Thursday, December 3, 2020

YouGov indy polling gossip

First of all, if you'd like to read more analysis of yesterday's Ipsos-Mori poll putting support for independence at 56%, I have an article in today's edition of The National HERE.  

I've also just received an email from a reader to let me know that another YouGov poll on independence is underway - which might be a cause for dismay, because I suspect that YouGov may be the firm most likely to break the long sequence of Yes majorities (they had Yes ahead by 'only' 51-49 in their last poll).  However, it remains to be seen whether the new poll is even intended for publication, because some of the supplementary questions are a bit odd and have the look of a private poll.  There's a question about how the army should be branded in Scotland, and also one about whether the unionist parties should form an electoral pact on the constituency vote in May.  (Seems a bit of a pointless query, because it's surely unthinkable that Labour in particular would be willing to go down that road.)

211 comments:

  1. Regarding Labour not forming a unionist pact - what about Aberdeen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s a different situation. The different Unionist parties all contested the election against one another, and aligned afterwards to form an administration.

      An electoral pact would involve those parties standing single candidates in constituencies across the country. That’s a whole new level of cooperation that would be wholly unrealistic.

      Delete
    2. Yes - there's a big difference between a pre-election and post-election coalition. If the unionist came up with a pre-election coalition, they'd not only have single candidates standing in constituencies, but they'd also need a coalition manifesto. For election purposes LibDems, Labour and Tories would basically merge into a single party. That would kill Labour in Scotland, mortally wound LibDems and would have consequences on them in England and Wales as well. It's really difficult to imagine this happening.

      Delete
  2. Possibly a Scotland in Union poll.
    Maybe hoping to find "Facts" to quote anti-independence.
    Here's one "If the precious Union was under threat would you clutch at any straw to save it?"
    Could be they'll use the Leave/Remain question again. The NO side have few activists but loads of cash so it wouldn't be a surprise if they're trying to provide "usable" figures for dodgy propaganda purposes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's SIU they almost certainly won't use the usual Yes/No question.

      Delete
  3. What do Labour and the LibDems have to lose?
    They are all fishing in the same Unionist pond for votes.
    I think it is possible for an agreement not to stand against each other in agreed seats.
    They know the Unionist vote will gravitate to the only Unionist choice remaining.
    It will not be a combined party but an agreement to stand aside on agreed seats and lists.

    Labour cannot do worse than they would going alone.

    The Unionists are cornered animals now so anything is possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Labour cannot do worse than they would going alone."

      Why not? They still have quite a few seats. They even hold some constituencies. They've thought every election since 2007 must be their nadir, only to sink further still at the next one.

      A pact would primarily benefit the Tories, dooming Labour's hopes of regaining second place. There isn't anything in it for them. The Ian Murray strategy might work in Morningside, but 2015 showed that Scotland ain't Morningside.

      Delete
  4. 'We're just the best arrogant wanker of a country in Europe!' ((c) UK).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55175162

    Speaking to LBC radio on Thursday, Mr Williamson said: "I just reckon we've got the very best people in this country and we've obviously got the best medical regulator, much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have.

    "That doesn't surprise me at all, because we're a much better country than every single one of them."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're the very bestest, and I'll keep shaying it till I'm shick!
      Rule Brittannia. Rebellious Scots to crush!!

      Delete
  5. Anthony Fauci said today that MHRA didn't scrutinize the vaccine enough, took a shortcut and made a political decision. It doesn't really bode well for the MHRA and UK's scientific standing. And no-one can tell me that there was no political pressure on MHRA for UK to be the first in the world to approve this vaccine. You just had to follow what the Tories were saying afterwards to realise why. It's approved for emergency use which is usually used in the EU only for patients which would die without a specific medication which is in later stages of development. And most importantly - the manufacturer isn't liable for any damages if a medication went through the emergency use process.
    Any EU country could have done this, but they all chose not to. And TBH if I were offered it now, I think I'd wait for the EMA and FDA to approve it first.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would love to see a poll on the question of FFA, it would probably get 70% support.

    I still maintain Scotland should control everything except defence and foreign affairs, which the UK as a whole shares. That would then bring everyone together. If we had another referendum right now, about half the population would be upset either way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If FFA allowed for remaining in the EU/EEA it might work, but otherwise that ship sailed post-2016.

      About half (or more) of the population are already 'upset' in that they want Scotland to be governed differently with respect to the UK, so a new iref wouldn't change anything there.

      In fact polls suggest they'd be a bit happier with indy now, i.e. the union is currently 10% more 'divisive' than indy.

      Delete
    2. Scottish Skier,

      Let’s assume the following:

      - SNP win a majority
      - UK govt engages on another internationally recognised referendum but make one of the following demands in order to agree:

      (what would you think/say?)

      1. This result must last for a minimum of 7 years (like in the Good Friday agreement)

      2. A supermajority is required (e.g. 55% threshold as in the Montenegro referendum which narrowly passed)

      3. A similar turnout to 2014 is required (I think I know your answer to this based on previous conversations)

      4. A third option is added (like Alex Salmond tried for (full fiscal autonomy)

      5. That the Yes question mention leaving the UK: ‘should Scotland leave the UK and become an independent country’.

      6. Require an indyref3 on the terms of separation like John Major suggested

      7. Delay until after the economic rebuilding after the pandemic like Gordon Brown suggested.

      8. A flat ‘no’.

      These are all options for the UK to protect its own existence.

      Delete
    3. First one is fine. As you say yourself - all the rest are attempts by the UK government to protect the UK. Apart from the the first one, you seem to be struggling with accepting democracy. It just comes across as slippery and untrustworthy.

      Why not as an alternative to these machinations let there be a campaign and then trust the Scottish people to decide?

      Delete
    4. I don’t think options 4 or 5 could possibly be antidemocratic?

      How are they? Even Alex Salmond wanted point 4.

      Delete
    5. In regard to 4. if the manifestoes of the independence parties include a statement for a binary question (and I think they will) then that's what it should be. The years before 2014 are "another country" - what AS said then is of no import now.

      In regard to 5. come off it. It is a blatant attempt to confuse the vote. Leave is a negative word in scottish terms because it is associated with brexit which a huge majority oppose. This is simply an attempt by unionists to muddy the waters and associate the negative feeling about leaving the EU with independence. In contrast everyone is clear about the 2014 question. To rely on confusing folk is not democratic.

      Delete
    6. The UK doesn't "share" defence!
      They hog powers in London and are taking back control from Holyrood FFS.
      Nobody in London is lying awake at night thinking "what can we do for Scotland " Its not a bloody Union FFS.

      Delete
    7. Okay, fair enough. If the UK required one or more of those options e.g. a third question then do you think the SNP should say no and run its own referendum?

      Delete
    8. FFA would require holyrood control oil, gas, renewable power generation and fishing.

      The latter was already supposed to be devolved, but England 'took back control' so it could barter a better EU deal for itself.

      FFA should also allow Scotland not to pay for trident not host it. If it has to pay and allocate resources for hosting against its will, that's not FFA.

      Delete
    9. If unionists win the next Scottish election they could hold a vote on FFA alone.

      If Yes parties win, they can hold a vote on indy alone.

      It's up to whoever is given the backing of the electorate, which is how democracy works.

      If unionists proposed FFA in the event of a Yes party win, then the fair approach would be the latter could an indyref. If the result was no, they could then implement FFA or hold a second ref on that vs current devo, assuming the unionists required the electorate to agree on FFA.

      That way everything is clear to the electorate.

      Delete
    10. That's what happened last time. There was indyref2, No won, and so they got their Smith Commission vow thing.

      Delete
    11. And how can you manage your own finances fully if you have to comply with trade rules / deals you don't agree with?

      For FFA, Scotland would need to have a veto on UK trade deals like EU member states have for the EU. EU member states have effective FFA within the EU union, but all have an equal say in how it's run / the rules of the bloc.

      They collaborate on defense (EU defense force) and foreign affairs (trade deals, sanctions etc).

      For FFA to work, you would need to model the UK on the EU with Scotland an independent / sovereign state within the UK trade block. It would have a veto on trade deals and defense decisions.

      Otherwise it wouldn't be FFA.

      Delete
    12. Union 2.0

      It doesn't really work how you write. The referendum doesn't come out of nothing. It comes only when there is a majority for it in the Scottish parliament. And the people eligible to vote in Scotland elect that parliament (and with our electoral system you actually do need a majority of people to get the absolute majority in Holyrood - unlike with the UK electorate system where you can get a big majority in Westminster with a clear minority of votes).
      So, if parties which have referendum in their manifestos win the majority, then there should be a referendum. And the Holyrood should decide the wording of the question. Even if this means there is a referendum every 4 years. If rUK doesn't like this - there's a solution - no-one's forcing them to be in the union with Scotland. They could just leave.

      Delete
    13. Yes, pro-indy parties got a majority of PR list votes which were used for seat allocation (i.e. those made for parties which met the 5% threshold in at least one region) in both 2011 and 2016, hence these got a majority of seats. Unionist parties didn't get a majority of these votes, so got a minority of seats.

      Following threshold vote elimination, seats were allocated almost perfectly proportionally based on the PR list to within +/- a couple of %.

      It's why if people back the SNP, they should vote SNP on the list; it used as the basis for the allocation of all seats.

      Delete
    14. The unionist list vote split to both the Libs and UKIP in 2016, which likely cost unionists a few seats. If these voters had opted for Lab and Lib, they might have managed to close the gap somewhat.

      A lesson to learn for Yes voters.

      Delete
    15. Just to be clear, Alex Salmond did not “want” a third option on the 2014 ballot, he offered it to anyone who was willing to argue for it, but nobody took up his offer.

      Delete
    16. Martin - the Scottish Parliament have already voted twice in the past for an independence referendum. Didn't happen did it. Why because Sturgeon stuck to her gold standard sec 30 legal referendum approach and did nothing.

      So what is different about this promise of a "legal" referendum?

      I will believe a referendum is happening when the legislation enabling the referendum is passed with a date and question noted. Otherwise it is just another Sturgeon promise throwing out carrots to donkeys who believe every word she says to get votes at an election.

      Delete
    17. Listen to the First Minister closing speech, take it in, there is no if or buts, THERE WILL BE A REFERENDUM VOTE IN 2021, IF the people elect a MAJORITY OF S.N.P. members to the SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

      Delete
    18. Scots are 'stupid'...'donkeys'...'vermin' etc.

      Classic unionist.

      Delete
    19. @ Union 2.0

      "5. That the Yes question mention leaving the UK: ‘should Scotland leave the UK and become an independent country’."

      Scotland will not be "leaving the UK", so why should that be the question?

      There were two signatories to the Union; the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland. Independent Scotland means no UK, no rUK. What the Kingdom of England calls itself after the Union ends will probably be worth a laugh or two.

      Delete
    20. 70% support for FFA ye think?
      Maist folk think that's the French Fitba Association.
      Whit world dae ye live in man.
      Anything that leaves us with London as "our" capital is just England/UK rule.
      Once bitten and all that.

      Delete
    21. Questioning the 'legality' of a referendum is also unionism 101.

      It's not actually possible to hold an illegal consultative (e.g. like iref2014 or EUref2016) referendum. Unless you are in say Belarus, North Korea...

      Delete
    22. Drew Anderson - 3.33pm - well said. They could call themselves Borisland🀣

      Delete
    23. William Purves - glad to read that you believe it will happen next year. At least you have courage to state what you believe. I will vote SNP to help it happen.

      If there is a but after a majority win William what are you going to do then? Just shrug your shoulders? It is now 4.5 years after the EU vote.

      Delete
    24. How can Scotland both be independent and stay in the UK? I don’t understand that.

      Also, a Scottish government referendum on its own without UK agreement would be perfectly legal, but risks a massive unionist boycott like in Catalonia.

      Delete
    25. Err No to just FFA. England wants Nuclear weapons then England alone can pay for them and keep them on her land or waters! Scotland has had enough of England having a Blank cheque to spend what it wants then saying to Scotland here's your share of the Bill. Scotland needs to decide its own view and how it wants to interact with the rest of Europe and indeed the World FFA. wouldn't allow that!

      Delete
    26. IDS - I agree with you and we have been cornered to a degree, but at the moment there's nothing else to do but wait for the May election.
      NS is I think aware now that she'll have to go if she does nothing after May.

      Delete
  7. What would a poll say about our English Tory Lairds and Masters using us as guinea-pigs for the Covid 19 vaccine. When we arent good as cannon fodder we are still good for Nazi medical science experiments.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Next up for the Inquiry on Tuesday investigating the behaviour of the FM, Scotgov and special advisers is the Chief Exec of the SNP P. Murrell.

    He of the infamous messages to S. Ruddick telling her to pressurise people to get on to the police etc etc to get Salmond. Murrell says he could not use the words he meant to use. A Chief Exec unable to choose the right words - promoted above his ability or lying. Lying is the answer.

    The defence Murrell comes up with is I am an idiot. Should an idiot be Chief Exec of the SNP? Or the more accurate question is should a man who participated in the political persecution of Salmond be Chief Exec of the SNP.

    Still no word from the silent Ruddick on the matter. Did she get back to Murrell and say surely you don't mean this Peter, this is not right, I cannot do what you are asking. Silence once again is not golden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now Murrell has stated in his written submissions that he had nothing to do with any of the Scotgov actions.

      So why have lawyers been hired? Why have the lawyers written to the Committee? Why does he need legal advice? It's an Inquiry not a criminal court. Is he paying for them out of his own pocket or out of SNP funds?

      Delete
    2. Perhaps the Committee will be asking Murrell about the claim by Salmonds lawyers that the SNP are refusing to release material which is relevant to the Inquiry.

      In a letter to the Lord Advocate Salmonds lawyers say:

      "There is additional material which he considers materially relevant to the remit of the Parliametary Inquiry, but which, it would appear, both the Scottish Government and THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY have not and are unlikely to release.

      Our client feels very strongly that this is an indefensible position for them to take on a Parliamentary Inquiry which the Scottish Government have pledged to provide full cooperation."

      Delete
  9. Under Scots law asking the people of Scotland how they want to be governed can never be legal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Illegal obviously - you are an arsehole skier. You are a stalker - a looney.

      Delete
    2. I've been passively looking at the comments for several weeks. It's clear that 'Independence for Scotland' has a bizarre fixation on 'Scottish Skier', and believes in strange conspiracy theories about Alex Salmond. They also seem to revel in bad health figures.

      I humbly suggest this commenter be banned.

      Delete
    3. Skier - you are a clown not a comedian.

      Delete
    4. Bruce Cowan - nothing humble about you - now you post an inaccurate comment about me but unlike you I won't ask you to be banned just do better research.

      Delete
    5. I've done plenty of 'research' and come to the conclusion you're unhinged.

      Delete
    6. Bruce - I've done minimal research on you and come to the conclusion you're a troll.

      Delete
  10. The people of Scotland are sovereign in Scotland. That's the only law that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Aye Nicola said it. It's in black and white. She (and SG) will seek the authority from the Scottish people AND NOBODY ELSE to hold a referendum on independence.
    I'd rather hang on these words than Boris Johnson's.
    Remember the referendum will not be about devolved issues or powers, but about Scottish Statehood and that's out of Johnson's hands - and in ours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ramstam - if you want to hang on Surgeons words then that's your right but she said LEGAL referendum. You seem to have omitted that from your post.

      Delete
    2. It's only unionists that try to say Iref2 would be illegal.

      Delete
    3. Scots are 'stupid...clowns...donkeys...vermin'... is classic unionist.

      Delete
  12. When only a minority of Scots support indy, it is Yes parties 'pushing for independence / a referendum'.

    When a majority of Scots back independence, it is the people of Scotland pushing for independence / a referendum.

    These are two very, very different scenarios, with Sturgeon spot on in consistently highlighting this, and what it means for political pressure in London. Hence the message since 2014/16 of 'To get independence, we need to just keep trying to persuade more people to back indy' combined with pushing Westminster to acknowledge the right of Scotland to chose its own path, with the expected resistance to this being a Yes vote printing machine.

    Scotland becoming a 'Yes' nation also has profound implications for our own 'Scottish' mainstream media, institutions such as the courts/bar etc. These have historically been unionist because Scots were historically unionist. As Scots become pro-indy, so the tide sweeps across every aspect of Scottish life. Just as devo did in the late 90's.

    ReplyDelete
  13. IFS, I omitted nothing from my post that was relevant.
    No referendum can be illegal, and no politician furth of Scotland can gainsay the claim of right of the Scottish people to decide there own future.
    BTW Skier. You're right that the times they are a-changing. The tactic I use when having a casual conversation is to throw in "Aye, it's time we went for our independence" It's surprising the lack of resistance you get.
    After Brexit we'll be pushing at an open door and the Holy grail of 60% YES.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ramstam, so you are saying Sturgeon has changed her opinion from her Jan 2020 speech - so why insert legal in her sentence. It's good if she has now moved away from her no wildcat referendum nonsense.

      You trust her I don't.

      Delete
    2. Iref2 would be a 'wildcat' vote is classic unionist.

      Delete
    3. Skier is calling Sturgeon a Unionist - what a clown.

      Delete
    4. Good to see you agreeing that sturgeon is pushing for indy and isn't a secret unionist.

      However, I've never heard her suggest Iref2 would be 'wildcat'; it's only unionist that have called it that.

      Delete
  14. Two items of mail received this week ended up in the same place - the bin.

    One item was a pamphlet from the Tories with a pic of DRoss on the front. This went straight into the bin.

    The second was an envelope from the SNP. Upon opening it contained a letter from Sturgeon asking for a donation and a nice wee Happy St Andrews day card showing Sturgeon ice skating. Two things stood out to me - 1) no mention of an independence referendum - 2) her words "Stay safe, be kind and let's look after each other." Fine words but she hasn't been very kind to Salmond has she. There will be no further donations from my family to pay for things like Alyn Smiths libel costs or anything for P. Murrell/I McCann/ S Ruddick salaries or lawyer fees.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can you get set up your own blog and stop boring us.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It was good to hear the FM speak out this week against raptor persecution pity she doesn't feel the same about Salmond persecution.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's all rather clichΓ©d, repetitive unionist concern troll stuff. A bit of originality wouldn't go amiss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skier - Marcia is finding you boring. However, a troll Skier blog would be even more boring as you never post anything but just troll others.

      Delete
    2. It certainly isn't SS who bores us to death.

      Delete
    3. Marcia, your first two attempts at posting are not exactly very interesting - more like trolling. If you are referring to me then why not say so - too lazy. Who is this "us""

      Delete
    4. Only a unionist wuidnae ken the moniker 'Marcia'.

      Been posting for god knows how many years.

      Delete
    5. Skier - You must be a shade of orange like Trump with all the carrots you have been eating over the years and all the lies you tell.

      You think you are some sort of demon Unionist hunter but you are just an idiot who posts a lot of uninformed pish.

      Delete
  18. From the North Britainshire on Sunday newspaper.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/how-british-empire-demise-may-point-way-ahead-scottish-independence-referendum-stand-3058502

    How British empire demise may point to way ahead in Scottish independence referendum stand-off

    Historic precedents from the demise of the British empire may point to a more pragmatic approach from the UK Government over demands for an independence referendum, it has been suggested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now if I was an idiot like Skier I would post something like:

      " only unionists quote from the Scotsman and believe what the Scotsman writes"

      but I don't because I am not an idiot like Skier.

      Delete
  19. If I was a unionist, I'd call Scots 'idiots, donkeys, stupid...vermin' etc.

    However, I don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it was interesting to listen to Radio 4 this morning. A a member of the EU Bexit Committee, the chair I think he was interviewed live, was asked in Scotland would be welcome as an Independent country?

      His answer - "Sure.

      Delete
    2. Now if I was an idiot like Skier I would post something like:

      "Only unionists listen to Radio 4"

      But I don't because I am not an idiot like Skier.

      Delete
  20. The regular poll for the Observer still shows NS with a UK wide net positive rating. The Scottish sample has an over sample of Tories who voted in the 2019 GE.

    https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/uk-voting-intention-3rd-december-2020/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Only English unionist bloggers would call Scots 'fools'.

    The simple reason that Scotland hasn't become independent since 2016 is that Scots didn't want it. Unfortunately. The brexit vote alone was just not alone enough to create the swing needed. Quite a few Yes voters acutally supported Scexit aka Norway, while many potential Yes voters wanted to see how the whole thing panned out before deciding. Only unionist would call them stupid for doing that; it's not an irrational approach give we are still actually all but in the EU 4 years on.

    In poll after poll they said they didn't want iref2 any time soon and that they'd vote no if it was held.

    And that's with indepdence vs unionism campaigns running since ~2012. The subject has never left the headlines. It is the defining political question in Scotland now, pervading every political discussion, from the office to the pub to zoom dinner parties.

    Anyone demanding that the SNP hold a referendum back in 2017...18...19 only wants that because they wish it was held then because No would have won.

    The SNP will not deliver Scottish indy. The people of Scotland will do that, and when they are ready. It looks like they are ready now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now if I was an idiot like Skier I would say something like this:

      Only a Unionist would state that "The SNP will not deliver Scottish Indy."

      But I don't because I am not an idiot like Skier.

      Delete
  22. The person who wants the SNP manifesto for the 2021 election to contain a mandate for actual independence - me.

    The person who wants another 5 years of Tory rule just to make sure that a referendum is won he says - Skier.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The simplest way to spot a unionist troll is they regularly throw insults at Yes parties / voters.

    'Stupid..idiots...donkeys...Surgeon fanboys...vermin'

    They cannot help themselves. No matter how much they pretend to support indy with all the caricature 'braveheart' and 'britnat' stuff, their true feelings always end up showing though.

    That and they lie. Consistently. Always accusing people of saying things did not, hence the lack of a link to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite, they give themselves away with their terminology and repetitive postings.

      Delete
    2. Marcia - I take great offense at your implication. It really is pathetic. You cannot handle the truth so like your idiot pal Skier have only one response - Unionist.

      The site now has a second demon Unionist hunter.

      Delete
    3. Skier - never used the word stupid or vermin but hey you just like your lies, misrepresentation etc etc.

      Liars give themselves away by lying.

      Idiots give themselves away by posting pish.

      Delete
    4. All the Scots who took back control of the NEC are not idiots - I aplaud them. Skier the idiot saw no need for change and called people unionists who want the SNP to focus on independence.

      Delete
    5. I clearly said unionists use the terms quoted. For example Boris's infamous Scots are 'vermin'.

      I guess you felt I was talking about you because you've used other terms in the list such as 'donkeys' and 'idiots' to describe Scots, hiding as you do on the internet. I bet you are far too much of a coward to do that in real life.

      You continuously throw insults at me, yet I don't do that in return because I'm an indy supporter.

      Yes, I said the SNP NEC was not a dark and sinister organisation like some anti-Yes party English politics blogs were claiming. I said members could simply vote to change it if they didn't like some of the members. Which they did. The nature of the NEC will not decide Scotland's future though, nor will the SNP. The electorate are the ones that will decide that and political parties will not ultimately be able to stop them even if they wanted to.

      So no, petty arguments between name calling factions about domestic issues such as GRA is not my priority. I'm happy to say that. But if the NEC changes help stop that, then I'm not going to complain. However, never once in all my years of trying to gently persuade folks of the case for indy has any regular voter brought up the SNP NEC as a factor in that. It's only political nerds that even know what an NEC even is.

      Delete
    6. Skier it was obvious to anyone you were referring to me. You were the one who started to insult me. You continually call me a Unionist but claim you don't insult me - "I bet you are too much of a coward to do that in real life" - another insult - your self delusion is staggering. When I insult people I know I am doing it and don't pretend otherwise (like you) and it is because they have insulted me first.

      I very much doubt you would call me a Unionist in person. Marcia might for all I know but you - no chance.

      So when is the referendum happening?

      Delete
    7. 'Unionist' isn't an insult. I have friends and colleagues who support the union. Any anyway, I have just talked about the characteristics of a certain type of unionist, namely a troll. You believe this applies to you.

      'Donkeys / idiot / stupid / fanboy' etc are insults which you direct at me and other indy supporting Scots. Name calling, particularly using the internet as cover, is cowardly; it's not an insult, it's factual description.

      It's something you seem to have in common with unionist trolls. If you didn't do it, people might trust what you say more.

      Delete
    8. There you go again just like Marcia you seem to think you speak for "us" - delusions of self grandeur - how many are "us" - who are "us" where are these people called "us" and how did they elect you to speak for them. Usual Skier pish and yes that is an insult and if you keep posting pish,lying, misrepresenting what I post and calling me a Unionist then expect more.

      What insult delusional Skier will be saying to himself - "Unionist isn't an insult" says Skier it is if you support independence like me and have done all your life - so again you post pish and you seem to be such an idiot that you can't even see it.

      There clearly is something wrong with you Skier you started insulting me first of all just like Marcia turned up and straight in with an insult. Missing your pal GWC and need someone to stalk and insult - the pair of you were like Laurel and Hardy - a couple of clowns - and yes you can take that as an insult as well.

      Skier logic is when he insults on the web it is not cowardly but when he is insulted on the web it is cowardly and that is an observation on the distorted viewpoint of the poster Skier.

      Skier I post truthful facts and opinions you lie and distort.

      So when is the referendum happening?

      Delete
  25. Skier says - "I clearly said unionists use the terms quoted"

    No you didn't you said - " The simplest way to spot a Unionist TROLL is......."

    So once again you cannot even represent what you post accurately or you just cannot read well.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Will the Committee ask Murrell tomorrow about the complainer who raised her complaint (lies) with Ian Mc Cann SNP and McCann saying I will hold on to that information and use it in the future if required. Did he tell Murrell about this conversation? Did Murrell agree that something that was subsequently deemed serious to be passed to the police by Evans should just be held on to be used in the future as a weapon against Salmond if required. Did Murrrell tell Sturgeon?

    Why raise it with the SNP (and a man - Ian Mc Cann) if the complainer had no connection with the SNP as people like Skier punt? This same person was no shrinking violet she was telling everyone her story (lies) - Ian Mc Cann, John Somers, Barbara Allison, Gillian Russell, Judith MacKinnon.

    Will Murrell like so many in front of the Committee just plain refuse to answer questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One complainer was an SNP 'party employee', another (hand on leg in car allegation) a 'politician' of some form. The majority 7/9 were of course whitehall employees. It's all in the court proceedings.

      Delete
  27. Just got a leaflet through the door from Christine Grahame.

    I believe I'm correct in assuming that:
    1. She has not 'persecuted Salmond for 3 years'
    2. Does not 'Doth protest too much' when it comes to 'female penises' like some English politics websites
    3. Isn't a secret unionist who doesn't really want independence

    If so, I guess that's my vote settled then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So just how do you know she hasn't persecuted Salmond for three years - you have stated that one of the alphabet women is an SNP politician and you dont know who any of them are. More Skier pish.

      Now before you do your usual misrepresentation of my posts I will make it clear that I am not saying Grahame is one of the alphabet women but just highlighting your usual lack of competent analysis. Now that is not an insult but a service to anyone reading your pish.

      Delete
    2. So Grahame isn't an alphabet woman?

      You are free to tell us who isn't. It's just contempt of court to tell us who is a complainer.

      If you don't answer, we can all assume you don't actually know who the complainers were.

      If you can, we can go through all female SNP MSPs one by one and confirm folks are free to vote for them. For some reason you seem reluctant to do this.

      Delete
    3. Skier your logic is not just lacking somewhat but idiotic. So once again you post like the idiot you are. That is an insult.

      I have pointed out your lack of logic in your analysis but you reply by trying to get me to identify people by elimination/jigsaw identification. For that reason I am more than reluctant to carry out your exercise. So why are you reluctant to say when a referendum will happen?.

      You think you can get me in to trouble - you have tried this before - you are a truly despicable character - for the avoidance of doubt that is an insult.

      Delete
    4. LOL. How does confirming Christine Grahame was not one of the complainers identify others by jigsaw identification?

      There is what...well over 100 elected female SNP politicians?

      We'd have to eliminate about 90% of them before there was any real risk of jigsaw ID.

      Delete
    5. lol yourself idiot.

      There is clearly something wrong with you. You cannot read well can you - not even your own posts. No wonder Campbell said you really really can't read well.

      You said "we can through all female SNP MSPs one by one and confirm......."

      You then say " well over 100 elected female SNP politicians"

      I'll spell it out for you idiot the two are not the same.

      Changing your comment - what a total idiot.

      Now when is this referendum going to happen? You seem keen all the time to post your pish but are unable to answer this simple question.

      Delete
  28. Skier - you should take a good look at yourself. I've lost count of the numbet of times you have tried to goad me in to naming alphabet women on a public forum knowing that is a legal offence.

    Also not once have you shown any concern at all that according to your own words two of them are SNP members and one a politician - that is not a problem to you - you have very low standards. Of course you are incorrect in your statement of the number of SNP people but whether it is two of three or more just doesn't bother you does it. People who lie in a criminal court not a problem to Skier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. It's absolutely not illegal to tell people who is not one of the complainers. My wife isn't one. Neither is my mum. Nor my sister. How about Christine Grahame? You don't know at all do you, meaning people can't trust anything you say.

      Anyway, given there are over 540 SNP politicians, then >99.8% are definitely not one of alphabet women.

      That's a pretty safe bet when voting SNP in Scottish elections I'm sure you'd agree.

      Delete
    2. You truly are an idiot. I'll be voting SNP in the constituency. If it was up to idiots like you there would have been no change to the NEC in the SNP. Your attitude that if you criticise anything about the SNP you are a Unionist is what has led the SNP to be in such a mess. So you again do not care about what Murrell and others have been up to - well I prefer to vote for a party that is not run by crooks. You don't care.

      Is it right that people should be voting for an SNP candidate in May who lied in a criminal court trying to put Salmond in jail. The SNP leadership know that is what is happening. There are not 540 female SNP politicians standing in May - Skier you are a shameless liar.

      Skier the expert on the May election didn't even know who he would be voting for - claimed it would be McAlpine - Skier away and check how many female SNP candidates are standing in May - idiot.

      When is this referendum going to happen?

      Delete
    3. It's kinda obvious folks can safely vote for a male candidate, ergo 99.8% of currently elected SNP politicians are not alphabet women.

      Anyway, I've bookmarked your post about the importance of not revealing who the complainers were lest it result in contempt of court. It's good that you highlight this as it is key to what documents / testimony can be released to the committee.

      If people say they can't answer as question as it risks jigsaw, they are using the 'IfS defense'.

      Delete
    4. When is the referendum going to happen? Cat got your tongue Skier.

      Delete
    5. So Skier idiot how many female SNP candidates are standing in the May elections? Still no answer!

      It ain't the " well over 100 elected female politicians" you talked about above.

      It ain't the "540 SNP politicians " you talked about above.

      Skier you post pish and are a disgrace.

      Delete
  29. I had a look and the most recent advice I can find from Salmond is vote SNP 1 & 2 for an indyref and independence.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well well well. The BBC Parliament channel are showing Murrells appearance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the BBC are on your side / you are on their side.

      Delete
    2. As CE of the SNP Murrell is a big threat to the UK union. If he wasn't, the BBC wouldn't bother with him.

      Delete
    3. The demo Unionist hunter that is a proven liar and an idiot - Skier thats you.

      Delete
    4. The BBC actually cutoff the broadcast just as Baillie was questioning him. So as usual Skier your comment is pish.

      Delete
    5. After it became clear that Murrell was defending Salmond and had done nothing wrong, what would you expect the BBC to do?

      Delete
    6. Skier just keep on proving you are an idiot. There clearly is something wrong with you - its not normal to keep on proving on a public forum that you are an idiot. Will that impress your Unionist friends?

      If Murrell was not married to the SNP leader he would have been suspended weeks ago. Mind you if Sturgeon was not FM there would be no scandal for the Inquiry to investigate.

      Delete
    7. "As CE of the SNP Murrell is a big threat to the UK Union"

      As CE of the SNP Murrell was a big threat to Salmonds freedom.

      There you are Skier fixed that for you.

      Delete
  31. Fabiani as usual at the start states the remit of the Committee - namely to investigate the First Minister, the Scottish government and SPECIAL ADVISORS.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I see Murrell stated to the Holyrood committee that in all the years he worked with Salmond, there was never any evidence of sexual misconduct on the part of the latter. This is exactly what Sturgeon has repeatedly said.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55217649

    Odd. I thought that after Salmond resigned as first minister, handed over the reins of the party to his padawan Sturgeon, then retired from politics, the latter and Murrell plotted Salmond's political downfall, determined to end his frontline political career and wrestle control of the party from him. At least that's what unionist English blogs and the BBC say.

    Certainly, if you were after Salmond, you'd say something like 'Yes, there were some rumors, but nobody ever made any formal complaints, so we couldn't do anything'. You'd not respond 'Nope, in all the years we worked together there was no evidence of misconduct, i.e. he's innocent like the court found'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skier says above - Salmond "then retired from politics" after he handed over the leadership to Sturgeon. More total pish from Skier - Salmond won his MP seat in 2015 and continued to serve in Westminster until he lost his seat in 2017.

      Skier claims to be in the SNP but he gets something as basic as that wrong. What an idiot.

      Skier posts should come with a warning - like they do to Trump on twitter - my recommendation would be - "this post is likely to be pish".

      Delete
    2. 2017 is after 2014, hence the use of the word 'then' prior to describing what Salmond did in 2017 after detailing what he did in 2014.

      Delete
    3. Idiot Skier reinvents what he posted. Skier obviously went to the Murrell school of reinterpretation of what you say to cover up your mistakes.

      More pish posting from Skier confirming his posts need an accuracy warning.

      Delete
  33. Schrodingers Murrell - I wasn't at home when the meeting took place I was at home when the meeting took place.

    Liars abound - Skier you are not the only liar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Murrell's defense of Salmond was staunch. Made clear that he never saw any evidence for sexual misconduct in the nearly 40 years he worked with the latter.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55217649

      ...Mr Murrell said he had worked with Mr Salmond since the early 1980s, and had had "very few" concerns about his behaviour over the years.

      He said Mr Salmond "had very high expectation and could be difficult" and "unreasonable", but said there had been "nothing of any sexual misconduct nature".


      It's pretty clear he didn't try to set up Salmond from that statement alone. It's voluntarily defending Salmond for all to see.

      Delete
    2. Skier upstream you make one of your usual cheap demon Unionist hunter shots when I mention the BBC broadcasting Murrells flailing testimony. If I was an idiot like you I would say quoting from the BBC marks you out as a Unionist -

      But I'm not so I won't. I'll leave you to post your pathetic pish.

      Delete
    3. I'm surprised you don't apologise for misleading us all about Murrell. He made it absolutely clear to the committee that in nearly 40 years of working with Salmond, he'd never heard suggestions of sexual misconduct. You could not defend Salmond more in the circumstances and the precise opposite of persecuting him.

      The SNP have never accused Salmond of anything; quite the contrary. Certainly one party worker and one 'politician' (hand on leg complaint) do not the SNP make. Murrell now join Sturgeon in saying that they never, ever had a shred of evidence presented to them that Salmond was involved in sexual misconduct in all the decades they knew him. He was innocent just as the court found.

      But whitehall was definitely after him, and the unionists really want Scots to believe it was in fact the SNP in the hope that splits the vote. That and the trans issue; hence English based blogs pushing it.

      Delete
    4. Skier - simple action to clarify - MURRELL CAN ASK COPFS TO RELEASE ALL HIS MESSAGES/DOCUMENTATION HELD BY THEM TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC/INQUIRY.

      He can also ask all his staff to ask COPFS to release their messages/documentation to the general public/inquiry.

      Did Sue Ruddick reply to Murrell and say "surely Peter you don't mean I have to persecute Alex Salmond both in Scotland and London."

      Or did she say - " actioned as requested Salmond is finished - he is going to jail. "

      Murrell's interpretation of his words in those messages are laughable. Just how did he find out about London accusations and CPS?

      The messages are there with COFPS - Salmonds lawyers have already written to the Committee saying the SNP and the Scotgov have not released all pertinent docs/information.

      Skier you are defending a liar and a crook - you know what that makes you. Are you really such an idiot or something else. Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and lying in a criminal court are serious crimes.

      Delete
  34. Gie it a rest you guys. It isnae a pissin contest.
    The real story is the English couple crossing into Scotland, driving a coach and horses through the Covid guidelines we all have to abide by.
    Some folk cannae attend a funeral or visit a care home.
    Mind you they are royal so the rules are waived, and the guy wis wearing a royal Stewart scarf!
    Seems they're Welsh in Wales, and Scottish here. Embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll give it a rest when people apologise for calling me a Unionist. Care to be the first Ramstam.

      Delete
    2. I cant visit my very ill friend in Edinburgh. Yet two very rich English parasites can travel with impunity.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely zero respect for Scotland, just like the covid prince back in phase 1.

      Delete
    4. Indeed - it seems the Brit Nats are raging at the lack of royal enthusiasm and respect, because the vile deplorable separatists in Scotland are not rolling out the red carpet or bowing the knee for the Royal couple. Perhaps we haven't forgotten that old man Charles sneaked up to Braemar at the start of the first lockdown, clearly breaching the rules (intended for the plebs).

      Delete
    5. The idiot called Skier says people who use the term Brit Nats are unionists but as I am not an idiot like Skier I will not call unknown a Unionist.

      Skier has a mindset stuck in 2014.

      Delete
  35. In the ongoing mess that is now starting to be cleaned up in the SNP it is good to hear that the new SNP Treasurer is looking to find out where the missing money has gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strange that Skier and others are not on here calling the new Treasurer a Unionist.

      The SNP needs sorted. Sort it.

      Delete
  36. The total number of deaths in Scotland linked to Covid-19 has edged closer to 6,000 after the National Records of Scotland disclosed that 5,868 people have died with Covid mentioned on their death certificate.

    NRS said 232 Covid-linked deaths were registered last week, 20 fewer than the previous week, with nearly 75% of those deaths amongst people aged 75 or over and only 9% under 65. There have been an average of 243 deaths a week in Scotland over the last five weeks, suggested the total will surpass 6,000 in next week’s figures.

    No different to rUK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Covid deaths per capita to end November were 8% higher in England (NRS vs ONS), and that's with a full lockdown there.

      If you wanted to match England, we'd need another 450 Scottish deaths. I wouldn't describe 540 deaths as 'no difference'.

      Delete
  37. SAGE reports that 2nd wave in Scotland primarily due to International and rUK travel. Care to explain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be honest, there is a remarkable coincidence between cases in Scotland declining rapidly and the full lockdown in England.

      Given that infection rates in England were around twice that of Scotland at the time, it's very possible that the two are linked, i.e. cases in Scotland really dropped when people couldn't bring it in from England any more.

      Delete
    2. I don't as a rule make rUK comparisons as that's what unionists do.

      As they are now doing this on here, I will provide this unionist (BBC) graph which shows Scottish infection rates have been well below rUK rates.

      https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/13156/production/_115866187_casesukcompare-nc.png

      Delete
    3. So Mrs Murrell's failure to close the border has slaughtered 6,000 Scots!

      Well done! May God bless her and all who sail in her.

      Hoist meet petard.

      Delete
  38. William Purves was brave enough to state when he thought the indyref that Sturgeon has promised in the early part of the next term will happen. Anyone else. Not a great show of confidence so far backing up William or Sturgeon.

    Anyone want to say when the legislation for the referendum will be approved.

    Anyone want to say exactly what "the people of Scotland providing the authority for the referendum in May 2021" means - did Sturgeon define this in her speech - I don't think so - so how do us voters know what we are aiming for to get this refendum? I asked my SNP MP - she says a "resounding mandate" - not exactly a clear definition of success is it.

    Anyone want to say when we will get this definition of a resounding mandate?

    ReplyDelete
  39. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55248502

    He [Johnson] also claimed that England wanted Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland to remain the "only countries in the world" not to have "sovereign control" over their fishing waters.

    Is what Scots read.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Schrodingers Murrell - I dont use Whattsapp I did use Whattsapp.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The Trump family were and still are desperate to cling on to power. They are worried about legal action being taken against them after Trump is out of power. Hence Trump is planning a group pardon for all his family and criminal associates.

    I don't think a departing FM has such powers of pardon but I do remember Henry McLeish escaping any action over his "a muddle not a fiddle" .

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now over a week and no news about the poll. However some other gossip.

    https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2020/12/10/i-knew-it-hes-the-best-the-no-campaign-has/

    ReplyDelete
  43. If Murrell and Ruddick and the SNP had no involvement in the Salmond persecution why were the police looking at the messages on their devices. Are Police Scotland just a load of nosy parkers or do they follow the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erm, the police investigated Salmond. Are you saying because of that he's not innocent?

      Delete
    2. Classic Skier deflection - as usual - pathetic. You are the idiot who said the SNP had no involvement.

      Delete
    3. How can you work out of the SNP are innocent of any involvement without investigating them, e.g. having a look at messages on their devices?

      Has there been any convictions or are all SNP members innocent? I believe it is currently 100% innocent?

      Delete
    4. Skier says - "..... are innocent of any involvement without investigating ....."

      You really really cannot read well can you - and that includes your own posts. You previously stated two SNP people were alphabet women - do you have a memory problem as well - that means SNP people were involved - I have told you this before but still you persist. Idiot.

      Delete
  44. Some posters on here are like a broken record. Out in the real world life goes on and less than 1% are interested in the anti-SNP as polls show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown, interesting. I didn't know you could play a broken record. Is that one of the reasons there has been an increase in sales of second hand records. I know if a CD is broken it can't be played.

      Delete
  45. Schrodingers Sturgeon - it was an SNP meeting It was a Scottish government meeting.

    Schrodingers Sturgeon - it was the first time I knew about the Salmond complaints it wasn't the first time I knew about the Salmond complaints.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why have Sturgeon and Murrell both said that in all the decades they worked with Salmond, they never saw any evidence of sexual misconduct?

      You said they were out to get him, yet they keep defending him.

      It makes it look like you are lying.

      Delete
    2. Unionists, including the BBC and English websites are all saying Murrell set up Salmond.

      Yet Scots are all hearing murrell saying in nearly 4 decades of working with Salmond, they never say any evidence.

      Likewise, at least 99.8% of SNP elected members and 99.998% of members have never accused Salmond of anything.

      So anyone who claims the SNP set him up can only be a unionist.

      Delete
    3. It's that it - that's the best you got - πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

      You can almost feel the desperation.

      Delete
    4. Desperation about what? That Yes parties might not win a majority 2020?

      Delete
  46. As I said upstream Murrell and the rest of them can put this matter to bed by asking the COPFS to release all their messages/information held after the criminal trial. They could have done this a long time ago. If they are innocent then what's the problem? Did Murrell and Ruddick and others all misspeak on multiple messages?

    The Scotgov could also put an end to all this by releasing all their documentation and their legal advice but they won't.

    The innocent do not lie, forget and hide information.

    There is a corrupt House of Cards and the sooner it collapses the better and a leadership can get on with independence rather than all this crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to be repeating word for word what Murdo Fraser and Jackie Baillie were saying. It's uncanny.

      Delete
    2. Aha the Unionist demon hunter is back telling his lies.

      Want to tell me where Baillie and Fraser said "and a leadership can get on with independence" go on have a good look take your time - idiot.

      Poor old pathetic Skier has no answers - starting to feel sorry for you - making a fool of yourself - well just a wee bit but not much.

      Delete
    3. I meant about the Salmond enquiry.

      For example you speak of how you think the Scotgov is 'corrupt'; Murdo fraser actually wrote and article to this effect the other week.

      IfS:

      "There is a corrupt House of Cards [SNP led ScotGov] and the sooner it collapses the better"

      https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/alex-salmond-inquiry-theres-whiff-corruption-about-snp-governments-actions-murdo-fraser-msp-3038627

      "Alex Salmond inquiry: There's a whiff of corruption about the SNP government's actions – Murdo Fraser MSP"

      In fact Fraser is somewhat less anti-Yes in his attacks.

      Delete
    4. Now I do not buy the Britnat propaganda sheets nor read them and if I was an idiot like you I would say it proves you are a Unionist but I won't because unlike you I am not an idiot.

      Now wanting another 5 years of Tory rule just to make sure we win indyref2 - that really really does make me wonder. I want a mandate for independence in May 2021 - you on the other hand oh let's just wait longer to make sure.

      Murrell and his staff asking for their own messages to be released is nothing to do with releasing legal advice - Barbara Allison recently got the COPFS to release a message of hers they held. No problem if you want to. See the problem with you Skier is you do not like the facts the truth.

      So for all these Unionist friends you talk about do you tell them they never tell the truth and everything they say is false. Well do you - idiot!

      I think Fraser must read SGPπŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

      Delete
    5. Skier when you quote me you put in your own words - charlatan.

      ( SNP led Scotgov) yes that just about sums you up insert your own words in quotes to misrepresent. You really are a disgrace.

      There is not one word the same in my sentence and that of Frasers - the only one similar is corrupt and corruption- I of course would not call it the Alex Salmond inquiry because it is no such thing. It is an inquiry into the actions of the First Minister, Scottish goverment and SPECIAL ADVISERS.

      Do you often read Britnat papers?

      Delete
  47. The Scottish care home crisis continues.

    NHS Fife has confirmed that a number of people with Covid-19 have died at a care home in Dunfermline.

    Canmore Lodge Care Home has 67 positive cases - 35 residents and 32 members of staff.

    NHS Fife has not revealed how many people have died but said it was fewer than five.

    The board's deputy director of public health, Dr Esther Curnock, said: "Our thoughts are very much with their families' and loved ones."

    She added: "We are working alongside our colleagues in the Fife Health and Social Care Partnership and Fife Council's environmental health service to support the managers of the care home to try and prevent further transmission of the virus, and ensure that the standard of care for all residents is maintained."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So is that another care home owned by for profit Tory Yoon mass murderers????

      I wonder of anybody sees the irony of naming anywhere in Scotland after an English puppet?

      Delete
    2. What's the per capita mortality and infection rate Scotland vs England? If it's so bad we should close the border as cross UK travel is a primary driver in spreading the infection...or does that not sit well with your Unionist agenda Pippen de Keech ?

      Delete
    3. Scotland needs another 450 immediate deaths match England per capita.

      Delete
  48. Angus Robertsons written reply to the Committee has now been published. It is a very short letter in which he says 1)no 2)n/a and 3) no to the three questions asked of him. I disagree with his replies some may say lies.

    Robertson does helpfully provide a final paragraph on the airport nonsense from 2009 - no formal complaint was ever made - no wonder - Salmond referred to killer heels on her shoes as they went through the airport. Absolutely shocking - shocking - shocking that the media and Britnats and OTHERS who like to smear Salmond can keep bringing this up under the sexual Harrassment heading. Robertson whilst knowing the details chooses not to mention them - wonder why.

    Wonder why the committee asked Robertson the three questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reporting Scotland using Robertsons letter to smear Salmond. Hope you feel proud of yourself Robertson.

      Fact: the Committee did not ask him about the Edinburgh airport nonsense.He volunteered his comments thereby providing an unnecessary platform for the Britnat media to smear Salmond once again. Some silly people may think this was unintentional.

      Delete
  49. Genuine question, but do unionist really talk about confidential work matters with their spouses / partners at home? Ruth Davidson seems to be saying they do and it's normal.

    They realise this this is a serious matter and could result in them being sacked right? It could even end up in court. Christ, at my work I had to go through ours of data protection training which specifically told me in no uncertain terms that I could not divulge confidential work information willy nilly to friends and family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mind you, the same idiots think it's ok to break the law and release confidential legal advice willy nilly without the consent of the law officers that gave said advice.

      Delete
    2. Releasing legal advice is really easy way to pass the buck; just blame the lawyers as you were acting on their advice! If you keep their confidence as promised, the buck stops with you.

      If a government starts releasing confidential legal advice without the permission of law officers it will soon find itself unable to obtain any legal advice because nobody will be willing to give it.

      'Breach confidence of law officers and release all the legal advice now!' is one of the dumbest unionist things I've ever heard.

      Delete
    3. Skier is there no end to your lies. Desperate desperate.

      It is NOT illegal and never has been illegal to release legal advice that lawyers give to a client. You do not need any LEGAL permission from the lawyers. Out of courtesy or as in the Scottish government, the Ministerial code it can be referred to them to agree but that is not a matter of law.

      So once again you have proved yourself an idiot or someone desperately trying to mislead or, more likely, both.

      Skier you are a shameless liar.

      Delete
    4. Erm, if I give you confidential legal advice and you tell everyone what I said without my permission I will have you in court for breaching our confidentiality agreement. I also doubt you'll get any lawyer to give you confidential legal advice ever again.

      I'm very glad you don't work for my organisation; god knows the damage you'd do regarding confidentiality.

      Delete
    5. Even if it were legally possible to release without consent of law officers, that could result these resigning and the government being unable to find replacements willing to also be shat on in such a way. So no, it's not a simple case of just publishing willy-nilly.

      Delete
  50. Skier get it in to your thick skull it is only a problem if the lawyer reveals the advice given to a client without the clients permission.

    Never said it's "a simple case of just publishing willy milly" - classic Skier straw man stuff when he is posting pish to deflect from him posting pish. How are they "shat on " - the Scotgov have published legal advice on THREE previous occasions - they still got lawyers working for them afterwards.

    So Skier does the Skier waterfall of pish ever dry up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, governments regularly release legal advice in consultation with law officers as you said earlier. That's fine.

      And yes, by default legal advice belongs to the client unless otherwise specified, so it's up to them what to do with it. However, that doesn't get around confidentiality agreements and if a lawyer asks that you keep the advice they give you confidential, you must do that. So it depends on the agreement between lawyer and client.

      That aside, if the Scotgov tried to hang Wolffe out to dry by releasing the confidential advice he gave, blaming him for the salmond court case, it's not going to be easy to recruit a new lord advocate. Doesn't matter shit whether they could do so legally.

      This is exactly why legal advice isn't released willy-nilly, but only when it's in the public interest and in consultation with law officers.

      It's pretty clear to me the salmond advice isn't in the public interest as the public don't give a rats ass based on polling. Salmond won both cases, so it doesn't help him; he's already clear on all counts.

      It seems to be only in the party political interest of unionists. I've certainly not met a single indy supporter that is ranting that the advice should all be released willy nilly like Murdo Fraser is demanding.

      Delete
    2. Skier says "I've certainly not met a single Indy supporter" no because as you said your friends are unionists.

      Delete
    3. Skier introducing yet another straw man the Lord Advocate. Skier cannae win an argument so he just posts a mountain of pish after pish.

      Delete
    4. Confidentiality agreements between the Scotgov and the range of lawyers the Scotgov uses - how many are there Skier and who with? Take your time because I know you will not be able to answer but you will think up more pish.

      Delete
    5. I have been taking legal advice about what Skier says above about legal advice. I can reveal the advice was that "Skier posts pish"

      Delete
    6. If experienced lord advocates don't resign in anger at the behavior of governments with regard to abuse of legal advice, what on earth happened to Lord Keen?

      Delete
    7. Skier - Lord Keen was the Advocate General not the Lord Advocate and he resigned about the intention of the UK gov to break international law in its Internal Market bill.

      The Advocate General is the UK government legal man in Scotland.

      The Lord Advocate is the Scottish Government man.

      So Skier once again you have no answers so you just post lies. You are a disgrace to this site and honest decent people.

      Delete
  51. How about a game of spot the unionist comment?

    These are all genuine comments from BBC reporting of and blogs discussing the Holyrood Salmond committee.

    See if you can guess which ones were from unionists:

    ??? said 'the answers given by SNP chief executive Peter Murrell plainly contradict Ms Sturgeon's account of meetings with Mr Salmond.'

    ??? said 'If Murrell and Ruddick and the SNP had no involvement in the Salmond persecution why were the police looking at the messages on their devices.'

    ??? said 'it was not plausible that Mr Murrell had come home to find Mr Salmond and his lawyer in their home and "never asked a single question then or since of what that's all about.'

    ??? said 'Schrodingers Sturgeon - it was the first time I knew about the Salmond complaints it wasn't the first time I knew about the Salmond complaints.'

    ??? said 'that there was a "direct conflict" between Murrell's evidence and that of his wife'

    ??? said 'The Scotgov could also put an end to all this by releasing all their documentation and their legal advice but they won't. The innocent do not lie, forget and hide information. There is a corrupt House of Cards and the sooner it collapses the better.'

    ??? said 'this evidence had "sunk" Ms Sturgeon, adding: "Peter Murrell's words indicate that Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament, gave false evidence to the committee and broke the ministerial code."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you had a single drop of honesty or integrity Skier your game would be see if you guess which are TRUE.

      But of course you don't. Like the people you want to protect you just love a good smear and a lie. You care nothing about truth, honesty, integrity and basic human decency.

      Delete
    2. What's smearing or lying about my post? I merely listed a series of comments written word for work and asked readers if they wanted to try and guess which were written by unionists. There are no smears nor lies at all. Just copied and pasted straight from the horses mouths.

      Delete
  52. It looks tonight as we are getting close to a no deal Brexit you might want to commission another poll in early January.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was super reluctant to contribute to the last one so will many others. After 14 polls asking the standard question there isnt a lot of point maybe in spring

      Delete
    2. It isn't compulsory to contribute. You can only speak for yourself. No Deal Brexit and the mood of the nation if it happens will be interesting to gauge.

      Delete
  53. No Deal Brexit on 31st January isn't your normal weekly event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you mean 31st December 2020? It is getting rather close. All of Johnson's Hedge funds friends have bet on a no deal Brexit and hope to make fortunes on it.

      Delete
  54. The standard Indy question won't tell us much we don't already know.
    Maybe a Q asking "If you thought voting" Lab/Lib/Tory" in May would stymie the chance of an independence referendum would you consider switching to the SNP?
    I think in any case the SNP should have a canvassing strategy in place - not only to identify their own support but YES folk who may still intend voting for another party for whatever reason.
    BTW I had seriously thought of voting Green in May. I'm not so sure now.
    Probably will go SNP1&2.
    Anybody got any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  55. As Sturgeon stated today, the 14 day positivity rate is under 5% now and has been for a few days, meaning the covid is 'under control' by the WHO < 5% 2-week threshold.

    This will disappoint some unionist commenters.

    ReplyDelete