Jump to content

When will indyref2 happen?


Colkitto

Indyref2  

819 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

If you look back at the history of the SNP, the previous generations of leadership are a perennial pain in the arse for the incumbent leadership. Gordon Wilson, Jim Sillars were regularly in the papers saying Salmond and Swinney were doing a shite job, Salmond for a spell before being exposed a sex pest was beginning to do the same with his RT show. For the moment proxies like Joanna Cherry, Angus MacNeil, Chris McEleny do this. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if those in the current leadership who were keen on Salmond getting done had one eye on him being permanently discredited and having to withdraw from public life to break this cycle.

I suppose on reflection it shouldn't be a surprise he is on manoeuvres again. The common theme in all of this is folk who have spent their lives being deferred to suddenly being at a loose end once they've handed over control, and jumping at the chance to be listened to again even if it's an unsympathetic journalist. Salmond has the added quality of having form in ignoring reality staring him in the face, his secret Canadian pollsters assuring him Yes would win preventing him putting the work in on currency, hard border in favour of hand waving, project fear etc. It's not just an SNP thing, it's the same deal with Tommy Sheridan, George Galloway etc. I think a lot of it  is down to grandees of parties that won't go to the Lords not having retirement plans.

On the question of torpedoing independence, quite possibly. Whether it's the end goal or just an unfortunate side effect of setting the record straight, or something he just doesn't recognise is a risk, I don't know. I'd lean towards he last interpretation.

I sometimes wonder if the dissenting voices criticising the SNP from within the party helps the SNP maintain their support from outside the party/ wider independence movement. 

For example, Alex Neil criticising the party's stance on Brexit showed that it's possible to think not being in the EU and still supporting independence is a legitimate stance to take. Especially when a fair chunk of SNP members voted Leave in 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 


Well #resignsturgeon is trending on twitter and there are hundreds of accounts all with union jacks in their bio suddenly painting salmond as some sort of hero and truth teller. Comedy

 

Can't say I've seen much of that tbf.

Im enjoying the saltire gammon brigade panicking and picking their sides. One said "Stop talking about it on here you're doing the Tories a favour" 😂

Some of them seem a lot more worried than the majority on here though. I don't think it's the end of the world or the start of the beginning of the end as someone previously said, I reckon this will blow over fairly straight forward. The Indy supporters who choose Salmonds side are absolute mentalists to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

If you look back at the history of the SNP, the previous generations of leadership are a perennial pain in the arse for the incumbent leadership. Gordon Wilson, Jim Sillars were regularly in the papers saying Salmond and Swinney were doing a shite job, Salmond for a spell before being exposed a sex pest was beginning to do the same with his RT show. For the moment proxies like Joanna Cherry, Angus MacNeil, Chris McEleny do this. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if those in the current leadership who were keen on Salmond getting done had one eye on him being permanently discredited and having to withdraw from public life to break this cycle.

I suppose on reflection it shouldn't be a surprise he is on manoeuvres again. The common theme in all of this is folk who have spent their lives being deferred to suddenly being at a loose end once they've handed over control, and jumping at the chance to be listened to again even if it's an unsympathetic journalist. Salmond has the added quality of having form in ignoring reality staring him in the face, his secret Canadian pollsters assuring him Yes would win preventing him putting the work in on currency, hard border in favour of hand waving, project fear etc. It's not just an SNP thing, it's the same deal with Tommy Sheridan, George Galloway etc. I think a lot of it  is down to grandees of parties that won't go to the Lords not having retirement plans.

On the question of torpedoing independence, quite possibly. Whether it's the end goal or just an unfortunate side effect of setting the record straight, or something he just doesn't recognise is a risk, I don't know. I'd lean towards he last interpretation.

Salmond was acquitted of all charges, as I told you he would be. People on here said he was a bit 'rapey', turns out they were full of shit.  So its incorrect, and infact libelous, to call him a 'sex pest'.  All those allegations were investigated thoroughly, hundreds of interviews carried out, thousands of police hours wasted, and a majority female jury of his peers found him innocent of all charges.  So Salmond is not a sex pest, he is the victim of a smear campaign.

You're completely misunderstanding the situation anyway,  he is not 'on manouvers' he is defending his legal reputation as he has no option but to do so, the same as you or I or Nicola Sturgeon would. He hasn't lied to anybody about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

Especially when a fair chunk of SNP members voted Leave in 2016. 

I would offer a slight correction to the above.

If I recall correctly, it was a fair chunk of SNP voters that voted Leave. In my experience, a far lower percentage of members hold gammony views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Is sex pest coded languade for sex criminal? Where has that been established?

Sex pest is a libelous accusation.  That went to court, a judge and jury decided he was nothing of the sort.  You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to base that on except unfounded rumour and smears put out by people who wanted to damage him politically. I'm sure you consider yourself to be an intelligent, reasonable person, well such people don't throw around unfounded accusations, especially when they've been thoroughly investigated and found to be nonsense in court.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Anyone reading what Salmond did and concluding he’s not sleazy is undoubtedly sleazy themselves.

Absolute complete and utter shite. This is what the judge agreed happened, Salmond had one consensual fully clothed cuddle with a female colleague when both were slightly tipsy.

Every single other accusation was thrown out. So you're full of shit, and an ignorant c**t, you haven't even read the details but are happy to throw out baseless nonsense allegations. I would imagine you're more sleazy than he is given that's the extent of his apparent 'sleaze'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

    Taking the allegation that Mr Salmond had assaulted with intent to rape a civil servant as an example of the pattern, Mr Jackson said that the woman had sought and received an apology from the first minister over the incident. At the time “there was no thought of any kind of the police being involved”, he said.

    Mr Jackson acknowledged that Mr Salmond had acted inappropriately at times, but that was not the issue before the court.

“I’m dealing not with whether he could have been a better man, because he certainly could have been . . . I am dealing with whether or not it is established that he was guilty of serious, sometimes very serious, criminal charges,” he said.
 

https://www.ft.com/content/44603000-6ab1-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

That doesn't say anything at all.  Salmond himself admitted to only one thing, and the judge agreed with him.  A fully clothed, reciprocated cuddle.  If that makes him a sex pest you are too.

Why did he make a formal apology to her in front of officials? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MixuFruit said:

Why do you keep mentioning charges? We're talking about being a sex pest, as defined by you as someone who acts inappropriately and makes unwanted advances to women.

Re: paywall it is not my fault you can't get past it with some extremely basic googling.

Because we have no proof whatsoever that any of this has ever happened, all we know is his entire life was investigated incredibly thoroughly very recently and 700 people were interviewed.  And a jury, majority female, found him innocent of all charges.  So you have nothing whatsoever to base any allegation on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Jeezo now you're defaming people!

I'm perfectly happy to throw out allegations based on nothing whatsoever, since that seems to be the style here. So you're a beast, and nothing anyone can say, even you being charged with being a beast and acquitted of all charges, can change my opinion about that.  How does it feel to be a beast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Because he regretted it.  Have you ever cuddled a woman you aren't married to?

In that case he should have apologised to his wife. If it was consensual why would he feel the need to apologise to the woman he "cuddled"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...