Michelle Thomson

[sparky88]

It's quite easy to fall into the trap of 'everyone on our side is perfect and everyone on their side is scum' but there's a certain degree of truth to it in the independence debate.

When Alistair Carmichael lied to his constituents and the public at large, the focus has been almost entirely on... Alistair Carmichael, and resolving it through the courts.

Now it looks like an SNP MP is guilty of, if not legal failings, certainly a monstrous moral failing in taking advantage of the financially bereft. How do the britbots react to this? "Ooh, let's completely ignore what she's actually done and see if we can pin it on Nicola Sturgeon." None of you could give a damn about Thomson in this case, far less any of her (presumed) victims. It's just about SNPBad, because you've been soaking in it for so long you're literally unable to act like normal people.

You people are fucked and you need behavioral therapy.

^Not a hint of self awareness to be found.

[Swampy]

^Not a hint of self awareness to be found.

Explain how that follows.

[sparky88]

Explain how that follows.

'you people are fucked and you need behavioural therapy'- anyone who disagrees with you is met with ridiculous arguments playing the man (imagine saying that in a discussion in 'the real world') And if you had actually read further back you'd have seen, I never said Michelle Thompson reflects on the SNP as a whole. But to get all high and mighty because the other politicians are respecting the time honoured holyrood rules is a bit ridiculous

[strichener]

The first minister should have responded by asking what action Labour had taken in respect of the MP actually reported to the police, by two other Labour MPs, for alledged child abuse.

[strichener]

'you people are fucked and you need behavioural therapy'- anyone who disagrees with you is met with ridiculous arguments playing the man (imagine saying that in a discussion in 'the real world') And if you had actually read further back you'd have seen, I never said Michelle Thompson reflects on the SNP as a whole. But to get all high and mighty because the other politicians are respecting the time honoured holyrood rules is a bit ridiculous

No but you did state:

Sturgeon lost her right to claim she couldnt be questioned on matters to do with westminster when her pus was all over the Westminster leaders debates.she can't have it both ways.

Whereas it was the PO that stated that the questions weren't relevent and therefore didn't need to be answered, not the FM.

[Ad Lib]

Who knows, that is completely hypothetical. What we do know is that Kez was warned that the matter wasn't relevant yet continued to use FMQs to raise the issue. The same goes for Ruth.

Also, the way you have phrased this is actually mis-leading. She didn't use a lawyer struck off, she used a lawyer that has subsequently been struck off. These are two entirely different things.

So what if Trisha Marwick determined the matter wasn't relevant? She's been the most nakedly partisan Presiding Officer in the history of the Parliament.

Anyone reasonably looking at the context would know that I did not mean she used a lawyer who had been struck off before she used them. If for no other reason than they would no longer be a solicitor and therefore could no longer be used.

Of course she wouldn't. Look at Henry McLeish who sublet his office and was just let off with a casual shrug, or David McLetchie, who used Holyrood taxis to travel to his office and everyone just smiled and winked. There's nothing to be seen here. Move on.

Two men who lost their jobs over it. Nuff said!

[Swampy]

I agreed it was perfectly legitimate in line with Labour and the Tories' aims in Scotland. I think their aims begin and end with 'snpbad'.

The Lib Dems' utter lack of credibility is solely down to themselves, not the SNP or Nats in general.

You can try to pin this on Sturgeon all you want, no skin off my nose, it'll go about as well for you as 2015 did. That is my point - normal people aren't going to go for this at all.

[strichener]

So what if Trisha Marwick determined the matter wasn't relevant? She's been the most nakedly partisan Presiding Officer in the history of the Parliament.

As the one with the job of determining relevance then I would say that it matters. What doesn't matter is your opinion of her and her suitability for the job. For your opinion to matter you need to get elected.

[Ad Lib]

The Lib Dems' utter lack of credibility is solely down to themselves, not the SNP or Nats in general.

You know this is disingenuous. Come on. You're better than that.

Have the SNP and their supporters attempted to use the conduct of Alistair Carmichael more widely to undermine or discredit the Scottish Liberal Democrats? Yes or No.

You can try to pin this on Sturgeon all you want, no skin off my nose, it'll go about as well for you as 2015 did. That is my point - normal people aren't going to go for this at all.

At no point have I tried to pin anything on Nicola Sturgeon.

[Ad Lib]

As the one with the job of determining relevance then I would say that it matters. What doesn't matter is your opinion of her and her suitability for the job. For your opinion to matter you need to get elected.

I never said it didn't matter.

I said that it wasn't determinative of whether or not it is an important issue and one on which senior SNP officials, including the First Minister, should face questions and be prepared to answer them.

[Swampy]

You know this is disingenuous. Come on. You're better than that.

Have the SNP and their supporters attempted to use the conduct of Alistair Carmichael more widely to undermine or discredit the Scottish Liberal Democrats? Yes or No.

No.

At no point have I tried to pin anything on Nicola Sturgeon.

Thomson was still with her lawyer when you creatively equivocated her conduct with that of your many-chinned pal Carmichael. Welshbairn, of all people, felt compelled to pull you up on it, which should (but won't) prompt consideration on your part of whether it was an appropriate comparison.

[Ad Lib]

No.

This makes you either a liar or an idiot.

Thomson was still with her lawyer when you creatively equivocated her conduct with that of your many-chinned pal Carmichael. Welshbairn, of all people, felt compelled to pull you up on it, which should (but won't) prompt consideration on your part of whether it was an appropriate comparison.

I didn't "equivocate" her conduct with that of Carmichael. If you read the post properly, I explicitly said that I assumed Sturgeon's words to be truthful, contra Carmichael's. My remarks were only that I thought it was quite funny she was parsing the same line, given she was the subject of the memo Carmichael had lied about leaking.

Here's the post. Verbatim:

I have to say, I find it a little bit amusing that Nicola is (I assume truthfully) basically parroting the same line as Alistair Carmichael did when asked if he knew about the memo leak: "first I knew about it was in the papers".

Nice try though.

[Swampy]

This makes you either a liar or an idiot.

I didn't "equivocate" her conduct with that of Carmichael. If you read the post properly, I explicitly said that I assumed Sturgeon's words to be truthful, contra Carmichael's. My remarks were only that I thought it was quite funny she was parsing the same line, given she was the subject of the memo Carmichael had lied about leaking.

Nice try though.

1. It really doesn't. If the parliamentary (either one) SNP had immediately leapt on the Carmichael situation in transparent attempts to implicate Clegg that would be one thing. If SNP supporters had done the same that would be another. Instead the action is to ensure the law is enforced in Carmichael's case. Meanwhile the Unionists, en bloc, immediately leapt on the Thomson situation not to censure Thomson for what looks to be massively dodgy dealings, but rather in an attempt to unseat Sturgeon. A completely different situation to the Carmichael one. Inasmuch as there's any wholesale disgracing of the Lib Dems, it's merely because he's the only Scottish Lib Dem in Westminster.

2. I disagree with welshbairn on the color of the sky, but happen to think he read it correctly. I'd be interested to hear the views of others on this.

[invergowrie arab]

At the risk of agreeing with ad lib for the third time in 48 hours I took it as he is explaining it.

I can only think that having him my vision during the Murphy moment started a slow osmotic process of falling in love that is only revealing itself now.

[Swampy]

Fair enough, I disagree, not least because in Sturgeon's case she's talking about something someone else has done, while in Carmichael's case we know now (and, let's be honest, knew then - the slimy chin-collector was bang to rights from the moment this broke) that he was talking about something he personally had done.

[Ad Lib]

1. It really doesn't. If the parliamentary (either one) SNP had immediately leapt on the Carmichael situation in transparent attempts to implicate Clegg that would be one thing. If SNP supporters had done the same that would be another. Instead the action is to ensure the law is enforced in Carmichael's case. Meanwhile the Unionists, en bloc, immediately leapt on the Thomson situation not to censure Thomson for what looks to be massively dodgy dealings, but rather in an attempt to unseat Sturgeon. A completely different situation to the Carmichael one. Inasmuch as there's any wholesale disgracing of the Lib Dems, it's merely because he's the only Scottish Lib Dem in Westminster.

Clegg is irrelevant to this discussion. He was not, nor ever was he, in charge of anything materially relevant to Carmichael's actings. Sturgeon is in charge of the SNP, the party which selected Thomson as a candidate. Carmichael's actings could not have possibly been something the Lib Dems or Clegg could be or would have been made aware of during Carmichael's selection or his election as a candidate before it became public knowledge. In the Carmichael case there was no "bigger fish to fry" because he was already big. Thomson is a nobody, whose actings those higher up the food chain could conceivably known about, and if they didn't, which specifically implicates Thomson in other ways. That's called "newsworthy" and something worth knowing.

I also notice that you've deliberately ignored the attempts made by the SNP to widen the net of scrutiny beyond Carmichael towards Mundell, despite the fact he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the inquiry.

I have seen several instances of press reports, interviews and the like where SNP politicians and spokespeople have made reference to the Carmichael case in order to pass comment on the Lib Dems more broadly. Not to expect journalists and opposition politicians to do the same with this MP, just as Cameron being a pig-fucker was used more broadly to attack the Tories, is naive.

2. I disagree with welshbairn on the color of the sky, but happen to think he read it correctly. I'd be interested to hear the views of others on this.

So just to be clear, we're not going to refer to the actual words I used and the explicit use of the phrase "I assume truthfully" to infer meaning. We're just going to infer the meaning we want it to be and smear the opponent as appropriate. Funny that. Sounds a lot like what you're saying SNP-bad people do.

[Swampy]

How is Clegg irrelevant but Sturgeon not? The catamite was in charge of the Lib Dems when Carmichael was an MP, jesus f**k. Of course he had nothing to do with what Carmichael actually did - much in the same way that Sturgeon had nothing to do with what Thomson actually did. Hence nobody tried to rope Clegg into this, but immediately Sturgeon was the subject of all headlines and all 'investigative' questions from Dugdale and Davidson.

I didn't deliberately ignore it, I just don't think it really matters. Mundell has continued to evade questioning on the matter, whereas Sturgeon has unequivocally given her answer (namely "I don't know.") We still don't know whether or not Mundell received the memo, for example. It's perfectly legitimate to ask him what he knew, and he's thus far declined to answer the most pressing questions. Make of that what you will. My personal take on it is that his first awareness, or at the very least his office's first awareness, was before he said it was. In the absence of a truthful undertaking to the contrary from the brillo-heided oddity, I'll stick with my suspicion.

Are they taking Carmichael's actions as broadly representative of the Lib Dems, or are they taking the Lib Dems' supine, impotent non-reaction to misconduct on the part of their sole Scottish MP as broadly representative of the Lib Dems? I think this is a distinction with a difference. Certanly I don't think the individual actions of Carmichael reflect on anyone except Carmichael, but I do think the craven lack of any concern on the part of the party at large is, well, classic Lib Demmism.

I think you creatively impugned the First Minister in part because snpbad and in part because it makes Carmichael look like a mere prankster by comparison, yes. I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way. Welshbairn probably doesn't feel as strongly but he certainly read the equivocation the same way I did - ask yourself why that is. if you worry about a credibility problem, look close to home.

[Ad Lib]

How is Clegg irrelevant but Sturgeon not? The catamite was in charge of the Lib Dems when Carmichael was an MP, jesus f**k. Of course he had nothing to do with what Carmichael actually did - much in the same way that Sturgeon had nothing to do with what Thomson actually did. Hence nobody tried to rope Clegg into this, but immediately Sturgeon was the subject of all headlines and all 'investigative' questions from Dugdale and Davidson.

Carmichael's actions were unrelated to a process in respect of which Clegg or the Liberal Democrats (as a political party) could plausibly have oversight.

Thomson's actions were relevant to a process (candidate selection) in respect of which Sturgeon and the SNP (as a political party) could plausibly have oversight.

As, for example, The Herald article point out, the reason what if anything Sturgeon knew was relevant because if she knew nothing, Thomson has potentially misled the party during candidate selection, a new angle implicating her, not Sturgeon. If Sturgeon did know about it, it's politically embarrassing that Thomson was approved as a candidate, both in terms of conduct and in terms of the political embarrassment of a property shark knowingly being allowed to run on a social democratic platform ostensibly committed to helping rather than screwing the poor.

I didn't deliberately ignore it, I just don't think it really matters. Mundell has continued to evade questioning on the matter, whereas Sturgeon has unequivocally given her answer (namely "I don't know.") We still don't know whether or not Mundell received the memo, for example. It's perfectly legitimate to ask him what he knew, and he's thus far declined to answer the most pressing questions. Make of that what you will. My personal take on it is that his first awareness, or at the very least his office's first awareness, was before he said it was. In the absence of a truthful undertaking to the contrary from the brillo-heided oddity, I'll stick with my suspicion.

The inquiry specifically cleared Mundell of any wrongdoing. There was nothing equivocal about it.

Are they taking Carmichael's actions as broadly representative of the Lib Dems, or are they taking the Lib Dems' supine, impotent non-reaction to misconduct on the part of their sole Scottish MP as broadly representative of the Lib Dems? I think this is a distinction with a difference. Certanly I don't think the individual actions of Carmichael reflect on anyone except Carmichael, but I do think the craven lack of any concern on the part of the party at large is, well, classic Lib Demmism.

They are doing both.

I think you creatively impugned the First Minister in part because snpbad and in part because it makes Carmichael look like a mere prankster by comparison, yes. I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way. Welshbairn probably doesn't feel as strongly but he certainly read the equivocation the same way I did - ask yourself why that is. if you worry about a credibility problem, look close to home.

I didn't impung her. The word impung literally means to "dispute the truth, validity or honesty of a statement". What part of "I assume truthfully" is even remotely capable of doing that? It's doing the *polar fucking opposite*.

[Colkitto]

The First Minister is the leader of the SNP. Are you telling me that if Kezia Dugdale were the First Minister and Ian Murray were in Michelle Thomson's position the leader of the SNP wouldn't be asking what if anything Kezia and her party knew about one of their MPs soaking the poor and using a lawyer struck off for failing to uphold his fiduciary duties to report information potentially relevant to the prevention of mortgage fraud?

No, I don't believe Sturgeon would, but that's just my opinion on a hypothetical scenario.

Both Dugdale and Davidson looked desperate today. It was mudslinging and I believe a highly knowledgeable politically savvy Scottish electorate will see it for what it was - gutter politics.

Both Dugdale and Davidson just can't seem to get the mood right on these occasions. I suppose that's what's separates mediocre politicians like them and someone on top of her game like Sturgeon

[bob the tank]

This whole thing is smoke and mirrors to play down the Carmichael case moving forward, as well as the start of the propaganda campaign for next years election. Mundell may have been 'cleared' but I don't think he will fancy the prospect of big al in the witness box. Michelle Thomson on Ashley Madison and now this, perhaps someone with a grudge and good, powerful contacts?