Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, King Of Paisley said:

I work for a firm based in Yorkshire (I'm home based) and you couldn't meet a sounder bunch. No problems at all.

There are so called Scots that I wouldn't piss on if they were in flames. The types you saw in George Square the day after indyref1 being a prime example. And of course Scots Tories

Odd isn't it how the unionists got all upset about so called "intimidation" when many of us went on the protest march (which was well behaved and non-threatening) to Pacific Quay and yet they were curiously silent about loyalist, Protestant supremacist hooligans smashing shop windows and threatening to assault teenage girls.

Very odd indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 11.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You think you're becoming more pragmatic, can see both sides, with age and then an individual turns your country into a colony.  And I use that word advisedly. Don't even need to defend their pos

I wont find it funny in any way, never mind hilarious. There is no way Scotland will win independance without the SNP in power. Unless you mean post independence,  but I doubt you mean that as that wo

The saddest thing on the TAMB is watching you scoot aroond the board needling bits and pieces of absolute shite in everywhere with absolutely fuck all evidence to back up anything. You are the King of

Posted Images

On 9/15/2020 at 5:40 PM, kumnio said:

While I understand your point, and they believe it to be true, frankly its nonsense.

Fair play to them is fair play for them, not other people. They are second only to Yanks in lacking self awareness and having a different opinion of themselves as opposed to the rest of the world. 

In the last year, Ive heard negative comments about their self interest, arrogance and stupidity from people from Belgium, Austria, Russia, Cambodia and Taiwan, none of which I instigated nor encouraged. The image of gentlemanly conduct may be perceived as an English trait, but only by people in England.

I think that's a stereotype which is a little bit overstated in my experience and having lived in England for over 30 years I feel that I have some sort of insight.

The vast majority of people are pretty fair minded, I'm talking her about the normal people who make up the vast bulk of the population, not the arseholes who phone into talk radio or troll on social media.

If you want to see a live example of that, you only have to look at the meltdown that has followed the suggestion that the UKG might be prepared to break the law - that's the sort of mentality that I'm talking about.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scots were a tough people. Now they are one the most domesticated broken people in Europe. 300 years of it has worn us down. The best of every generation leaving... generation after generation. It does affect the gene pool. We are so so soft now, such roll over pillows. 2014 summed it up. What would the 1707 scots have voted I wonder had they been asked.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Odd isn't it how the unionists got all upset about so called "intimidation" when many of us went on the protest march (which was well behaved and non-threatening) to Pacific Quay and yet they were curiously silent about loyalist, Protestant supremacist hooligans smashing shop windows and threatening to assault teenage girls.

Very odd indeed.

Imagine the fury if it were Yes supporters attacking Unionists.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cracks in the fog

Posted on September 17, 2020 by Rev. Stuart Campbell

Over the last year or so, this site’s commentary on matters surrounding the attempted imprisonment of Alex Salmond over false allegations of sexual abuse has attracted a considerable amount of ire from a section of the readership, demanding “proof” of the involvement of the current First Minister.

Such proof has been impossible to provide for legal reasons. But it’s always been the case that the truth could only be suppressed for so long, and events in recent days have brought the first chinks of light through the wall of smoke and mirrors the Scottish Government has been attempting to surround the matter with.

recordmurrell.jpg

So in our very lightest and softest shoes, let’s tiptoe through what is both a labyrinth and a minefield and see if we can make some of it a little easier to understand.

 

The Daily Record’s front page today brings into the public eye, via an anonynous leak to Kenny MacAskill, material we’ve been aware of for some time, in which the SNP’s chief executive Peter Murrell and its chief operating officer Sue Ruddick discuss – in the private WhatsApp group shared with several of Salmond’s accusers – how they can put pressure on Police Scotland to prosecute Mr Salmond and how they want him to be attacked on as many fronts as possible.

It ought to go without saying how massively improper it would be for a high-ranking official in the party of government to ever be attempting to influence a serious police investigation in such a manner.

It would also be, let’s say, remarkable if they were to do so without the knowledge and approval of the party leader, especially if that also happened to be their wife.

Mr Murrell recently told the Parliamentary inquiry that when Nicola Sturgeon met with one of the accusers and a representative of Alex Salmond to discuss the affair at Sturgeon and Murrell’s home in Glasgow in April 2018, Murrell was not present and had no idea what the discussion was about, because it was a government matter not a party one, and therefore none of his business.

murrelldenial.jpg

Yet last year Sturgeon had insisted that the meeting was NOT government business but “a party matter”, which if true would make it quite incredible for the party’s chief executive to be excluded and then not informed for several months.

nspartymatter.jpg

So unless there’s some sort of cataclysmic private war going on between Murrell and Sturgeon, well, readers can draw their own conclusions.

Interestingly, Craig Murray recently asked the Crown Office for copies of the messages between Murrell and Ruddick as part of his defence in his impending trial for contempt of court. We know this because he published the full exchange on his blog last month. This was one of the items requested:

craigpmsr.jpg

And this was the blanket refusal he received:

copfscm.jpg

But the Crown Office went further. In July, Kenny MacAskill had asked it if it had any evidence or knowledge of any attempt by Peter Murrell to influence Police Scotland either directly or indirectly with regard to the investigation.

kmlm.jpg

To which the Crown Office replied that it did not.

lmillerka.jpg

This seems, on the face of it, to be a direct and unequivocal lie. If the story in today’s Daily Record is true – and let’s say that we must assume their lawyers are satisfied with it to have made it the front page lead – then the Crown Office definitely DID know about the Murrell/Ruddick messages, and had them in its possession at all times, and yet has seemingly told a Member Of Parliament that the messages did not exist.

(The best defence we can put forward for Lindsey Miller there is that she may be trying to use weasel words to say that Murrell ATTEMPTED to influence Police Scotland but did not SUCCEED in doing so, which would both be a highly questionable proposition in itself given subsequent events, and also clearly not an answer in either the letter or the spirit of the question.)

Readers can only speculate about why the Crown Office, which is a department of and at least theoretically answerable to the Scottish Government, might lie to a Scottish MP about a serious criminal matter, and in whose service they were doing so.

copfsdept.jpg

Also in the last few days, a seemingly very confusing story has appeared regarding the release of documents to the inquiry. On Saturday the Daily Record ran a surprising piece saying that Alex Salmond had blocked certain documents that the Scottish Government had wanted to give the inquiry, suggesting that this was hypocritical on Salmond’s part given his previous calls for transparency.

recordblock.jpg

On Tuesday the Herald ran a much longer story on Salmond’s response.

heraldleak.jpg

Stripped of long screeds of impenetrable legalese, these are the events revealed:

1. The Scottish Government undertook an unlawful and biased inquiry into the allegations against Mr Salmond, producing a report. It admitted this when he took them to court over it, and the Scottish Government conceded the case before any information about the report and how it was produced became public, paying over £500,000 towards his legal bills.

2. The court “reduced” the report in question, a legal term meaning that it was to effectively be stricken from the record and ruling that it must not be published to anyone because it was not trustworthy.

3. Last month the Scottish Government attempted to give the biased and unlawful report to the Parliamentary inquiry anyway, from which its contents might become public, despite having promised the court it would not do so.

4. As the Scottish Government would have known for certain would happen, Salmond’s lawyers properly reminded them of their obligations, in a letter marked “PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL”, noting that the release of the report would be in breach of the outcome of the judicial inquiry and committing contempt of court.

5. Someone in the Scottish Government – the only lawful recipients of the letter – then selectively and illegally leaked that private and confidential letter to the Daily Record for the purposes of smearing Salmond as a hypocrite.

We’re sure that for the diehard loyalist supporters of the current SNP leadership, all of these facts will be brushed away as hearsay and tittle-tattle and the work of Unionist MI5 plants in the Yes movement and whatever. It is a position that is getting harder and harder to sustain with every day that passes.

The Scottish Government has done everything possible to hide this entire affair behind a veil of silence. But silence, readers, is a fragile thing. One loud noise and it’s gone.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/cracks-in-the-fog/

 

 

Former SNP Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has demanded an investigation over claims a 'leaked' document appears to show Peter Murrell backing police action against the former First Minister.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McDange said:

See it's Starmer's shift to be dispatched from London to tell Scotland that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid. What do we think the impact of this will be? 56% Yes? 58%? 

Doubt it’ll have any impact.  I don’t think people in a Scotland pay any attention to Labour these days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the SNP implodes over this where does it leave the fight for independence? Not that I'm saying all of the party were 100% committed to it but surely if this ends up bringing down Sturgeon that'll be the end of the "Nicola effect"?  How many percentage points will that cost us?  Looks to me like we're about to have one of our defeats from the jaws of victory.  :( 

Troubling times and no way will this mess all be sorted by the end of the year.  Absolutely fkin sickening just when we need all shoulders to the wheel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, daviebee said:

If the SNP implodes over this where does it leave the fight for independence? Not that I'm saying all of the party were 100% committed to it but surely if this ends up bringing down Sturgeon that'll be the end of the "Nicola effect"?  How many percentage points will that cost us?  Looks to me like we're about to have one of our defeats from the jaws of victory.  :( 

Troubling times and no way will this mess all be sorted by the end of the year.  Absolutely fkin sickening just when we need all shoulders to the wheel.

If the SNP implodes (no evidence of that whatsoever at present going by opinion polls quite the opposite actually) then its the end for independence as there will be no political mouthpiece for independence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

If the SNP implodes (no evidence of that whatsoever at present going by opinion polls quite the opposite actually) then its the end for independence as there will be no political mouthpiece for independence.

Well there might be no evidence at present, but your leader being possibly implicated in a plot to jail her predecessor would be a bit of a big deal.  Hoping for a positive outcome out of all this but I'm struggling to see how there can be tbh.  Even though there's an obvious polarisation in the Yes movement, these folks' votes can all be relied on come hell or high water.  It's the undecideds that all this could chase back into the "better the devil you know" camp that worries me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, daviebee said:

Well there might be no evidence at present, but your leader being possibly implicated in a plot to jail her predecessor would be a bit of a big deal.  Hoping for a positive outcome out of all this but I'm struggling to see how there can be tbh.  Even though there's an obvious polarisation in the Yes movement, these folks' votes can all be relied on come hell or high water.  It's the undecideds that all this could chase back into the "better the devil you know" camp that worries me.

It also depends on how you define 'implosion'. If you mean Sturgeon being removed and how that affects things and who then becomes leader? And no it cannot be Salmond as that would send it from implosion to destruction. It would depend on who takes over as the new FM but I'd say it would set back a push for independence quite a fair few years. Westminster won't agree to another referendum on positive polls alone - there would need to be a SNP majority taking over 50% of votes at a Scottish or General Election. That won't happen if there is any measurably implosion.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It also depends on how you define 'implosion'. If you mean Sturgeon being removed and how that affects things and who then becomes leader? And no it cannot be Salmond as that would send it from implosion to destruction.

I'd say Sturgeon being removed under these circumstances would constitute an implosion. A new leader would need time to build up trust with the public as well I'd imagine.  Other than Joanna Cherry I can't really see another suitable candidate.  This has all got the potential to set us back years.  :(

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daviebee said:

I'd say Sturgeon being removed under these circumstances would constitute an implosion. A new leader would need time to build up trust with the public as well I'd imagine.  Other than Joanna Cherry I can't really see another suitable candidate.  This has all got the potential to set us back years.  :(

And the craziest thing is the man driving the last IndyRef campaign is the man that has the power to end independence dream perhaps for a generation. What matters more to him really? Revenge/justice at the cost of Scotland's independence? I mean if I were in his shoes I'd be holding back on taking matters further (if that is what he wishes) until the matter of IndyRef2 is settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It also depends on how you define 'implosion'. If you mean Sturgeon being removed and how that affects things and who then becomes leader? And no it cannot be Salmond as that would send it from implosion to destruction. It would depend on who takes over as the new FM but I'd say it would set back a push for independence quite a fair few years. Westminster won't agree to another referendum on positive polls alone - there would need to be a SNP majority taking over 50% of votes at a Scottish or General Election. That won't happen if there is any measurably implosion.

In the John Major years his government was absolutely up to its neck in sleaze, yet it wasn't enough for voters to flock to Neil Kinnock in their droves to win the 1992 election.

Even if Sturgeon did go, no one person is bigger than the independence movement. I think the horse has long since bolted with Scots when the have seen how Labour have sided with the Tories on just about everything, Brexit and the clusterfuck that is BoJo and his contempt for out Parliament.

Scots won't all of a sudden rush back to Unionist parties. They have too long memories of the events of the last 6 years. I can't see a seismic shift in the polls in the space of a few months

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, King Of Paisley said:

In the John Major years his government was absolutely up to its neck in sleaze, yet it wasn't enough for voters to flock to Neil Kinnock in their droves to win the 1992 election.

Even if Sturgeon did go, no one person is bigger than the independence movement. I think the horse has long since bolted with Scots when the have seen how Labour have sided with the Tories on just about everything, Brexit and the clusterfuck that is BoJo and his contempt for out Parliament.

Scots won't all of a sudden rush back to Unionist parties. They have too long memories of the events of the last 6 years. I can't see a seismic shift in the polls in the space of a few months

Key to any chance of IndyRef2 being granted is SNP getting at least 51% of the votes at next year's Scottish Elections. If anything sensational does happen and Sturgeon is ousted and things get messy in a leadership battle it opens the door to unionist media on their soapboxes and it would be inevitable that some easily swayed people would vote elsewhere. That would be my fear. The SNP would still remain in power I feel but there is no way they'd maintain the sort of showing the polls are predicting at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

And the craziest thing is the man driving the last IndyRef campaign is the man that has the power to end independence dream perhaps for a generation. What matters more to him really? Revenge/justice at the cost of Scotland's independence? I mean if I were in his shoes I'd be holding back on taking matters further (if that is what he wishes) until the matter of IndyRef2 is settled.

Fuck that, if they’ve tried to do him then he’s entitled to seek compensation and further clear his name. 

He’s done in politics though and I’m sure he’ll understand that, but if someone uses Salmond as a reason not to vote for Indy then they probably would have found another excuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Fuck that, if they’ve tried to do him then he’s entitled to seek compensation and further clear his name. 

He’s done in politics though and I’m sure he’ll understand that, but if someone uses Salmond as a reason not to vote for Indy then they probably would have found another excuse. 

Well it depends what is more important to him? Only he can answer that.

If he wishes (depending on truth behind rumours) then he could quite likely end the independence dream for a generation. It would shatter SNP support and give Westminster all the ammo it needs to ramp up support for the union and the unionist parties in Scotland. With that it would set us back from the brink of a very promising position to being back on our knees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

Key to any chance of IndyRef2 being granted is SNP getting at least 51% of the votes at next year's Scottish Elections. If anything sensational does happen and Sturgeon is ousted and things get messy in a leadership battle it opens the door to unionist media on their soapboxes and it would be inevitable that some easily swayed people would vote elsewhere. That would be my fear. The SNP would still remain in power I feel but there is no way they'd maintain the sort of showing the polls are predicting at present.

I think you’re misremembering there.  Major only became PM in late 1990 after Thatcher resigned - I can still remember that night - and so was pretty much still in a bit of a honeymoon period come the 1992 GE.  I think that a lot of people fundamentally didn’t like Kinnock - I know I didn’t and I voted for the fucker -there was just something wrong about him.   This was the start of the whole shy-Tory thing  

The sleaze stuff - cash for questions - and also the fall out from Maastricht and all the back stabbing in the Tory party came in the following parliament, and was a big part of why Labour won. 

If - big if - the fallout from the Salmond case results in the FM being damaged beyond repair then it’ll be a disaster in the short and medium term, for the Yes movement.  

People might not change their minds as regards to independence but the vehicle for achieving that will be fractured, probably irreparable and probably be a decade until they get themselves into proper state or an alternative appears.  

I don’t see any individual capable of bringing together the two factions and if this does play out badly, no one will come out looking good.  It’ll make what’s gone on with Labour at a UK level over the last 5 years look like a Tea-party. 

People really need to be careful what they wish for here. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Key to any chance of IndyRef2 being granted is SNP getting at least 51% of the votes at next year's Scottish Elections. If anything sensational does happen and Sturgeon is ousted and things get messy in a leadership battle it opens the door to unionist media on their soapboxes and it would be inevitable that some easily swayed people would vote elsewhere. That would be my fear. The SNP would still remain in power I feel but there is no way they'd maintain the sort of showing the polls are predicting at present.

The Salmond trial was sensational enough and even that hasn't tipped the scales. Yes, there may be some that could be easily swayed but not large swathes for the reasons mentioned. If Scots can't see the bigger picture then it says a lot about us as an electorate.

Lets be honest here, when it comes to Unionist shit stirring in the coming months you ain't seen nothing yet. This is going to get dirtier. This is where we have to stand big as a movement. They are terrified  and will pull out all the stops to derail the SG

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Well it depends what is more important to him? Only he can answer that.

If he wishes (depending on truth behind rumours) then he could quite likely end the independence dream for a generation. It would shatter SNP support and give Westminster all the ammo it needs to ramp up support for the union and the unionist parties in Scotland. With that it would set us back from the brink of a very promising position to being back on our knees.

The cat appears out the bag now, so better getting to the truth and deal with the fall out, like I said, whatever Sturgeon did or didn’t do to Salmond, it shouldn’t affect someone’s belief in independence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phart said:

Settling it on Salmond is not where it started. If there was a conspiracy it started at that point, not the point where Salmond reacts.

 

Whenever, wherever it started is not really the point. The point is do those that really seek independence politically slash each others throats and end the independence dream right away. Or do they do the sensible thing and agree to halt their wars against each other until the main goal is achieved. Make a pact and agree to a full resolvement after independence is achieved would be the sensible thing to do as at pesent (polls-wise) we have never been so close to independence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aaid said:

I think you’re misremembering there.  Major only became PM in late 1990 after Thatcher resigned - I can still remember that night - and so was pretty much still in a bit of a honeymoon period come the 1992 GE.  I think that a lot of people fundamentally didn’t like Kinnock - I know I didn’t and I voted for the fucker -there was just something wrong about him.   This was the start of the whole shy-Tory thing  

The sleaze stuff - cash for questions - and also the fall out from Maastricht and all the back stabbing in the Tory party came in the following parliament, and was a big part of why Labour won. 

If - big if - the fallout from the Salmond case results in the FM being damaged beyond repair then it’ll be a disaster in the short and medium term, for the Yes movement.  

People might not change their minds as regards to independence but the vehicle for achieving that will be fractured, probably irreparable and probably be a decade until they get themselves into proper state or an alternative appears.  

I don’t see any individual capable of bringing together the two factions and if this does play out badly, no one will come out looking good.  It’ll make what’s gone on with Labour at a UK level over the last 5 years look like a Tea-party. 

People really need to be careful what they wish for here. 

I fully agree with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aaid said:

I think you’re misremembering there.  Major only became PM in late 1990 after Thatcher resigned - I can still remember that night - and so was pretty much still in a bit of a honeymoon period come the 1992 GE.  I think that a lot of people fundamentally didn’t like Kinnock - I know I didn’t and I voted for the fucker -there was just something wrong about him.   This was the start of the whole shy-Tory thing  

The sleaze stuff - cash for questions - and also the fall out from Maastricht and all the back stabbing in the Tory party came in the following parliament, and was a big part of why Labour won. 

If - big if - the fallout from the Salmond case results in the FM being damaged beyond repair then it’ll be a disaster in the short and medium term, for the Yes movement.  

People might not change their minds as regards to independence but the vehicle for achieving that will be fractured, probably irreparable and probably be a decade until they get themselves into proper state or an alternative appears.  

I don’t see any individual capable of bringing together the two factions and if this does play out badly, no one will come out looking good.  It’ll make what’s gone on with Labour at a UK level over the last 5 years look like a Tea-party. 

People really need to be careful what they wish for here. 

Was it at night? I can remember sitting in primary 7 and the teacher running in to say Thatcher was resigning and it creating a buzz with the teachers and all us 11 year olds sitting bemused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...