Alex Salmond.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The committee (as far as i'm aware) are not bound by the decision of the Crown Office and if they disagree they can take it to a judge. The Lord Advocate has no power over the committee.

Until the committe actually decide if they want to challenge a decision they are well advised to heed the legal advice of Scotland's Senior Law Officer.  It would be even more of a farce if the committee investigating the failing of procedures themselves ignored legal advice and breached a court order.

The Lord Advocate's legal advice is not binding though. For example the UK attorney general's legal advice over prorogation of parliament was thrown out by the Supreme Court. Geoffrey Cox was deemed to be talking out his arse.

 

‘Advice’.

He threatened them in order to make sure Salmond didn’t appear.

And a parliamentary inquiry needs to ‘take it to a judge’ in order to be able to perform its function? A week after a right-wing magazine ‘took it to a judge’?

Everybody should just ‘take it to a judge’ every week until the end of the parliament?

You are very far gone...

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

How does 474 words equate to "it wis Nicla"?

Except he's not actually implicated other than in your fevered dreams.

So no answer, as usual.

56 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Other than to threaten them with contempt of court proceedings.

 

51 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

His opinion is that publishing parts of the evidence violates the standing court orders therefore the committee would be in contempt of court.

It is fairly straight forward. If the committee disagree they can go to court.

 

Hey, which is it you two?

Is he undermining the entire process of government? Or is he providing valuable ‘advice’?

If the latter, brother ghost, what bits of the redacted evidence, in your opinion, risked ‘violating’ the court order?

What would a judge say?

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Agree with most of your points, but I don't think that Evans is the main suspect for leaking to the Record...

True. It was Lloyd.

[Baxter Parp]

His opinion is that publishing parts of the evidence violates the standing court orders therefore the committee would be in contempt of court.
It is fairly straight forward. If the committee disagree they can go to court.
 

They're MSPs, how would they know if it violated the court order?

[HTG]

6 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

True. It was Lloyd.

You've got every base covered here eh? You've no more idea than fly. You're consistently dressing up speculation as fact. No need to respond - you're exhibiting more Pep like behaviour as each page goes by. Once the matter is concluded you can either preen yourself or move into next stage conspiracy. 

[SANTAN]

11 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Outwith the P&B politics forum and the frothing BBC, does anyone actually care about this.?

Yes. You've been warned multiple times but at every point you've put your fingers in your ears and closed your eyes. 

[SandyCromarty]

11 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Outwith the P&B politics forum and the frothing BBC, does anyone actually care about this.?

Correct, much ado about nothing, but it excites the BBC and the unionists on here.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Correct, much ado about nothing, but it excites the BBC and the unionists on here.

Some of the same people who are frothing at the mouth about this are also the same people who were frothing that Salmond was on trial and even more so when he was acquitted.

Damned if he hadn't gone on trial and now damned that he was. No matter what was done these people would have been frothing.

I have my own personal view on the events but will keep quiet about those until this is over. All I will say is that I am struggling to see the great conspiracy here - what I see is a battle between different political egos with one over-cautious individual stuck in the middle.

[SANTAN]

7 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Correct, much ado about nothing, but it excites the BBC and the unionists on here.

Aye this is the only place that's discussing or following the issue other than the BBC right enough...

3 posts talking about how nobody cares now. Quite a group on the go. 

[oneteaminglasgow]

57 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Aye this is the only place that's discussing or following the issue other than the BBC right enough...

3 posts talking about how nobody cares now. Quite a group on the go. 

While I wouldn’t go as far as to say nobody cares, because that’s obviously wrong, I don’t think it’s likely that this will have any impact whatsoever long term. Either Salmond is proven to be talking shite, in which case nothing changes, or he’s proven correct, in which case Sturgeon goes, along with some others, gets replaced by, let’s say Humza Yousaf for example, and the SNP continue to win every election in Scotland for the foreseeable.

I also think it’s fair to say that a sizeable majority of those who are interested won’t be changing how they vote based on this. A lot of them would have never voted SNP regardless, and others have other reasons (mostly transphobia or being UDI weirdos) for not voting SNP anymore.

[SANTAN]

1 hour ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

While I wouldn’t go as far as to say nobody cares, because that’s obviously wrong, I don’t think it’s likely that this will have any impact whatsoever long term. Either Salmond is proven to be talking shite, in which case nothing changes, or he’s proven correct, in which case Sturgeon goes, along with some others, gets replaced by, let’s say Humza Yousaf for example, and the SNP continue to win every election in Scotland for the foreseeable.

I also think it’s fair to say that a sizeable majority of those who are interested won’t be changing how they vote based on this. A lot of them would have never voted SNP regardless, and others have other reasons (mostly transphobia or being UDI weirdos) for not voting SNP anymore.

Humza Yousef? Jesus christ, I'd say your predictions are slightly more optimistic for the SNP than mine. 

I think if the elections go ahead and Sturgeon has resigned before then then the support for SNP would fall significantly. 

[Anonapersona]

15 hours ago, strichener said:

Who this guy will vote for

Nobody. It's a photoshopped image of a young orangutan.

[strichener]

14 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The committee (as far as i'm aware) are not bound by the decision of the Crown Office and if they disagree they can take it to a judge. The Lord Advocate has no power over the committee.

Until the committe actually decide if they want to challenge a decision they are well advised to heed the legal advice of Scotland's Senior Law Officer.  It would be even more of a farce if the committee investigating the failing of procedures themselves ignored legal advice and breached a court order.

The Lord Advocate's legal advice is not binding though. For example the UK attorney general's legal advice over prorogation of parliament was thrown out by the Supreme Court. Geoffrey Cox was deemed to be talking out his arse.

 

It wasn't the committee that withdrew the publication, it was the corporate body, the SNP+Independent on the committee had already decided that it was too hot to handle and passed the decision onto the Parliament Corporate Body for guidance. 

If you cannot see the conflict of interest in the person heading up the Crown Office also being the government's legal adviser when the Crown Office is requesting the parliament remove published documents then you are choosing to be blind.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

It wasn't the committee that withdrew the publication, it was the corporate body, the SNP+Independent on the committee had already decided that it was too hot to handle and passed the decision onto the Parliament Corporate Body for guidance. 

If you cannot see the conflict of interest in the person heading up the Crown Office also being the government's legal adviser when the Crown Office is requesting the parliament remove published documents then you are choosing to be blind.

So the committee voted to refer to the Crown Office for legal advice. And then the crown office gave legal advice. And then the publication to the committee were redacted with respect to that legal advice.

Surely if the committee, who have heard all the evidence, thought there was a genuine conflict of interest they would not have referred the matter to the Crown Office???

 

Or are the committee members now part of the grand conspiracy that apparently also included the BBC.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

4 hours ago, HTG said:

You've got every base covered here eh? You've no more idea than fly. You're consistently dressing up speculation as fact. No need to respond - you're exhibiting more Pep like behaviour as each page goes by. Once the matter is concluded you can either preen yourself or move into next stage conspiracy. 

Bingo.

No more idea than fly... but a lot more than you, clearly.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

10 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

12 hours ago, Jim McLean said:

His opinion is that publishing parts of the evidence violates the standing court orders therefore the committee would be in contempt of court.
It is fairly straight forward. If the committee disagree they can go to court.
 

They're MSPs, how would they know if it violated the court order?

Aye, cos the parliament (specifically, the corporate body) doesn’t have its own lawyers and its only possible source of legal advice is the Lord Advocate...

He is clearly implicated, btw; Salmond implicates him in the submission. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty, but he is implicated.

16 minutes ago, strichener said:

It wasn't the committee that withdrew the publication, it was the corporate body, the SNP+Independent on the committee had already decided that it was too hot to handle and passed the decision onto the Parliament Corporate Body for guidance. 

If you cannot see the conflict of interest in the person heading up the Crown Office also being the government's legal adviser when the Crown Office is requesting the parliament remove published documents then you are choosing to be blind.

Exactly.

Every single poster defending Sturgeon and Wolffe is doing so in defiance of clear and consistent evidence of a cover-up.

You don’t want to know.

Wolffe could have Salmond lifted for looking a bit smug and you’d just say ‘about time...’

[The Ghost of B A R P]

34 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

So the committee voted to refer to the Crown Office for legal advice. And then the crown office gave legal advice. And then the publication to the committee were redacted with respect to that legal advice.

Surely if the committee, who have heard all the evidence, thought there was a genuine conflict of interest they would not have referred the matter to the Crown Office???

 

Or are the committee members now part of the grand conspiracy that apparently also included the BBC.

Four of the committee are SNP, including the chair, a fifth is Wightman.

As above, if you believe they’re there to find out what happened, you’re in complete denial.

Edited to add, having just glanced at the, eh, news... Sturgeon has now completely lost the plot. Desperate, beyond embarrassing. She should resign on grounds of ill health/fatigue immediately.

Edited February 24, 2021 by The Ghost of B A R P

[strichener]

1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

So the committee voted to refer to the Crown Office for legal advice. And then the crown office gave legal advice. And then the publication to the committee were redacted with respect to that legal advice.

Surely if the committee, who have heard all the evidence, thought there was a genuine conflict of interest they would not have referred the matter to the Crown Office???

 

Or are the committee members now part of the grand conspiracy that apparently also included the BBC.

Can you not read?  Nowhere did I say that the committee referred the matter to the Crown Office. 

You speak of grand conspiracy whilst lacking the knowledge of which role each arm of the government and parliament played in the process.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

Can you not read?  Nowhere did I say that the committee referred the matter to the Crown Office. 

You speak of grand conspiracy whilst lacking the knowledge of which role each arm of the government and parliament played in the process.

 

45 minutes ago, strichener said:

It wasn't the committee that withdrew the publication, it was the corporate body, the SNP+Independent on the committee had already decided that it was too hot to handle and passed the decision onto the Parliament Corporate Body for guidance. 

So what does the bold mean?

I took it to mean that the committee members voted to seek legal advice on Salmond's submission.

[Detournement]

37 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

So the committee voted to refer to the Crown Office for legal advice. And then the crown office gave legal advice. And then the publication to the committee were redacted with respect to that legal advice.

Surely if the committee, who have heard all the evidence, thought there was a genuine conflict of interest they would not have referred the matter to the Crown Office???

 

Or are the committee members now part of the grand conspiracy that apparently also included the BBC.

It's a cover up featuring four SNP MSPs who do what Sturgeon and Murrell tell them and Wightman who needs SNP support for the list now he's been booted out the Greens.

It's blatantly partisan. 

[Detournement]

Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

 

So what does the bold mean?

I took it to mean that the committee members voted to seek legal advice on Salmond's submission.

When Lady's Dorrian ruled the evidence could be presented the four SNPers and Wightman still refused to allow it and referred it to the Parliamentary Management Committee to let them decide. 

That backfired so now they are pretending advice from the Crown Office carries more weight than a ruling by a judge.