Scotland's first minister Sturgeon faces resignation call amid row with predecessor

[youreavinalaff]

33 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

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

What are the questions being asked about James Hamiltons past?

Open your eyes. Learn to read whole articles, take off your blinkers and broaden your thoughts.

 

Try to spend a bit of time reading other sites than TV. You might just find something interesting. 

 

That will negate the need to ask repeat questions that have already been explained to you.

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Open your eyes. Learn to read whole articles, take off your blinkers and broaden your thoughts.

 

Try to spend a bit of time reading other sites than TV. You might just find something interesting. 

 

That will negate the need to ask repeat questions that have already been explained to you.

 

I already said in a previous post I was interested to hear what you claimed was questions being asked of the Hamilton Inquiry. That it had political leanings. 

This is because it appears it is only you who can find such information so could you provide links please?

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

I already said in a previous post I was interested to hear what you claimed was questions being asked of the Hamilton Inquiry. That it had political leanings. 

This is because it appears it is only you who can find such information so could you provide links please?

Like I said, there is plenty out there for you to read.

 

To say it is only I that has mentioned the above is, to be fair, comical. 

 

What is the point in providing links when, at the end of the day, you will disagree with everything that is said.

 

I have been impartial in all of my posts on the matter. You have not. Once again, proving my points on my original post.

Edited March 25, 2021 by youreavinalaff

[Rookiescot]

46 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Like I said, there is plenty out there for you to read.

 

To say it is only I that has mentioned the above is, to be fair, comical. 

 

What is the point in providing links when, at the end of the day, you will disagree with everything that is said.

 

I have been impartial in all of my posts on the matter. You have not. Once again, proving my points on my original post.

 

I have never claimed to be impartial.

You did say you had done substantial research on this subject but are unable to provide any links to the sources you used?

Aye OK. 

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

 

I have never claimed to be impartial.

You did say you had done substantial research on this subject but are unable to provide any links to the sources you used?

Aye OK. 

Just as I said before. It is unlikely that anyone is going to agree on both reports. Your constant questioning of only one report, the one that you back, shows that.

 

Your buddy and serial "like" button pusher, Ruamrudy, obviously thinks the same.

 

You constantly seem to forget that I am impartial and am looking at both sides. You seem to think I am having a dig when I'm mearly questioning certain things based on what I have read.

 

I don't wish to post links as I would be here all day as I have read a myriad of articles. However, seeing as you fail to be able to accept any views without so called proof, may I point you in the direction of the national press, Scottish press and national TV channels. That way you will be able to see exactly what I did. 

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Just as I said before. It is unlikely that anyone is going to agree on both reports. Your constant questioning of only one report, the one that you back, shows that.

 

Your buddy and serial "like" button pusher, Ruamrudy, obviously thinks the same.

 

You constantly seem to forget that I am impartial and am looking at both sides. You seem to think I am having a dig when I'm mearly questioning certain things based on what I have read.

 

I don't wish to post links as I would be here all day as I have read a myriad of articles. However, seeing as you fail to be able to accept any views without so called proof, may I point you in the direction of the national press, Scottish press and national TV channels. That way you will be able to see exactly what I did. 

 

And none of those press and media outlets have questioned in any way the integrity of the Hamilton report.

Please do furnish us with a couple of the myriad of articles you have read demonstrating that.

That will not take you all day. 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Rookiescot
typo

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Rookiescot
double post

[youreavinalaff]

26 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

And none of those press and media outlets have questioned in any way the integrity of the Hamilton report.

Please do furnish us with a couple of the myriad of articles you have read demonstrating that.

That will not take you all day. 

Keep reading. The practice will do you good. You'll soon find something.

 

Just try to be open minded. 

[Rookiescot]

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Keep reading. The practice will do you good. You'll soon find something.

 

Just try to be open minded. 

 

So no links then?

Aye OK.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

 

So no links then?

Aye OK.

I don't know why but you seem to me to be senior in years. I am currently 51 and, even at that young tender age, I really don't understand why people need links to everything. 

 

Why not go old school and, on the internet none the less, have a read and find things out for yourself? Just like I did.

 

Try it. It's fun. You will probably enjoy it.

[bkkcanuck8]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

I don't know why but you seem to me to be senior in years. I am currently 51 and, even at that young tender age, I really don't understand why people need links to everything. 

 

Why not go old school and, on the internet none the less, have a read and find things out for yourself? Just like I did.

 

Try it. It's fun. You will probably enjoy it.

Old school is to go to the library and collect notes and attach citations/footnotes/endnotes as reference to back up your argument... This 'old school' references ... I tried fluffing off that they could do their own search... but it did not go over well in school.   This links are just a new version of that ???? -- you use it to make your argument stronger - or let us say make it an argument rather than a he said she said situation...  Of course the reader can just assume that if there are no references, then there is no validity since the source of it cannot be determined.   Of course this is just a forum, but failure to provide links (upon request) -- just means that there is no foundation for such an argument if a cursory search turns up no information or conflicting information.  Caveat Lector.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Old school is to go to the library and collect notes and attach citations/footnotes/endnotes as reference to back up your argument... This 'old school' references ... I tried fluffing off that they could do their own search... but it did not go over well in school.   This links are just a new version of that ???? -- you use it to make your argument stronger - or let us say make it an argument rather than a he said she said situation...  Of course the reader can just assume that if there are no references, then there is no validity since the source of it cannot be determined.   Of course this is just a forum, but failure to provide links (upon request) -- just means that there is no foundation for such an argument if a cursory search turns up no information or conflicting information.  Caveat Lector.

Indeed. I used to use libraries when they were in abundance.

 

Then I would often talk about what I had read with my mates down the pub.

 

Never did anyone say " do you have that book in your bag to prove your point". Some would say "what's the name of the book? I'd like to read it myself." I would then give them the name of the book for their reference. Just like I have pointed everyone in the right direction to read what I have read in my previous posts here.

[Scott]

If you make an assertion that something is factually correct, please provide a source for your information.   The information needs to come from a credible source.  

 

[Rookiescot]

6 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

I don't know why but you seem to me to be senior in years. I am currently 51 and, even at that young tender age, I really don't understand why people need links to everything. 

 

Why not go old school and, on the internet none the less, have a read and find things out for yourself? Just like I did.

 

Try it. It's fun. You will probably enjoy it.

 

You dont have any links because you made a baseless assertion.

 

[RuamRudy]

Now the yoons have spaffed against the wall their latest efforts to trash the reputation of the Scottish Government, I wonder what they have in mind for the next stage of Operation Smear? Rather than all this negativity, why don't they just offer positive reasons to stay in the Union? Surely between the lot of them, and with all their highly paid consultants, they can think of one good reason to support the continuance of the UK?

 

Sturgeon seen as far more trustworthy than other Scottish leaders, polls show

More than half of Scottish voters think favourably of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and twice as many people believe she is "trustworthy" compared to Ruth Davidson, polling has unveiled.

Nicola Sturgeon is thought favourably of by 53% of those polled, while would-be first ministers Anas Sarwar and Douglas Ross achieved scores of 21% and 16%, respectively.

[youreavinalaff]

9 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

You dont have any links because you made a baseless assertion.

 

I did not make any assertions. I made comments based on what I had read. Not just one article but many. I have read articles leaning both ways. I'm quite sure, if I had said something like "that Hamilton report was great and spot on" you would not have been asking for links.

 

Actually, I could have provided links for such a comment, and comments to the contrary, but as I did not state that anything was "fact" it didn't worry too much. I thought I would leave it to those that can to look for themselves.

 

I actually just read a quite well balanced report from The Spectator. A good article as it looks at both sides of the arguement, including complaints by Hamilton QC about how his report has been censored. 

 

Here is a link to The Spectator, for those who need it. If you scroll down to will see the article. 

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/

 

I have not provided a direct link to the article but rather the publication as a whole. There are some other interesting articles that some may find interesting and able to broaden one's horizons of thought and understanding.

[Rookiescot]

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I did not make any assertions. I made comments based on what I had read. Not just one article but many. I have read articles leaning both ways. I'm quite sure, if I had said something like "that Hamilton report was great and spot on" you would not have been asking for links.

 

Actually, I could have provided links for such a comment, and comments to the contrary, but as I did not state that anything was "fact" it didn't worry too much. I thought I would leave it to those that can to look for themselves.

 

I actually just read a quite well balanced report from The Spectator. A good article as it looks at both sides of the arguement, including complaints by Hamilton QC about how his report has been censored. 

 

Here is a link to The Spectator, for those who need it. If you scroll down to will see the article. 

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/

 

I have not provided a direct link to the article but rather the publication as a whole. There are some other interesting articles that some may find interesting and able to broaden one's horizons of thought and understanding.

 

You link to an article about the EU and then tell us to find one about the Hamilton enquiry ourselves?

I tried. While there are many articles on there from rabid unionists I cant find any which question the political leanings or neutrality of the Hamilton enquiry. They are not there. You are simply sending people on a wild goose chase.

You dont have any links to such articles do you. You made baseless assertions and are now trying desperately to backtrack and weasel out. 

[youreavinalaff]

30 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

You link to an article about the EU and then tell us to find one about the Hamilton enquiry ourselves?

I tried. While there are many articles on there from rabid unionists I cant find any which question the political leanings or neutrality of the Hamilton enquiry. They are not there. You are simply sending people on a wild goose chase.

You dont have any links to such articles do you. You made baseless assertions and are now trying desperately to backtrack and weasel out. 

Oh dear.

 

You are incorrect. I posted a link to a publication. Within that publication is a very good article about the Hamilton report. 

 

If I read a newspaper report and told someone about it, I would say " did you see the report in the Daily whatever". I would not say " did you see the report half way down page seven next to the article about...........in the Daily Whatever".

 

Not trying to back out or weasel out of anything. The article is there. Maybe you could post links to every single article on that website to prove your point that is does not exist. I look forward to seeing your links.

[Nojohndoe]

15 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Indeed. I used to use libraries when they were in abundance.

 

Then I would often talk about what I had read with my mates down the pub.

 

Never did anyone say " do you have that book in your bag to prove your point". Some would say "what's the name of the book? I'd like to read it myself." I would then give them the name of the book for their reference. Just like I have pointed everyone in the right direction to read what I have read in my previous posts here.

In the spirit of your analogy about  library books and willingness to supply the title of any such said for direct reference would not equivalent links to assertions of copious material relevant to your opinion be reasonable in the request? I'm sure  your friends at the pub in days of old were unlikely to  be satisfied with being told of "a book in a library" !

Quote

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, Nojohndoe said:

In the spirit of your analogy about  library books and willingness to supply the title of any such said for direct reference would not equivalent links to assertions of copious material relevant to your opinion be reasonable in the request? I'm sure  your friends at the pub in days of old were unlikely to  be satisfied with being told of "a book in a library" !

 

Information that I have already provided.

 

Please do try to keep up.

[Rookiescot]

19 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Oh dear.

 

You are incorrect. I posted a link to a publication. Within that publication is a very good article about the Hamilton report. 

 

If I read a newspaper report and told someone about it, I would say " did you see the report in the Daily whatever". I would not say " did you see the report half way down page seven next to the article about...........in the Daily Whatever".

 

Not trying to back out or weasel out of anything. The article is there. Maybe you could post links to every single article on that website to prove your point that is does not exist. I look forward to seeing your links.

 

OK I am going to make an unsubstantiated claim. I'm then going to post a link to Googles search page and tell you the proof is in there somewhere. You see how this goes?

YOU claimed you had read many articles questioning the political leanings and neutrality of the Hamilton enquiry. 

Link one. Or we will have to assume you have no evidence for your claims and that you made it up.

Prove me wrong.

  

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

YOU claimed you had read many articles questioning the political leanings and neutrality of the Hamilton enquiry. 

Incorrect. I said I had read many articles about both inquiries and felt both had merits and demerits.

 

You are the one that singled out the Hamilton inquiry as that is the one you believe to be correct. Not once have you questioned my comments regarding neutrality of the SMP's report.

 

Consider yourself proved wrong.

 

[Rookiescot]

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Incorrect. I said I had read many articles about both inquiries and felt both had merits and demerits.

 

You are the one that singled out the Hamilton inquiry as that is the one you believe to be correct. Not once have you questioned my comments regarding neutrality of the SMP's report.

 

Consider yourself proved wrong.

 

 

You claimed you had read many articles showing questions being raised about the political leanings and neutrality of the Hamilton enquiry.

You have been asked many times for a link to just one of those articles.

You have failed to provide any link.

It must be assumed therefor that you made baseless claims which you cannot back up in any way.

You made it up.

[puchooay]

23 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

You link to an article about the EU and then tell us to find one about the Hamilton enquiry ourselves?

I tried. While there are many articles on there from rabid unionists I cant find any which question the political leanings or neutrality of the Hamilton enquiry. They are not there. You are simply sending people on a wild goose chase.

You dont have any links to such articles do you. You made baseless assertions and are now trying desperately to backtrack and weasel out. 

Blimey mate. Are you sure? I found it in a minute.

 

Are you being deliberately churlish or just on a wind up?

 

It's here : https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hamilton-report-clears-nicola-sturgeon-on-all-four-counts---but-with-redactions

Edited March 27, 2021 by puchooay

[Rookiescot]

5 hours ago, puchooay said:

Blimey mate. Are you sure? I found it in a minute.

 

Are you being deliberately churlish or just on a wind up?

 

It's here : https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hamilton-report-clears-nicola-sturgeon-on-all-four-counts---but-with-redactions

Really?

That shows Hamiltons report had political leanings and he was not neutral?

Are you being deliberately stupid?

[puchooay]

29 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Really?

That shows Hamiltons report had political leanings and he was not neutral?

Are you being deliberately stupid?

Insults? Really? Did you read the whole report?

 

There are certainly arguments in the report to show that there are some unanswered questions, in both directions.

 

I think you have blown out of proportion what the other poster was saying. As far as I can see the posts were not at all as one sided as you make out.

 

Anyhow, my post was to ask if you were deliberately saying you could not find the report or just being on a wind up. You did not answer that question.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by puchooay

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, puchooay said:

Insults? Really? Did you read the whole report?

 

There are certainly arguments in the report to show that there are some unanswered questions, in both directions.

 

I think you have blown out of proportion what the other poster was saying. As far as I can see the posts were not at all as one sided as you make out.

 

 

 

Again you failed to address the point. Show me a link which questions the neutrality and political leanings of the Hamilton report.

[puchooay]

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Again you failed to address the point. Show me a link which questions the neutrality and political leanings of the Hamilton report.

Rookie, you are blinded my your loyalty, however well guided or misguided they may be.

 

You first said you could not find the report, when it was right in front of you and now you question the report and fail to answer any questions posed.

 

If a unionist said the sky is blue you would disagree. It's a shame as you are unable to have any meaningful debate. You have made your mind up and and will not budge. You will also not ne drawn to answer questions. Sad but true. 

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Rookie, you are blinded my your loyalty, however well guided or misguided they may be.

 

You first said you could not find the report, when it was right in front of you and now you question the report and fail to answer any questions posed.

 

If a unionist said the sky is blue you would disagree. It's a shame as you are unable to have any meaningful debate. You have made your mind up and and will not budge. You will also not ne drawn to answer questions. Sad but true. 

N o you said the Hamilton report was being questioned over his political leanings and neutrality. The link you gave does not question that.

Please provide a link which does.

[puchooay]

18 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

N o you said the Hamilton report was being questioned over his political leanings and neutrality. The link you gave does not question that.

Please provide a link which does.

I did not mention anything of the sort. I questioned your ability to find the story.

 

Your inaccuracies prove my point about you being blinded by loyalty. You don't seem to be able to read all of one post and comprehend.