistic, utterly inept charlatans they truly are.

 

The feelings of disgust among normal Scots at just how the Nasty Party cheated and lied and leaked and politicised the whole debacle has lost them any moral high ground they may have been able to claim if they had acted otherwise, and driven sentiment in the opposite direction. The Tories have been made to look utterly foolish and utterly mendacious through their own stupidity. Dross and Baroness Rape Clause have nobody but themselves to blame. 

 

The Daily Record is just as guilty as the tories. Along with the rest of the unionist media. 

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

The Daily Record is just as guilty as the tories. Along with the rest of the unionist media. 

 

I wonder are they seeing which way the wind is blowing and realising that Blue noses are worth less to them now than independence supporters? Murray Foote, former Record editor and co-author of 'The Vow' is now a die-hard SNP backer, so it is not beyond credulity that the Record might fully jump ship.

 

That said, it is truly mindboggling that papers like the Scotsman continue to cling to their ultra-unionist editorial stance despite their sales being in freefall as public sentiment clearly moves in the opposite direction. Maybe they will spearhead the push to rejoin the Union once we slip the yoke...

Patrick Harvie totally nailed the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem coalition on the enquiry committee.

 

"So here we are. On one hand, we have an independent report by someone with enough professionalism not to go hawking quotes to the press in advance, that clears the First Minister of any breach of the ministerial code.

"And in the other hand we have a report by a committee of this parliament whose members have prejudged the evidence, called for resignations before listening to it, betrayed the original complainers in the sexual harassment case and leaked their own conclusions to the media."

"The only resignations I have any interest in debating today are those of the committee members who have so systematically broken our rules, abused the trust of witnesses and played childish games with the serious issue they were asked to examine.

"They are the ones who should be resigning today. And any political party that wants to come out of this episode with a shred of credibility will do whatever it takes to identify the culprits and ensure that they are not able to stand for re-election in six weeks’ time. They have shown contempt for the serious issue of sexual harassment. They have shown contempt for their witnesses. They have shown contempt for the rules of this parliament. And having failed in their attempt to drag Scottish politics down to their level, they should just go." 

 

 

Not a big fan of Jess Phillips but she hits the nail smack bang centre when she states that Nicola Sturgeon "was at best unprofessional with those womens lives, at worst she misled parliament."

 

 

21 minutes ago, vogie said:

Not a big fan of Jess Phillips but she hits the nail smack bang centre when she states that Nicola Sturgeon "was at best unprofessional with those womens lives, at worst she misled parliament."

 

 

And yet she didnt.

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Not a big fan of Jess Phillips but she hits the nail smack bang centre when she states that Nicola Sturgeon "was at best unprofessional with those womens lives, at worst she misled parliament."

 

 

 

BBC Question time. ????

 

Oh and when was that recorded?

I believe there were two reports issued.

 

One said she did and one said she didn't. When you get down to the nitty gritty, both had their political leanings. Even the so called "independent" one.

 

Those that follow Ms. Sturgeon will say she did nothing wrong. Those that don't will say she is guilty.

 

This thread could go on for ever with both sides arguing their case. Each side thinking they are right. It will end up as a Brexit and Indyref2 thread, as most others do.

 

There is no smoke without fire, the argument is going to be, Who lit the fire?

28 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I believe there were two reports issued.

 

One said she did and one said she didn't. When you get down to the nitty gritty, both had their political leanings. Even the so called "independent" one.

 

Those that follow Ms. Sturgeon will say she did nothing wrong. Those that don't will say she is guilty.

 

This thread could go on for ever with both sides arguing their case. Each side thinking they are right. It will end up as a Brexit and Indyref2 thread, as most others do.

 

There is no smoke without fire, the argument is going to be, Who lit the fire?

 

In what way did the independent enquiry have a political leaning?

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

 

In what way did the independent enquiry have a political leaning?

Lots of questions being asked about past interests of QC Hamilton.

 

It doesn't take a genius to see why a chap from a Republic of Ireland would be chosen by SNP. 

 

The ministers report was written by a majority of opposition SMPs. The other by someone who was chosen by the SNP. They were never going to agree, were they????

 

Just saying.

29 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Lots of questions being asked about past interests of QC Hamilton.

 

It doesn't take a genius to see why a chap from a Republic of Ireland would be chosen by SNP. 

 

The ministers report was written by a majority of opposition SMPs. The other by someone who was chosen by the SNP. They were never going to agree, were they????

 

Just saying.

 

What questions are being asked about the past interests of James Hamilton QC?

Why do you think there is something suspect about a chap from the republic being chosen?

Genuinely interested because I do not know of any suspicion of bias regarding Hamilton. 

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Lots of questions being asked about past interests of QC Hamilton.

 

It doesn't take a genius to see why a chap from a Republic of Ireland would be chosen by SNP. 

 

The ministers report was written by a majority of opposition SMPs. The other by someone who was chosen by the SNP. They were never going to agree, were they????

 

Just saying.

Just saying? Says it all.

52 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

What questions are being asked about the past interests of James Hamilton QC?

Why do you think there is something suspect about a chap from the republic being chosen?

Genuinely interested because I do not know of any suspicion of bias regarding Hamilton. 

Do you not read the news?

 

Do you agree that the report from the SMPs was going to go against Ms. Sturgeon because there were 5 non SNP ministers on the committee?

 

If there was an enquiry into a Tory MP that was written by a Tory appointed " independent" official, and it was in favour of the Tory MP, would you not be suspicious?

 

See, that is the difference between you and I. I can read between the lines and take a neutral stance. Shown here by showing my suspicions about BOTH inquiries.

 

I could sit here and show suspicions about both inquiries all day. There's not much point if your blinkered views are only going to agree with one side. You have your views, however one side they may be. I will continue with my broader, measured and middle of the road approach.

3 hours ago, vogie said:

Not a big fan of Jess Phillips but she hits the nail smack bang centre when she states that Nicola Sturgeon "was at best unprofessional with those womens lives, at worst she misled parliament."

 

She misled parliament, a question is whether once it was discovered did she correct the record with parliament in a timely manner (the independent inquiry found she did not knowingly mislead parliament).  When it is done on purpose, it is a breach of ministerial code - when it is not done on purpose - the record is suppose to be made straight in a timely manner and effectively it is a situation where the intent of the rules is ... please don't make a habit of it. 

 

Boris Johnson and several of his ministers on several occasions have misled parliament - and IMHO in a very deliberate way.   If the conservatives in Scotland are saying Sturgeon should resign, then they really should be demanding Boris Johnson resign.... but of course all party politics is hypocritical in nature - so it is not a surprise that they do not. 

 

As far as the impact of mistakes (mistakes are always made), that is a question for the electorate to consider. 

17 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Do you not read the news?

 

Do you agree that the report from the SMPs was going to go against Ms. Sturgeon because there were 5 non SNP ministers on the committee?

 

If there was an enquiry into a Tory MP that was written by a Tory appointed " independent" official, and it was in favour of the Tory MP, would you not be suspicious?

 

See, that is the difference between you and I. I can read between the lines and take a neutral stance. Shown here by showing my suspicions about BOTH inquiries.

 

I could sit here and show suspicions about both inquiries all day. There's not much point if your blinkered views are only going to agree with one side. You have your views, however one side they may be. I will continue with my broader, measured and middle of the road approach.

As far as I can tell 'James Hamilton QC' was an outsider appointed (i.e. "independent") [I cannot find it but I assume he does not reside in Scotland itself] -- I have no reason to doubt him.  It would be different if they appointed someone that has ties to the SNP.  The question of course is what standard was used (i.e. 'beyond a reasonable doubt') and whether there were any unresolved questions.   He seems to have a reasonably good reputation... and if he is not involved in the local politics it would be very surprising if he was willing to risk that to come to come to a corrupt conclusion.  As such, I think that question now is closed (the question for the electorate is still up to them if they have their own doubts). 

9 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

It would be different if they appointed someone that has ties to the SNP. 

My point exactly. 

 

As I said, I like to look at things from all angles. Depending on what news stories you read, the exact connection between the QC and the SNP varies.

 

12 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

She misled parliament, a question is whether once it was discovered did she correct the record with parliament in a timely manner (the independent inquiry found she did not knowingly mislead parliament).  When it is done on purpose, it is a breach of ministerial code - when it is not done on purpose - the record is suppose to be made straight in a timely manner and effectively it is a situation where the intent of the rules is ... please don't make a habit of it. 

 

Boris Johnson and several of his ministers on several occasions have misled parliament - and IMHO in a very deliberate way.   If the conservatives in Scotland are saying Sturgeon should resign, then they really should be demanding Boris Johnson resign.... but of course all party politics is hypocritical in nature - so it is not a surprise that they do not. 

 

As far as the impact of mistakes (mistakes are always made), that is a question for the electorate to consider. 

She misled parliament, a question is whether once it was discovered did she correct the record with parliament in a timely manner (the independent inquiry found she did not knowingly mislead parliament)

 

Are you saying that James Hamilton that led the inquiry is independent, he was once a senior advisor to the SNP and only a day before he gave his conclusion to the case his Wicki page was mysteriously altered deleting that information.

 

 

17 minutes ago, vogie said:

She misled parliament, a question is whether once it was discovered did she correct the record with parliament in a timely manner (the independent inquiry found she did not knowingly mislead parliament)

 

Are you saying that James Hamilton that led the inquiry is independent, he was once a senior advisor to the SNP and only a day before he gave his conclusion to the case his Wicki page was mysteriously altered deleting that information.

 

 

 

What is his affiliation though?  My father was effectively has 'advised' Progressive Conservative, Liberal, and NDP each while they were the governing party.   [I still to this day don't know who my father voted for, he would only ever say what policies he supported or did not or what behaviour he found to be unconscionable -- When I asked, he would say that is a private matter].  He advised in matters of his expertise.  Sometimes they accepted his advice, sometimes they chose not to. 

11 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

What is his affiliation though?  My father was effectively has 'advised' Progressive Conservative, Liberal, and NDP each while they were the governing party.   [I still to this day don't know who my father voted for, he would only ever say what policies he supported or did not or what behaviour he found to be unconscionable -- When I asked, he would say that is a private matter].  He advised in matters of his expertise.

Forget the wicki page info, I may have unwittingly given you incorrect info, his wicki page may have been under cyber attack. My appologies if so.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Do you not read the news?

 

Do you agree that the report from the SMPs was going to go against Ms. Sturgeon because there were 5 non SNP ministers on the committee?

 

If there was an enquiry into a Tory MP that was written by a Tory appointed " independent" official, and it was in favour of the Tory MP, would you not be suspicious?

 

See, that is the difference between you and I. I can read between the lines and take a neutral stance. Shown here by showing my suspicions about BOTH inquiries.

 

I could sit here and show suspicions about both inquiries all day. There's not much point if your blinkered views are only going to agree with one side. You have your views, however one side they may be. I will continue with my broader, measured and middle of the road approach.

 

Ah so its only you who have issues with the neutrality of James Hamilton QC. My understanding is he has worked for numerous groups/partys/countries/government bodies over the years and his impartiality has never been questioned.

That is of course until he gave a ruling you simply dont want to be true.

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Ah so its only you who have issues with the neutrality of James Hamilton QC. My understanding is he has worked for numerous groups/partys/countries/government bodies over the years and his impartiality has never been questioned.

That is of course until he gave a ruling you simply dont want to be true.

Do you not read my posts? I have mentioned many times that I am neutral. That, having digested the differing reports and news stories, I find both reports to have elements of suspicion.

 

Never once have I said I don't like the reports. Neither have I even suggested that I don't think they, either of them, are true or false. I simply pointed out that, from what I have read in my extensive research about the reports, there does seem to be some political leaning on BOTH sides.

 

My understanding, by reading with open eyes and an open mind, is that the QC has worked for many groups/partys/countries/government bodies over the years and has his findings have been considered well presented. 

13 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Lots of questions being asked about past interests of QC Hamilton.

 

It doesn't take a genius to see why a chap from a Republic of Ireland would be chosen by SNP. 

 

 

11 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

If there was an enquiry into a Tory MP that was written by a Tory appointed " independent" official, and it was in favour of the Tory MP, would you not be suspicious?

 

See, that is the difference between you and I. I can read between the lines and take a neutral stance. Shown here by showing my suspicions about BOTH inquiries.

 

I could sit here and show suspicions about both inquiries all day. There's not much point if your blinkered views are only going to agree with one side. You have your views, however one side they may be. I will continue with my broader, measured and middle of the road approach.

 

7 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Do you not read my posts? I have mentioned many times that I am neutral. That, having digested the differing reports and news stories, I find both reports to have elements of suspicion.

 

Never once have I said I don't like the reports. Neither have I even suggested that I don't think they, either of them, are true or false. I simply pointed out that, from what I have read in my extensive research about the reports, there does seem to be some political leaning on BOTH sides.

 

My understanding, by reading with open eyes and an open mind, is that the QC has worked for many groups/partys/countries/government bodies over the years and has his findings have been considered well presented. 

 

Certainly looks like you are casting dispersions over the neutrality of James Hamilton when you read your posts.

You maintain BOTH reports have elements of suspicion. That there is political leaning on Both sides.

6 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

 

 

Certainly looks like you are casting dispersions over the neutrality of James Hamilton when you read your posts.

You maintain BOTH reports have elements of suspicion. That there is political leaning on Both sides.

Why quote so many of my posts but only reply to one?

 

Never mind. Nice to see you agree with regards to my neutral approach, findings and stance.

 

 

31 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why quote so many of my posts but only reply to one?

 

Never mind. Nice to see you agree with regards to my neutral approach, findings and stance.

 

 

 

I was not agreeing with you. But you knew that.

Do please explain why you believe the inquiry by James Hamilton is flawed. 

17 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

I was not agreeing with you. But you knew that.

Do please explain why you believe the inquiry by James Hamilton is flawed. 

"Flawed"? I don't recall saying that.

I have explained my findings , not my beliefs.

 

It's interesting that I also spoke about the SMPs report but you fail to do so.

 

Like I said in a previous post. The two sides will never agree with both reports and will have their grievances.

 

I, however, have stuck to middle ground and found, not created, doubts on both sides.

 

Your insistence on questioning only one of my findings proves my original point.

43 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

"Flawed"? I don't recall saying that.

I have explained my findings , not my beliefs.

 

It's interesting that I also spoke about the SMPs report but you fail to do so.

 

Like I said in a previous post. The two sides will never agree with both reports and will have their grievances.

 

I, however, have stuck to middle ground and found, not created, doubts on both sides.

 

Your insistence on questioning only one of my findings proves my original point.

Again no answer. What are the "elements of suspicion" against the Hamilton enquiry?

What are the questions being asked about James Hamiltons past?