Alex Salmond.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

One or two posters on here clearly sat down on Friday afternoon thinking (hoping) 'if he doesn't nail Sturgeon in the first ten minutes, he's got f**k all'.

But nae luck...

What actually happened was that Salmond calmly and systematically rolled into place all the light artillery he has at his immediate disposal (blame Leslie Evans' 'battles' and 'war', not me). That is, all the evidence he can refer to without wandering into genuine or jumped-up contempt of court territory. That was all pointed squarely at Evans, Murrell, and Wolffe.

He also made it clear that there are heavier guns on their way up the line; that is, the evidence that has been suppressed, but will see the light of day at some point... maybe even immediately after Sturgeon commits herself to an account under oath, eh?

Having not said a word for eleven months, Salmond, by the end of a single afternoon, was in almost complete control of the situation. Sturgeon, having failed to bluff and threaten him into not appearing, now has to deal with a set-piece (her own planned appearance) on his terms. Will she be lured into saying/repeating things that can be disproved by the subsequent disclosure of evidence?

Whatever you think of him, I don't think I've ever seen someone handle a situation in which they are prevented from using evidence more skilfully. He set out the case as far as he could on the evidence that has been published; avoided getting huckled or shut down; was restrained about making claims that would rely on suppressed evidence; and left them (Sturgeon, Murrell, etc) wondering what else he might have that they don't quite know about (in addition to the stuff they certainly do know about).

She now has three choices:

1. Don't go. That might look like political suicide, but her political career is over anyway, and a last-minute health-related retreat might mean that the people she's trying to protect (Murrell, in particular) might just get out of this unemployed, but not facing criminal charges. She should have done this weeks ago, but it's still a way of avoiding catastrophic defeat (as opposed just to defeat).

2. Go and rely on the kinds of contortion of language we heard in Parliament on Thursday ('to the best of my knowledge, I don't believe that happened', etc). That will also be very politically damaging. Baillie and Fraser don't need to be intellectual giants to ask her questions they know she can't answer in a straightforward way (although maybe the three human (sorta) shields in the room will run down the clock and limit some of that damage).

3. Go and continue to lie, this time under oath. I fear this is what she'll do, but live in hope that there's a single person close to her able to dissuade her; because if she does, this whole clusterfuck, which seems to have been dragging on forever, is only approaching half-way; and the eventual defeat will be even more catastrophic than under option 1, taking down every last fucker who's had any involvement at all.

Final point for those convinced that the key to this whole thing is, hilariously, Salmond's 'thirst for revenge': every time he was invited to sink the knife, specifically, into her, he declined. That's partly because of the evidence/tactical issue described above... but I also thought he was making it clear that he won't be sinking the knife. 'Just because she went for me personally, doesn't mean I'm going to go for her'. And he doesn't have to go for her in order for her to fall: if Murrell, Evans, Wolffe, Lloyd, Ruddick end up going (clue: they will), there's no way she can survive. He's giving her every opportunity to fall on her sword (just as he gave the SG every opportunity to walk away from their spiralling madness at every stage in the process).

He didn't look or sound to me like a guy motivated by revenge at all. In fact, I think he feels sorry for her.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

[Ned Nederlander]

9 hours ago, strichener said:

He is calling the FM a liar.  If she is found guilty of breaking the Ministerial Code and doesn't resign then I think you may hear him publically calling for her resignation.

 

8 hours ago, Donathan said:

He explicitly accused her of breaking the ministerial code. That is clearly a resignation matter. I'm not saying that she did breach the code however him saying she broke it is as good as him asking for a resignation.

When asked if he thought she should resign if found guilty he said 'Not for me'

Edited February 28, 2021 by Ned Nederlander

[Donathan]

1 minute ago, Ned Nederlander said:

 

When asked if he thought she should resign if found guilty he said 'Not for me'

You're misquoting him, he said it wasn't for him to decide, not that she shouldn't resign

[Ned Nederlander]

4 minutes ago, Donathan said:

You're misquoting him, he said it wasn't for him to decide, not that she shouldn't resign

 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

One or two posters on here clearly sat down on Friday afternoon thinking (hoping) 'if he doesn't nail Sturgeon in the first ten minutes, he's got f**k all'.
But nae luck...
What actually happened was that Salmond calmly and systematically rolled into place all the light artillery he has at his immediate disposal (blame Leslie Evans' 'battles' and 'war', not me). That is, all the evidence he can refer to without wandering into genuine or jumped-up contempt of court territory. That was all pointed squarely at Evans, Murrell, and Wolffe.
He also made it clear that there are heavier guns on their way up the line; that is, the evidence that has been suppressed, but will see the light of day at some point... maybe even immediately after Sturgeon commits herself to an account under oath, eh?
Having not said a word for eleven months, Salmond, by the end of a single afternoon, was in almost complete control of the situation. Sturgeon, having failed to bluff and threaten him into not appearing, now has to deal with a set-piece (her own planned appearance) on his terms. Will she be lured into saying/repeating things that can be disproved by the subsequent disclosure of evidence?
Whatever you think of him, I don't think I've ever seen someone handle a situation in which they are prevented from using evidence more skilfully. He set out the case as far as he could on the evidence that has been published; avoided getting huckled or shut down; was restrained about making claims that would rely on suppressed evidence; and left them (Sturgeon, Murrell, etc) wondering what else he might have that they don't quite know about (in addition to the stuff they certainly do know about).
She now has three choices:
1. Don't go. That might look like political suicide, but her political career is over anyway, and a last-minute health-related retreat might mean that the people she's trying to protect (Murrell, in particular) might just get out of this unemployed, but not facing criminal charges. She should have done this weeks ago, but it's still a way of avoiding catastrophic defeat (as opposed just to defeat).
2. Go and rely on the kinds of contortion of language we heard in Parliament on Thursday ('to the best of my knowledge, I don't believe that happened', etc). That will also be very politically damaging. Baillie and Fraser don't need to be intellectual giants to ask her questions they know she can't answer in a straightforward way (although maybe the three human (sorta) shields in the room will run down the clock and limit some of that damage).
3. Go and continue to lie, this time under oath. I fear this is what she'll do, but live in hope that there's a single person close to her able to dissuade her; because if she does, this whole clusterfuck, which seems to have been dragging on forever, is only approaching half-way; and the eventual defeat will be even more catastrophic than under option 1, taking down every last fucker who's had any involvement at all.
Final point for those convinced that the key to this whole thing is, hilariously, Salmond's 'thirst for revenge': every time he was invited to sink the knife, specifically, into her, he declined. That's partly because of the evidence/tactical issue described above... but I also thought he was making it clear that he won't be sinking the knife. 'Just because she went for me personally, doesn't mean I'm going to go for her'. And he doesn't have to go for her in order for her to fall: if Murrell, Evans, Wolffe, Lloyd, Ruddick end up going (clue: they will), there's no way she can survive. He's giving her every opportunity to fall on her sword (just as he gave the SG every opportunity to walk away from their spiralling madness at every stage in the process).
He didn't look or sound to me like a guy motivated by revenge at all. In fact, I think he feels sorry for her.

Tony Blair lied to the Commons about so-called Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and subsequently committed the UK to an international conflict, the fallout of which resonates to this day, in which hundreds of thousands lost their lives. He on the other hand survived.
I'd give Sturgeon the opportunity to give her account before you place her political head on a stake, no ?

[NUMBER 7]

One thing for certain before Wednesday comes,  Sturgeon won’t be able to able to answer or handle the interview in the manner Salmond did on Friday.  Guarantee there will be a right few “ Heids Gone” moments from her as it progresses, although she’ll get an easy ride from her cohorts on the committee. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I'd give Sturgeon the opportunity to give her account before you place her political head on a stake, no ?

Did you forget that he's fucking mental?

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

6 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

 

 

Did you forget that he's fucking mental?
 

 

When you say 'mental', you mean 'hysterical'. 

Actually, and mental, as well. 

There's a growing fanaticism about this from certain people which is bordering on unhealthy. Are Unionists actually so full of hate, desperation and fear ?

It seems so. 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Bob Mahelp

[SANTAN]

14 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

When you say 'mental', you mean 'hysterical'. 

Actually, and mental, as well. 

There's a growing fanaticism about this from certain people which is bordering on unhealthy. Are Unionists actually so full of hate, desperation and fear ?

It seems so. 

 

I've decided since you labelled me a fantasist and provided nothing to back this up with that it would be fair linguistically to label you as a fantasist. Technically speaking by definition you created a false scenario about me to suit your fantasies. That makes you a fantasist. You can evade this title by apologising or forever be haunted by your treacherous actions. 

 

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Ned Nederlander said:

 

Seems to be guilty of repeating himself a few times in this clip.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

1 hour ago, Stormzy said:

I've decided since you labelled me a fantasist and provided nothing to back this up with that it would be fair linguistically to label you as a fantasist. Technically speaking by definition you created a false scenario about me to suit your fantasies. That makes you a fantasist. You can evade this title by apologising or forever be haunted by your treacherous actions. 

 

Oh, f**k me. Yawn. 

If you want to play schoolboy internet games, fair enough.  Your recent excited posting history...you constantly post links from Unionist websites, or memes from Unionist sources...suggests that you, as a die-hard Unionist, have been taking events and twisting them to suit what you believe is your version of the 'truth'. 

Your fantasy is to see the end of the First Minister, and to see support for independence collapse. The facts don't support what you believe...sorry. therefore, yoiu're a fantasist. 

Now. I truly don't give a flying f**k if you want to play kiddie games with semantics or not. You're a fantasist, and almost certainly a nasty wee Yoon along with it. 

Enjoy. 

Edit : By the way, you're now on ignore. So whine on like a baby all you want, it's f**k all to do with me any more. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Bob Mahelp

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Oh, f**k me. Yawn. 

If you want to play schoolboy internet games, fair enough.  Your recent excited posting history...you constantly post links from Unionist websites, or memes from Unionist sources...suggests that you, as a die-hard Unionist, have been taking events and twisting them to suit what you believe is your version of the 'truth'. 

Your fantasy is to see the end of the First Minister, and to see support for independence collapse. The facts don't support what you believe...sorry. therefore, yoiu're a fantasist. 

Now. I truly don't give a flying f**k if you want to play kiddie games with semantics or not. You're a fantasist, and almost certainly a nasty wee Yoon along with it. 

Enjoy. 

Yeah of course I'd enjoy what you say in my wildest fantasies but I've never posted that I believe that is actually going to happen..

I certainly don't keep posting links from "Unionist sources" and play them of as factual. *Yawn*

You mention "schoolboy games" like you're not the one that embraced such levels by calling me a fantasist unprovoked with no actual evidence..

Call me a Yoon, a ***, a c**t, an idiot or even a deplorable scumbag but don't try and call me a "fantasist" unless you have receipts. 

[DublinMagyar]

You are a c**t

[Ira Gaines]

Ghost of P A R P is such a vile c**t. 

[Ira Gaines]

so is Bob Mahelp 

[carpetmonster]

1 hour ago, DublinMagyar said:

You are a c**t

Cuntasist?

[diegomarahenry]

It looks like the Sturgeonites are blaming Salmond for trying to take down the SNP because of his ego

Salmond is trying to take down those who tried to jail him and failed. 

Salmond turned up and said a lot of things he said he can prove but the government wont let him show the evidence. He must know that the SG could call his bluff at any moment and allow the evidence to be shown, so is he likely to lie?

The government wont show the evidence

If this was a Russian opposition leader, this would have been condemned by every news outlet and government based on the conspiracy that the Scottish government has hidden evidence and is trying to silence or jail an enemy of the ruling party. The Scottish government must know this looks bad but the most damaging thing about this is that more people backing Sturgeon aren't asking for clarity and transparency. To think that a ruling party could try and remove a private citizen from society and when they lose, bar him from proving the fact it happened is frightening. People need to know this was not the case. 

If the committee win their fight to see the evidence and it is damming, Sturgeon has to go. If she turns up and does damage limitation, throws a couple of names under the bus, maybe she can survive. If she releases the evidence and it proves Salmond has been economical with the truth, then Salmond has been just stirring shit and she will continue. 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

It looks like the Sturgeonites are blaming Salmond for trying to take down the SNP because of his ego
Salmond is trying to take down those who tried to jail him and failed. 
Salmond turned up and said a lot of things he said he can prove but the government wont let him show the evidence. He must know that the SG could call his bluff at any moment and allow the evidence to be shown, so is he likely to lie?
The government wont show the evidence
If this was a Russian opposition leader, this would have been condemned by every news outlet and government based on the conspiracy that the Scottish government has hidden evidence and is trying to silence or jail an enemy of the ruling party. The Scottish government must know this looks bad but the most damaging thing about this is that more people backing Sturgeon aren't asking for clarity and transparency. To think that a ruling party could try and remove a private citizen from society and when they lose, bar him from proving the fact it happened is frightening. People need to know this was not the case. 
If the committee win their fight to see the evidence and it is damming, Sturgeon has to go. If she turns up and does damage limitation, throws a couple of names under the bus, maybe she can survive. If she releases the evidence and it proves Salmond has been economical with the truth, then Salmond has been just stirring shit and she will continue. 
 

I actually thought Salmond was rather measured on Friday - he had opportunities to throw Sturgeon under the bus but did not.

As for not showing the evidence - we could go round in circles on this - preserving the anonymity of the complainants and at the same time allowing evidence to be presented was always going to be difficult - but even more so with the political games going on - the behaviour of some who seem to be making judgements on Twitter before all the evidence has been presented is just a disgrace.

Ultimately this shows that having politicians make judgements about other politicians is really unworkable - an independent inquiry without the politicians being involved might have made some headway.

Now we are in a he said she said position - and I doubt very much the full truth will emerge and even less so with the twisting of the testimony we have seen. The MSM have been appalling - the way Salmond's testimony was reported bore no relation to the actualite. He did not call on Sturgeon to resign as Sarah Smith claimed nor did he state, as the Heil front page said, that Scotland was not ready for independence.

[Donathan]

Greens saying they’ll get rid of Swinney if the evidence is not released