Thursday, March 4, 2021

Crowdfunding for forthcoming Scot Goes Pop polling

Last night there was a flurry of posts on social media from people saying they had just joined the SNP, very much reminiscent of what happened immediately after the independence referendum.  I was puzzled by that, and wondered if everything wasn't entirely as it seemed, but I was assured that many of the sign-ups were genuine.  It was then suggested to me that, as I'd previously organised crowdfunded opinion polls to see if public opinion on independence had changed after a major event, now would be a logical time to do it again.  

Unlike the start of last year, or indeed last June when I commissioned the post-Cummings poll, it's obviously not the case that there won't be any polls at all if I don't step in.  With an election in the offing, there are bound to be polls commissioned by a range of clients over the coming weeks.  Nevertheless, I've been intending all along to commission one more poll at some point before the Holyrood election.  I'm open-minded about timing - if no polls appear over the coming days, there might be some value in going straight ahead.  If polls do appear at the weekend, it could be more logical to wait until the campaign proper in April.  But either way, this might not be a bad moment to make sure sufficient funding is in place so I'm ready to strike at the optimum moment.

It's slightly tricky, though.  There's some money left over from the last poll crowdfunder, but not enough.  I'm currently running a general fundraiser to keep the blog going for another year, but I had intended that to be a slowburner over a few months.  So to make up the shortfall, there are two options: either a) run two fundraisers simultaneously, or b) increase the target figure on the general fundraiser and set aside a portion for polling.  I've decided to go for the latter option, because the idea of promoting two fundraisers at the same time made me feel slightly queasy.

The way it will work is this: any money donated to the general fundraiser over the next week or so, up to a total of £5000, will be set aside for future polling - one for the run-up to the Holyrood election, with hopefully some funds left over to put towards a subsequent poll later in the year.  

Obviously there are divisions within the pro-indy camp at present, and I've made no secret of where I stand on the various points of controversy.  However, I think anyone who has followed the four polls I've run since January 2020 will know that I always try to act in the best interests of the whole movement, and the poll questions I've asked have always reflected that.  To give an obvious example, I was a vociferous opponent of the idea of a Wings party, but I deliberately never asked about that subject in any of the polls, because I knew that many Wings readers had contributed to the funding.

My intention this time would be to ask for independence voting intentions, Holyrood (and possibly Westminster) voting intentions, with a range of supplementary questions designed to put the anti-independence parties on the spot as election day approaches.  As always, though, I'd be open to any suggestions.

If you'd like to ensure there's one more Scot Goes Pop poll before election day, please click here to go straight to the general fundraiser page.

96 comments:

  1. I've just completed a Panelbase poll.
    Indy ref questions, usual questions about past and future voting, how i rated various leaders, etc.
    No silly questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I got an email to the poll but was not accepted as they had all the responses from my demographic. Panelbase are the pollster used by the Sunday Times & WoS.

      Delete
    2. From the way Juteman describes it, it'll probably either be the Sunday Times or a private poll. It doesn't sound like Wings.

      Delete
    3. Forgot to add, there was also a few questions about the 'Salmond affair'. One was should Sturgeon resign if she had broke the ministerial code.

      Delete
    4. Hey Juteman did they ask you when you stopped being a mad psycho.

      Delete
    5. Independence for Scotland aka Cubby, serving England since 2019.

      Delete
    6. Juteman - Ah I see you are still a mad psycho. Treatment will be available somewhere but you won't get it from your fellow looneys on WGDbtl.

      Delete
    7. Independence for Scotland aka Cubby, serving England since 2019.

      Delete
  2. British terrorists breaking the GFA while England breaks international law, again.

    The rogue state is developing quickly. Definitely worth getting some new polling done soon.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-coveney/ireland-says-uk-not-behaving-like-a-respectable-country-idUSKBN2AW0ZG?il=0

    Ireland says UK not behaving like a 'respectable country'

    DUBLIN (Reuters) - Britain’s decision to make unilateral changes to Northern Irish Brexit arrangements is “not the appropriate behaviour of a respectable country” and will erode trust with the European Union, senior Irish ministers said on Thursday...

    But, you know, wheesht for the union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smearer ( liar since 2014) - you have been lying for the Union.

      Delete
    2. Why such a reaction to me 'smearing' the union?

      Just posting the stories you'll never read about on English blogs. Cause, you know...

      #Wheeshtfortheunion

      Delete
    3. Smearer Skier ( liar since 2014) - what uni employs you did you say. Oh that's right you didn't did you. Lying again Smearer.

      Delete
  3. Compare and Contrast

    1. Independence supporter gets 6 months in jail for revealing the names of alphabet women on twitter after being outraged when finding out. Life ruined.

    2. Multiple people ( including a QC ) states that one of Sturgeons senior civil servants revealed the name of an alphabet women to Geoff Aberdein. Sturgeon states it's not true as she spoke to the person. End of story? Are the Police investigating?

    This is Sturgeons Scotland. A politicised Crown Office and Police service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the multiple people you mention were not present. That makes the information second hand so 'hearsay'. We've all heard Aberdein's claims so we are all included in the multiple people now. Going around telling people what you've heard doesn't make it more reliable.

      And you mean 'leslie Evan's civil servants. They work for / wages are paid by Whitehall.

      Delete
    2. I heard a different version from my neighbour's friends postman who heard it from a customer in a bakery shop. She heard it from a friend who was on a bus and she heard it from a friend of Independence for Scotland.

      Delete
    3. Unknown, own up, you got that story in the Sunday Post.

      Delete
    4. You do know that if woman H had phoned a friend or two on the night, or morning after the event she made up but claimed happened and told them what her story then it would have been accepted in court as corroboration.
      You are an apologist for a revolting misandrist closeted lesbian who tried to put an innocent man in prison to die.
      Bet your Mother's proud.

      Delete
    5. Peejay - you got that post spot on as well. Smearer also claims to have a daughter. You wonder if he says to her you must always tell the truth. Personally he lies so much I don't believe anything he says.

      Delete
  4. How can BAME not include whites?

    Pontins: a Great British company.

    https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/full-list-irish-surnames-pontins-19954074

    The full list of Irish surnames on Pontins blacklist

    Any regional list candidates have one of these surnames? Surely straight to the top if they do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ask if people want britnat senior civil servants running the show in Holyrood.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TBH, I'm not really surprised at this.

    Unionists have desperately politicized the committee and well, the public don't take kindly to such things.

    As I said yesterday, being able to watch your FM / senior figures sit under heavy questioning for 8 hours live like that shows the strength and transparency of Scottish democracy. We don't have much in the UK, but what we do have is impressive.

    What we watched would just never happen in the UK. UK government break the law once a week at quiet times - they're breaking international law today with British terrorists breaking UN peace agreements - but we won't get to quiz Johnson for 8 hours on his role in this.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19136218.snp-gains-5000-new-members-nicola-sturgeons-committee-appearance/

    SNP gains 5000 new members after Nicola Sturgeon's committee appearance

    Shout out to IfS and Wings too of course; they've helped the SNP too here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove it! Release the membership numbers.

      While I'm here. People really hate it when their FM or PM spends all day lying to them. Nicola Murrell lying about her plot to kill Alex Salmond in prison, or ACL Blair lying about his plot to invade Iraq. If you can defend one and not the other then you are a hypocrite as well as being an apologist for scum.

      Delete
    2. 7,600 is the latest number according SNP Twitter. Presumably some will be lapsed members who feel moved to renew and some the younger members who left over the GRA spat but have reconsidered seeing Fraser et al in full Unionist flight. However, it seems some are completely new to the party.

      We live in interesting times. It wasn't what I was expecting but the 8 hour, at times unedifying, grilling seems to have swung sentiment behind Sturgeon. Politics is only partly about detail, it is also very much about gut sentiment.

      Delete
    3. Peejay - you got that post spot on.

      The SNP do not post any membership figures for how many years and then you are asked to believe twitter messages that are all just part of the SNP gaslighting. They call it communicating.

      Delete
    4. HandandShrimp - you are correct ".. it is also very much about gut sentiment."

      Sturgeon as an excellent politician knows that. Combined with her fake empathy and excellent acting skills she can attempt to get away with doing anything. That is dangerous for any country.

      Delete
    5. Lol, we just had all the "40,000 people have moved from the SNP to ISP" stuff from the other lot, and now this. But at least the Sturgeonistas have the sense to pick a number that's within the realms of plausibility.

      Delete
    6. Keaton valid point. Personally, I have never seen any 40k members going to ISP stuff. Presumably it is an idiot on twitter. However I know people who tell me that after they have left the SNP the SNP continue to treat them as if they are still a member.

      Delete
  7. I'm likely to donate James, but can we have a Q aimed at Labour voters who are (presumably) ANTI-SNP but pro Indyref?
    I think the new indy parties should not just target the SNP voters on their 2nd regional list vote but be more ambitious and appeal to all voters.
    Of course it might not be easy to formulate a catch-all question, but might be worth the effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've actually met more people who say they vote SNP but not independence. Many taxi drivers seem to be this way anyway. Would be interesting to know about these folks and what will away them.

      Delete
  8. OR, indeed it might just point out the futility of NOT voting SNP 1&2.

    ReplyDelete
  9. On the Aberdein evidence issue can I suggest people look at the statement made by Aberdein to a national newspaper in January 2019. It is informative. AS promised evidence and what came was hearsay based on telephone calls. That is frankly laughable. The unionist members of the panel were disconsolate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you call fabricating an attempted rape?

      Delete
    2. You do know that Duncan Hamilton QC is willing to testify under oath in front of a judge while your slut of a heroine is a lying slug who relies on her tame Lord Advocate to hide the evidence of her corruption.

      Delete
    3. Yes, but Hamilton wasn't a witness to events, I understand he heard second hand, which makes it hearsay.

      If you tell me you saw sturgeon stab salmond with a fork, I can honestly swear to got that's what you told me, but it doesn't matter shit, not if you are lying. I'm not a credible witness because I never witnessed events. I can't be cross examined as I never witnessed events.

      Often people involved in conspiracies try to do this, i.e. tell others they 'saw X up to no good'. But it's pointless as the testimony of those they told is worthless as it's second hand. Geoff Aberdein has told everyone what he told Hamilton. I could happily swear in front of a judge that Geoff Aberdein says he was told the name of a complainer. And what?

      A witness must witness what happened.

      Delete
    4. Smearer Skier ( lying since 2014) - Duncan Hamilton swore that Sturgeon said she did offer to assist Salmond and he was at the meeting on 2/April. Sturgeon said in her written submission that she did not offer to assist Salmond. So he witnessed that.

      So this is not second hand hearsay. So just like Sturgeon you are a liar Smearer and just like Sturgeon you are a Smearer.

      Delete
    5. Stephen - there is plenty evidence of wrongdoing. You choose not to look. That is your right. It is not your right to tell other people who see the evidence that it is not there.

      Delete
    6. IFS. I did not say evidence is not there. I pointed out that specific evidence is entirely hearsay. That is simply a statement of fact. What I did do is refer you to another piece of evidence which is also certainly there. It is not hearsay. Have you looked at it? You have at least given me a civilised response. So thank you for that.

      Delete
    7. Stephen, I am not going on a wild goose chase through papers in Jan 19. You don't say the paper or the heading of the article or the author so no I have not looked at it. Why don't you just say what it says and give the above details.

      Witness statements are valid otherwise why have witnesses at a trial. Particularly a QC. So I don't think a judge would be happy you calling a QC's testimony next to worthless.

      Stephen, as I say above, Hamilton says he was there when Sturgeon said she would intervene. She then backtracked on her written statement saying she didn't promise to intervene with a load of waffle about wanting to let Salmond down. She got away with a lot of that stuff just like Murrell. She wouldn't in a proper courtroom. In a proper courtroom they wouldn't have Fabiani protecting them.

      Whether or not you think a particular bit of evidence up not worth much. The truth is there is a mountain of evidence that they were out to smear Salmond

      Stephen I give everyone a civilised response that doesn't insult me.

      Delete
    8. We can agree to disagree. In relation to the meeting on 29th March Hamilton and Pringle both made written statements of hearsay evidence. That is indisputable. They both confirm that in their statements. It is up to the Committee to decide on the credibility of their evidence and the weight to be attached to it. I view it in that respect as of very little value. Deciding not to accept hearsay evidence is not a reflection on the person making that hearsay statement. It is the credibility of the source of that evidence that is relevant. That brings us back to Aberdein and January 2019. On the separate issue of the meeting on 2nd April NS absolutely should not intervene in the process. I can easily envisage a general offer of support to someone who was a long term friend being misinterpreted. To castigate NS for doing the right thing is in my opinion wrong. I will await the findings of both Inquiries with interest.

      Delete
    9. Stephen three points:

      1. She could easily have said in her statement that she made a general comment to help. She didn't she categorically said she did not offer to intervene. She lied.

      2. She should have intervened because the process was nonsense but she didn't. The process was nonsense because it was only ever created to get Salmond. She wasn't being asked to sweep the allegations under the carpet as she stated before the Committee. She was being asked to put the process before mediation to see if it was fair and lawful. She didn't want to do that because she knew that it was unfair and unlawful.

      3. I note you do not say what was in this mystery article you originally refered to of Jan 19 or what paper it was in.

      Delete
    10. Hi. I’ll use your numbering to reply.
      1. She should not have offered to help, but to support, which is I think what she says she did. An offer to help would have been leapt upon by the Unionist MSM and BBC.
      2. The mediation offer was I understand coupled with non disclosure agreement conditions. For me however there is a more fundamental point. Sexual harassment arises in part due to a huge power imbalance between the parties and in such circumstances mediation is not appropriate. Some form of conciliation process after the disciplinary process has been completed may be appropriate depending on circumstances. The unfair status of the procedure has been established beyond doubt and I think we are agreed on that. It is I understand being changed.
      3. I am unable to cut and paste the article and I do not want to type it out at length. In any event I am e mailing Scottish Parliament to clarify the process for this matter to be brought to the attention of the two Inquiries so you will hopefully see it referred to in the findings.

      Delete
  10. Huge vote suppression campaign by the British State going on right now. Every second 'SNP voter' seemingly not voting for them in May. Most of them will be sitting in the same 77th office somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're readily identified when they open their comments thus:"I'm a proud Scot but........."

      Delete
    2. Hey Mr Bam did you know your hero Russell wrote a book saying the NHS should be fully privatised and people given vouchers. Sounds the sort of thing a Tory would be happy with. Is that why he is your hero Mr Bam

      Delete
  11. Should Evans, Lloyd, Mackinnon, Richards, Ruddick, Wolfe etc all be sacked by Sturgeon as a loyalty to Scotland test on her?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, like in some all powerful Sturgeon cult where she like owns the SNP, the UK civil service and all of Scotland?

      Delete
    2. So you're saying that she can't actually sack people she employs? Try harder.

      Delete
    3. Can Sturgeon sack Whitehall Civil Servants?

      Delete
    4. Since when did Sturgeon employ e.g. Evans?

      Delete
    5. It's hilarious. Sturgeon will lose her job in a matter of weeks, and you are talking like she's some sort all powerful god.

      She might not even get reelected as an MSP never mind being elected FM. Scotland's not her private company. What world are you living on.

      Delete
    6. She cannot sack UK Civil Servants.

      Delete
    7. Sturgeon could if she wanted request people to be disciplined or moved on that are Civil Servants. It is nonsense to suggest she has no power. Of course she would struggle to make her case as the civil servants would say they were doing what she requested. That's why she gave people pay rises.


      With regards to Murrell, Ruddick, MCCann they can and should be sacked by Sturgeon for their actions but will not because they were only following Sturgeons instructions.

      Wolfe could be removed by Sturgeon but it would involve the Queen agreeing. Again Sturgeon will not do this as he would tell the Queen he was working in conjuction with Sturgeon.

      Delete
    8. So in effect what you are all saying is she wont or cant sack any of them for any number of reasons. Oh effin brilliant. Then the Indy cause is well screwed. Then it has to be Sturgeon going to clean up the corrupt midden that Holyrood has become and there is no sign of her going.

      Delete
    9. IainM - she has corrupted everybody around her. Either the SNP members get rid of her or we need a new party of independence. She likes the power of being FM and she won't risk that in an independence referendum. She knows how to play people.

      Delete
    10. she has corrupted everybody around her

      She really is some god-like figure to you guys. Does she have special mind control powers and fireballs that come out of her eyes?

      One minute if she just smites all those around her Scotland can trust her again, then next minute she's the kraken again.

      Delete
    11. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014)

      It is you Smearer who worship her as if she is some sort of Messiah. Dr Jim on WGD even said she was a female Moses.

      Of course, as ever, you cannot adress the facts so you resort to lies and nonsense.
      If none of the people mentioned above were not doing Sturgeon's bidding why after 3 years have none been disciplined. In fact some have had substantial pay rises.

      Delete
  12. YouGov Scotland Westminster sub-sample for UK poll conducted 3-4 March.

    SNP 50
    Con 21
    Lab 16
    LD 8
    Grn 3
    other 2

    ReplyDelete
  13. AS SOON AS IT IS SAFE TO DO SO

    Does this mean there won't be a referendum until Wishart has got his pension.

    Does this mean there won't be a referendum until other people have not retired in comfort.

    Who decides what is safe. What does it refer to? What is the criteria?

    They are not even making an effort to be subtle now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A lot of people who watched Sturgeon yesterday clearly didn't listen - 🙉

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown - writing more than word tiring you out - best hobble off back to the old folks home at WGDbtl

      Delete
  15. The Scottish Gov introduce a new process for FORMER MINISTERS that facilitates people prosecuting complaints of sexual Harrassment against former ministers.

    So who do you tell about this when it goes live.

    1. All Scotgov employees(civil servants)

    2. Former Minsters.

    1. Civil servants are told by means of it being put on their intranet. When does this happen Feb 2018. However the Scotgov lies and puts on its website it was January 2018. Why lie about a month. Well the two complainers formally complain in Jan so how did they know about the new process to complain? The answer is they didn't need to they had been fully involved in the process. The process designed to get Salmond.

    2. Write to former ministers and formally tell them a new process is live that relates to them. A letter was prepared but never sent out. The former Ministers were NOT told about a new process that could come out the blue and have a major impact on their lives. Why not send the letter? They didn't want Salmond forewarned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still barking into the dark? Give yourself a rest and have an early night. Sweet dreams.

      Delete
    2. Unknown - you cheeky monkey. Thanks for your normal level of comment 🙉🙊🙈

      Delete
    3. Should University harassment procedures exclude FORMER LECTURERS?

      Kevin O'Gorman would have loved that.

      Delete
    4. Smearer Skier ( liar since 2014) - what uni did you say employed you as a rock basher? oh that's right you haven't have you. Lying again Smearer?

      Delete
    5. Which uni I work at isn't relevant. I don't speak for it or any of its employees.

      Only a right-wing nutter stalker needs that information so they can maybe blow it up in the name of brexit like brit terrorists do.

      Delete
    6. Smearer Skier( liar since 2014) - well you lied about having to leave Scotland to get work didn't you? Lying again are you ?

      The only thing exploding is you because you don't like somebody calling you out on your lies. You lie like a Britnat Smearer. This is a blog for independence not lying Britnats.

      Delete
  16. This is the problem with demanding confidential legal advice that the government, as a rule, is not supposed to release.

    https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,new-documents-undermine-salmond-claim-that-government-tried-to-delay-judicial-review

    New documents undermine Salmond claim that government tried to delay judicial review

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014)

      Total nonsense - Salmond never claimed that the government tried to delay the judicial review. He claimed the government were discussing the merits of sisting the judicial review and they were.

      This is the problem of having a proven liar posting btl on SGP.

      Delete
    2. I didn't write that article nor this one:

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/19138031.newly-published-government-legal-advice-appears-contradict-alex-salmond-claim/

      Newly published Government legal advice appears to contradict Alex Salmond claim

      Do you trust southern English blogs that won't publish their accounts more than pro-indy Scottish newspapers?

      Delete
    3. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - I certainly don't trust liars like you. You seem to be interested in bloggers accounts. So I take it you have asked to see other bloggers accounts - have you asked to see James Kelly's SGP accounts. No you haven't have you Smearer - you are full of shit. That comes from standing with Sturgeon in the gutter.

      If the articles say that Salmond said the Scotgov tried to delay the Judicial Review by sisting it then they are are wrong. They did delay it by ignoring their duty of candour by hiding documents from the Court and the Judge then having to introduce a Due Diligence to try and force the Scotgov to give up all the documents it was trying to hide.

      Delete
  17. Given the Patel-Rutnam case cost the taxpayer 340k, when will the committee on this be kicking off? I calculate we are due 5.4 hours of Johnson being questioned live on camera on his role in this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014)

      The Britnats have been ripping off millions for decades/ centuries. Corruption is a given in Westminster. That won't change. We don't need our own minimee version in Scotland. You of course think that bigger corruption in Westminster excuses smaller corruption in Holyrood. I don't.

      Delete
    2. I was highlighting how transparent Holyrood is. The committee has shown Scots how accountable their leaders are.

      Delete
  18. Here's a solution...

    We let the committee publish their report and James Hamilton deliver his verdict on the FM.

    Then, whatever happens, all MSPs step down and we hold an election.

    We let Scots also decide who they want in power. They elect a completely new parliament by PR which in turn elects a new FM by majority agreement. If the parliament and people want Sturgeon to take that role, then so be it.

    That FM will be free to appoint a new cabinet and select some civil service advisors.

    This will all happen with the democratic backing of Scots, who will have spoken, so we can put current matters associated with the existing parliament to rest. After all, no parliament is bound by its successors.

    Sound good?

    Only trumpist right-wing nut jobs like British terrorists groups who break UN peace deals could oppose such a solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smearer Skier ( liar since 2014) - a statement of the bloody obvious. So what uni employs such an imbecile as you Skier? I want to make sure no member of my family attend it if you are the acceptable standard. Or are you just lying about that as well?

      Delete
    2. The idiots are those demanding sturgeon step down and we elect a new FM when that's happening in a matter of weeks.

      Delete
    3. Sturgeon is going to resign. She has a matter of just weeks left and she will depart the FMs office. Those who want her out of office are getting exactly as they desire.

      And if Scots elect her again, the same folks will be trumpist capitol stormers if they refuse to gracefully accept that.

      Delete
    4. Sounds fair enough. Of course if a majority of MSPs no longer feel confident with the First Minister they are free to remove her from the position, after all as you say they are the ones that decide who becomes FM.

      Delete
    5. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - demonstrating his smearing once again. Do they really appoint people like you to a post in a Scottish uni. What uni is it you say you do your bashing at again? Oh that's right you won't say will you. Is it the one that removed Salmonds stone from public display? Are you practicising your rock bashing on it?

      Delete
  19. It is truly sad to see independence supporters lying like Britnats to try and keep intact their delusions about Nicola Sturgeon. Eg Dr Jim on WGD saying that Salmond said Scotland couldn't be independent right now. Now of course he never said that. Sarah Smith of the BBC and other Britnats said that. So we have independence supporters repeating Britnat media attacks on Salmond using the same lies.

    This is Sturgeons yes movement. A leader of the independence cause should not be creating this division. Of course people like DrJim will say it is all Salmonds fault. Aye he should have just shut up and gone to prison - DrJim what an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sturgeon is resigning in a matter of weeks.

      Delete
    2. As a MSP yes, not as First Minister,

      Delete
    3. Salmond could be FM in May. If he had the backing of Scots.

      Delete
    4. A new FM is elected at the start of each term. So sturgeon's term as FM will end soon and she'll need to put herself forward for election first as an MSP, and then potentially as FM.

      Her current term as FM is coming to an end. It will be over in a matter of weeks.

      Maybe she will be FM again, but she has no choice. She must step down as stand for re-election.

      Delete
    5. She is going to go through the same process that any FM would have to if they left office, e.g. by resigning mid term both from the post of FM and as an MSP due to gross misconduct.

      She has no choice but to forgo both positions and hope that she's elected again through 2-3 different votes (constituency, largest party / ability to form government then parliament for FM). The people will decide that and if they do, any previous misconduct made known prior to the election is laid to rest; the people have judged her.

      This is why the committee and Hamilton reports will be out well before the election, so the people can judge.

      But even if she resigns tomorrow, all is forgiven in May if that's what the electorate want. Ministers are expected to step down for breaches of the code. Well, she can't avoid that even if found innocent.

      Delete
  20. The Scottish government cynically did everything they could to delay and delay and delay the deliberations of the Inquiry. People who are innocent of wrongdoing do not lie and hide documents.

    They knew that if Sturgeon was found in, say, August last year of actions that required her to step down as FM a new FM may have to be appointed. If they delay until end of March then a new FM cannot be appointed and she can then win an election and say the people have spoken. Job done Salmond smeared and I'm still FM.

    Right where did I put that Hate Crime bill says Sturgeon time to get these bloggers oh and Cherry as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'and say the people have spoken'

      That's because they will have spoken and you agree with this; you have said Scots could get an outright indy mandate this way. Were you lying?

      What are you proposing, the losers storm Holyrood if Sturgeon is democratically re-elected by the people as FM?

      Delete
    2. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - I'll tell you what I am proposing - you stop lying and smearing. You are as disgusting a person as GWC.

      Delete
    3. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - talking to yourself again. MPD kicking in again.

      Delete
  21. Another tactic the Scotgov used to delay the Committee was to flood it with papers that were irrelevant whilst keeping hidden the papers that were incriminating. This allowed them to say we have given the Committee thousands of pages of documents. They didn't say ALL the RELEVANT documents. These are the tactics of a government with a lot to hide. Not a government that values truth and transparency. Some SNP members think it doesn't matter because it is an SNP government. That is exactly what Britnats think about their governments in Westminster. Cover up is the order of the day in Westminster and Holyrood.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrang thread. Realised it wis only IfS still in hear talkin tae hisel.

      Delete