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.

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.

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.

No. 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.

That was kinda similar to Sporting's CL playoff too, they lost going on convincing winners.

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.

I reckon that's right too.

Because if there's something pre-Corbyn Labour stood for it was a consistent worldview and coherent policy.

Explain how that follows.

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.

Why? Because your self-inflicted cognitive failings are hilarious? That doesn't actually follow.

I'm roaring at 'westminster leaders debates'. Someone else on this thread pointed it out already but you britbot subnormals can't even criticize the SNP properly when they've actually done something wrong. You've marinaded yourselves so putridly in 'snpbad' hysteria for so long that you can't distinguish things that are real from things that aren't real. You're like drug or porn addicts, completely unfit for the most basic cognitive tasks.

'westminster leaders debates' Is that their official title, Rumpole?

Tbh if you're looking forward to pretty much anything for five years it's likely to disappoint.

As much as I think Thomson is a chancer who really has to walk, there's more than a hint of the 'scoop of the election so far' from the unionists on here. They've taken what's already a pretty sordid situation and made it sound like some kind of slum lord racketeering.