Carrmichael MP v Thompson MP

[lucky]

With a lot being written around Carrmichael and Thompson. Which one one misled the electorate more about their personality and suitability to be an MP. Does leaking of a document to smear a rival politicians triumph fleecing vulnerable people in house deals?

For me, never surprised by the behavior of our elected representatives but it does seem that Carrimchaels sins seem a lot less than Thompson but there is not clamour for her to be deselected and Edinburgh West to have a by-election

[stoneyburn hibs]

Has anything been proven against Thompson ?

[Moulin Yarns]

Carmichael = serving MP who tried to influence votes by lying facing court charges

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34390705

Thomson = Alleged to have done some property deals prior to being elected an MP, but not facing charges, the solicitor who acted for her is facing charges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34487629

Whatever happened to Innocent until proven guilty?

[Future17]

With a lot being written around Carrmichael and Thompson. Which one one misled the electorate more about their personality and suitability to be an MP. Does leaking of a document to smear a rival politicians triumph fleecing vulnerable people in house deals?

For me, never surprised by the behavior of our elected representatives but it does seem that Carrimchaels sins seem a lot less than Thompson but there is not clamour for her to be deselected and Edinburgh West to have a by-election

Should this type of political point-scoring not wait until Thomson is at least investigated and, possibly, charged with doing something illegal? Or is this your new approach following the Tom Watson's example?

[lucky]

Should this type of political point-scoring not wait until Thomson is at least investigated and, possibly, charged with doing something illegal? Or is this your new approach following the Tom Watson's example?

Not point scoring, I don't think Thompson has done anything wrong legally but morally she has. If this was a Labour MP all hell would have broken loose by now on this. But as is the way in politics just now SNP can do wrong. But this along with the T in the Park cronyism is showing up the Nats are not as squeaky clean as their PR machine makes out

[Moulin Yarns]

No probe by Parliamentary Standards

http://www.thenational.scot/news/no-parliamentary-standards-probe-into-deals-of-edinburgh-west-mp-michelle-thomson.8602 (http://www.thenational.scot/news/no-parliamentary-standards-probe-into-deals-of-edinburgh-west-mp-michelle-thomson.8602)

the Law Society rejected calls from Nicola Sturgeon and Kezia Dugdale to release documents about Hales’ tribunal. So the First Minister is also trying to get it all out in the open, how can anybody complain about the SNP not doing the right thing?


https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2015/10/statement-from-the-law-society-on-christopher-hales-%E2%80%93-crime-agency-alerted-in-2011/

Nowhere does the statement mention Michelle Thomson.

[Beefster]

Im not sure if the knowledge that the folk currently defending Thompson would be slaughtering her if she was a member of any other party is amusing or just depressing.

[RyeSloan]

Not point scoring, I don't think Thompson has done anything wrong legally but morally she has. If this was a Labour MP all hell would have broken loose by now on this. But as is the way in politics just now SNP can do wrong. But this along with the T in the Park cronyism is showing up the Nats are not as squeaky clean as their PR machine makes out

Considering the coverage the issue has had I'm not sure you can claim that all hell hasn't broken lose on this!

I'm also not sure you can compare the two events. Both are pretty underhand though and I think both should do the right thing and resign.

[Jack]

Why don't we chuck in the 10 grand missing from Kezia Dugdales constituency office?

Nobody has been found guilty of that yet either!

[marinello59]

Im not sure if the knowledge that the folk currently defending Thompson would be slaughtering her if she was a member of any other party is amusing or just depressing.

It's depressing.

[lucky]

Why don't we chuck in the 10 grand missing from Kezia Dugdales constituency office?

Nobody has been found guilty of that yet either!

Not from her office but from Edinburgh East CLP but don't let the truth get in the way of your story

[stoneyburn hibs]

Im not sure if the knowledge that the folk currently defending Thompson would be slaughtering her if she was a member of any other party is amusing or just depressing.

I don't think anyone has defended her on this thread, bash on though.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not from her office but from Edinburgh East CLP but don't let the truth get in the way of your story


:kettle:

[lucky]

Loving how the Nats are refusing criticise Thompson for antics on fleecing vulnerable people. Party of social justice..... My a**e

[CropleyWasGod]

Loving how the Nats are refusing criticise Thompson for antics on fleecing vulnerable people. Party of social justice..... My a**e
I'm not a Nat, but she is my MP. I won't be criticising her until I know what the facts are. That's natural justice.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[xyz23jc]

With a lot being written around Carrmichael and Thompson. Which one one misled the electorate more about their personality and suitability to be an MP. Does leaking of a document to smear a rival politicians triumph fleecing vulnerable people in house deals?

For me, never surprised by the behavior of our elected representatives but it does seem that Carrimchaels sins seem a lot less than Thompson but there is not clamour for her to be deselected and Edinburgh West to have a by-election

Read your statement again! It's appears you already have decided and know the answer to the question you're asking! Hope you're not in the legal profession, although you could probably get a job with the BBC.:greengrin

[lucky]

Read your statement again! It's appears you already have decided and know the answer to the question you're asking! Hope you're not in the legal profession, although you could probably get a job with the BBC.:greengrin

I'm asking the question and then given my views. Others are free to defend her or him.

[Hibbyradge]

Im not sure if the knowledge that the folk currently defending Thompson would be slaughtering her if she was a member of any other party is amusing or just depressing.

Neither. It's predictable.

Except, if she hasn't broken the law then it's a non story, although it's being spun against her.

Which is depressing.

[DaveF]

Im not sure if the knowledge that the folk currently defending Thompson would be slaughtering her if she was a member of any other party is amusing or just depressing.

No more amusing or depressing than your guaranteed glib comments on each of these threads :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

One was an MP at the time of blatantly false statements the other is alleged to have bought and sold property at least 4years before standing for parliament

[ronaldo7]

Not point scoring, I don't think Thompson has done anything wrong legally but morally she has. If this was a Labour MP all hell would have broken loose by now on this. But as is the way in politics just now SNP can do wrong. But this along with the T in the Park cronyism is showing up the Nats are not as squeaky clean as their PR machine makes out

I'll wait on both subjects to see what the courts have to say, but on your subject of T in the park, I'll just leave the photo to see if you've anything you can add.

15533

I remember you were saying you were moving due to not getting on with the guys down the pub. :faf:

If it's a council house you should be ok for a move within the area, but if on the other hand you own your house stay clear of those pesky solicitors, unless you want to donate your profit to the local church/foodbank.

Take a wee deek at this, for some interesting reading.:aok:

http://t.co/OYh9qZuITc

[Dashing Bob S]

I'd punt them both - neither is fit to be an MP.

Carmichael far more heinous as he was caught with his fingers in the till, involved in a dubious underhand smear and it's cover up, in a blatant attempt to mislead the public.

However, should the allegations against Thomson be proven, the SNP should declare her unfit to represent them and demand a by-election takes place with another candidate. If they are serious about making us believe in an independent Scotland, they have to make a break with the past and send out a signal that the corruption and cronyism of Westminster and previous dominant parties in Scotland won't be tolerated. It's no good looking at all the Con/Lab MP's who make money through dubious and underhand practices, the SNP have set themselves up to be above that and they must make us believe in them.

Carmichael is more the case of a morally bankrupt man representing a corrupt and decaying system. Thomson is more about the SNP, and their tolerance (or otherwise) or this kind of person (allegedly) and their what place in the different kind of modern, clean democracy they are supposedly seeking to establish.

[Beefster]

No more amusing or depressing than your guaranteed glib comments on each of these threads :greengrin

Pointing out brazen hypocrisy, which is all I generally do on the countless SNP/Labour bun-fights, doesn't make it glib.

Prior to Carmichael's admission, I don't recall many posters on here banging on about 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'let's find out the facts'. In fact, I recall a lot of posters (if I could be arsed checking, I'd probably find some of them have gone on to post on this thread) getting almost hysterical about Carmichael before he was found to be guilty.

[DaveF]

Ach politics was much easier to follow when it was just tories and brown envelopes.

All this nonsense is boring.

[Northernhibee]

Pointing out brazen hypocrisy, which is all I generally do on the countless SNP/Labour bun-fights, doesn't make it glib.

Prior to Carmichael's admission, I don't recall many posters on here banging on about 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'let's find out the facts'. In fact, I recall a lot of posters (if I could be arsed checking, I'd probably find some of them have gone on to post on this thread) getting almost hysterical about Carmichael before he was found to be guilty.

What is blatantly clear is that there is no difference between the standards of the SNP and the rest of the usual culprits that they moan about.

[The_Todd]

Carmichael lied about who leaked the lmemo but not the content of the memo itself, and quite frankly you're naive if you believe the SNP want anything other than a Tory government.

Thompson is a case of two issues, legal and moral. What she did IS immoral and goes against everything she claimed to stand for (as well as her party). The legalities are another matter. It is possible to condemn her actions based on what we know so far as these events aren't in question.

[Northernhibee]

Carmichael lied about who leaked the lmemo but not the content of the memo itself, and quite frankly you're naive if you believe the SNP want anything other than a Tory government.

Thompson is a case of two issues, legal and moral. What she did IS immoral and goes against everything she claimed to stand for (as well as her party). The legalities are another matter. It is possible to condemn her actions based on what we know so far as these events aren't in question.

:agree::top marks

Put all their effort into attacking the Labour party instead of the Tories who they supposedly are opposed to.

[The_Todd]

:agree::top marks

Put all their effort into attacking the Labour party instead of the Tories who they supposedly are opposed to.

It's in their interests in a number of ways. They can carry on making a mess of things at Holyrood and pass the blame to "Westminster\Westmonster\Wastemonster" (or whatever they're calling it these days) and also it furthers their independence position. "If we voted Yes we wouldn't be stuck with Tories" is all we'll hear for 5 years and into another almost inevitable second referendum.

[Jack]

IIRC the SNP made repeated attempts during and after the general election to work with Labour, going as far as to suggest a coalition of sorts. These offerings were disdainfully rebuffed at every opportunity.

Labour, who didn't have a policy pot to piss in, spent so much time sneering at the SNP they took their eye off the ball in England where they lost the election against an unpopular Tory Party!

Labour blame anyone but themselves for their abject failure.

Once again the vote in Scotland didn't matter so Westminster carries on business as usual.

As for the two miscreants, both lack the morals I think we'd all like to see in our elected representatives, only one has been charged with a criminal offence.

[Hibbyradge]

Carmichael lied about who leaked the lmemo but not the content of the memo itself,



How do you know this? The SNP and the French ambassador have denied anything of the sort was said.



Carmichael lied about who leaked the lmemo but not the content of the memo itself, and quite frankly you're naive if you believe the SNP want anything other than a Tory government.



It doesn't really matter what the SNP may or may not want. They have no influence over which Westminster government we get, but they would have happily gone into coalition with Labour.



Thompson is a case of two issues, legal and moral. What she did IS immoral and goes against everything she claimed to stand for (as well as her party).

It's certainly been portrayed like that by the press and her opponents.

However, I'm not so sure.

If a house is for sale, people can bid whatever they want. If the owner accepts the bid, fair enough.

When people are under pressure to sell anything, they will usually accept a lower offer, whether it's a house, a hearse or a horse. No-one would pay more than they had to, just because they felt sorry for the seller.

One woman, who had bought her council house for sweeties, is moaning that she sold to Thomson and only made a £30000 profit on it. :rolleyes:

I've just bought a house in York for £30k less than the asking price. I made an offer, they rejected it, I increased my offer and it was accepted.

Nothing immoral about that.

[Hibbyradge]

In fact, isn't that the exact same business model that the Hibernian benefactors, McEwan Fraser, adopt?

If she's done something illegal, then she should be thrown out of the party.

If only she had stuck to minor offences. Like arson.

[The_Todd]

How do you know this? The SNP and the French ambassador have denied anything of the sort was said.


That may be up for debate, but it was in the memo and the memo was leaked as it was: Carmichael didn't write the memo, he just leaked it And despite all the protestations I do find it hard to believe that given the SNP's core aim and objective that they didn't want a Tory victory. The same goes for the EU referendum, a sizeable number of SNP members (and I suspect a fair few senior SNP people) will be hellbent on England voting for "out".

[Northernhibee]

IIRC the SNP made repeated attempts during and after the general election to work with Labour, going as far as to suggest a coalition of sorts. These offerings were disdainfully rebuffed at every opportunity.

Labour, who didn't have a policy pot to piss in, spent so much time sneering at the SNP they took their eye off the ball in England where they lost the election against an unpopular Tory Party!

Labour blame anyone but themselves for their abject failure.

Once again the vote in Scotland didn't matter so Westminster carries on business as usual.

As for the two miscreants, both lack the morals I think we'd all like to see in our elected representatives, only one has been charged with a criminal offence.

Very naive. Labour were attempting to get into government and Sturgeon's unwanted comments about coallition helped stop any momentum that Labour had. The rest of the UK were put off by the constant barage of suggestions that the SNP would force Labours hand into a coallition (hope not fear politics right enough :rolleyes:) .

[Hibbyradge]

That may be up for debate, but it was in the memo and the memo was leaked as it was: Carmichael didn't write the memo, he just leaked it And despite all the protestations I do find it hard to believe that given the SNP's core aim and objective that they didn't want a Tory victory. The same goes for the EU referendum, a sizeable number of SNP members (and I suspect a fair few senior SNP people) will be hellbent on England voting for "out".

As I pointed out, what they do or don't want for political expediency is irrelevant.

Unlike the Tories, who were hellbent on Corbyn winning the Labour leadership to the extent that they infiltrated the voting process, the SNP are unable to influence the General Election or the EU referendum, other than to campaign for Yes.

If Nicola Sturgeon and the French ambassador deny the allegation, and the memo itself suggests some of the conversation might have been "lost in translation", then despite what you may want to be the truth, it's just not true.

And, on top of all that, the mere idea that Nicola Sturgeon would be so naive as to say something as controversial as that in front of a minute taker, is ludicrous.

[Beefster]

In fact, isn't that the exact same business model that the Hibernian benefactors, McEwan Fraser, adopt?

If she's done something illegal, then she should be thrown out of the party.

If only she had stuck to minor offences. Like arson.

Some of us were saying at the time that McEwan Fraser weren't a suitable sponsor for the club.

I find it slightly bizarre that you're dismissive of an elected representative being accused of taking advantage of vulnerable and desperate people whilst getting so indignant about someone that set a pair of curtains on fire, who has subsequently been punished and rehabilitated, getting a job.

[RyeSloan]

Some of us were saying at the time that McEwan Fraser weren't a suitable sponsor for the club. I find it slightly bizarre that you're dismissive of an elected representative being accused of taking advantage of vulnerable and desperate people whilst getting so indignant about someone that set a pair of curtains on fire, who has subsequently been punished and rehabilitated, getting a job.

Not to forget the Solicitor in question has been struck off..

[johnbc70]

Unlike the Tories, who were hellbent on Corbyn winning the Labour leadership to the extent that they infiltrated the voting process

Nonsense, even Corbyn came out at the time and said it was "nonsense". Maybe a few tried to register but nobody took it seriously.

[Hibbyradge]

I find it slightly bizarre that you're dismissive of an elected representative being accused of taking advantage of vulnerable and desperate people whilst getting so indignant about someone that set a pair of curtains on fire, who has subsequently been punished and rehabilitated, getting a job.

To be honest, I was playing devil's advocate a bit. When the story first broke, like most people, I was appalled, and if it's shown that she has acted immorally, then I totally disapprove and she should be roundly criticised. To be honest, even if she hasn't, she'll struggle to recover.

However, this is politics at play so I'd still like to hear Thomson's version of events. Of course people are going to be upset if they find that they could have got more for their property. I dislike trading in my car, because I know the garage will get loads more for it than they're paying me, but that's the price I have to pay for the convenience and a quick sale.

There's not much point me greeting about it if I see it on sale in the forecourt for a couple of grand more than I received. Yes, the sums are much bigger, but the general principle is the same.

McEwan Fraser will tell you that they help people by selling their houses quickly. That's the service they offer and there's a premium to be paid for it. That's a completely different spin than the one the press are using to gub Thomson. I'm yet to see a press article attacking McEwan Fraser.

In what way were the people vulnerable, other than keen to sell? That's a genuine question as I stopped following the story a while ago so there may have been developments I don't know about.

On your second point, how do you know Watson has been rehabilitated? Loads of people who go to jail are not rehabilitated.

In any case, I just don't think that people who break the law should be allowed to make the law. It's not as if he merely nicked a mars bar or shared a spliff when he was a uni. He set a fire in an hotel, a crime so serious, he was jailed for a year and a quarter!

To turn your phrase on its head, I find it slightly bizarre that you're happy to forgive an arsonist and allow him to, literally, Lord it over us, whilst getting so indignant about someone against whom, no wrong doing has been proved.

Would you be happy if it turns out that Thomson has broken the law, gets jailed for it, and then returns to parliament when she gets out?

[Hibbyradge]

Nonsense, even Corbyn came out at the time and said it was "nonsense". Maybe a few tried to register but nobody took it seriously.

Do you think Corbyn would have said otherwise?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11680016/Why-Tories-should-join-Labour-and-back-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Of course there were Tories voting for Corbyn. Loads got caught.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure which is more morally reprehensible and I'm not sure we'll know until/unless the full facts of the Thompson case emerge. My guess is both pretty bad.

However, Sturgeon seems to have dealt with the matter in exemplary fashion. MT is sidelined while investigated but given presumption of innocence. It's been made pretty clear that if the allegations are proven, she'll be out on her ear. I hope that's the case.

Otoh, whichever non-entity handled the Carmichael thing for the Libs seemed to basically go with "he's suffered enough". :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

Some of us were saying at the time that McEwan Fraser weren't a suitable sponsor for the club.

I find it slightly bizarre that you're dismissive of an elected representative being accused of taking advantage of vulnerable and desperate people whilst getting so indignant about someone that set a pair of curtains on fire, who has subsequently been punished and rehabilitated, getting a job.

Really? Are you whispering Beef Harris?

The late night curtain fire could easily have led to much more serious consequences (as I'm sure you realise).

[ronaldo7]

Nonsense, even Corbyn came out at the time and said it was "nonsense". Maybe a few tried to register but nobody took it seriously.

To be fair to Corbyn, he's said a few things that tuned out to be nonsense.

[Geo_1875]

I'm not sure which is more morally reprehensible and I'm not sure we'll know until/unless the full facts of the Thompson case emerge. My guess is both pretty bad.

However, Sturgeon seems to have dealt with the matter in exemplary fashion. MT is sidelined while investigated but given presumption of innocence. It's been made pretty clear that if the allegations are proven, she'll be out on her ear. I hope that's the case.

Otoh, whichever non-entity handled the Carmichael thing for the Libs seemed to basically go with "he's suffered enough". :rolleyes:

Excuse my ignorance but what are the allegations against Thompson? I believe she made an offer on a property for sale. If the allegation is that she then sold it on for a profit well big ****ing deal.

[JeMeSouviens]

Excuse my ignorance but what are the allegations against Thompson? I believe she made an offer on a property for sale. If the allegation is that she then sold it on for a profit well big ****ing deal.

There's basically 2 strands:

1. as you say, that she offered sellers a quick sale at below market value and then made a fast buck. This seems to be not disputed by anyone. It's the extent of the "vulnerability" of the sellers that's contentious.

2. that she committed mortgage fraud. Her solicitor was struck off because he failed to notify the banks that the properties he was dealing with had been sold recently at a much lower value. I must admit I'm unsure how you use that to commit fraud? ... but anyway, it could just be an oversight by her solicitor or it could be a conspiracy involving MT, her partner and the solicitor.

[Geo_1875]

There's basically 2 strands:

1. as you say, that she offered sellers a quick sale at below market value and then made a fast buck. This seems to be not disputed by anyone. It's the extent of the "vulnerability" of the sellers that's contentious.

2. that she committed mortgage fraud. Her solicitor was struck off because he failed to notify the banks that the properties he was dealing with had been sold recently at a much lower value. I must admit I'm unsure how you use that to commit fraud? ... but anyway, it could just be an oversight by her solicitor or it could be a conspiracy involving MT, her partner and the solicitor.

Vulnerable to a low bid? I'm sure Thompson didn't send anybody round to twist their arms.

I can't see how that's fraud either. Surely the banks only need to see an independent valuation to authorise a mortgage.

[lucky]

The issue with Thompson is that she bought the property's cheap and sold them a few hours later, even to her husband. Whether there's mortgage fraud in their is being investigated. The issue is that the SNP removed her from her post as Excutive of Business for Scotland, and yet a few months later she was allowed to stand for the SNP. Morally she appear bankrupt. The SNP have even taken her photo out of the window of her constituency office. If she resigns I fully expect the SNP to retain the seat. But I think she'll hang on but won't be selected again.

[RyeSloan]

Vulnerable to a low bid? I'm sure Thompson didn't send anybody round to twist their arms. I can't see how that's fraud either. Surely the banks only need to see an independent valuation to authorise a mortgage.

Sure I read a quote that it was related to potential money laundering and the solicitor had not taken the correct precautions against it during these transactions...not certain though.

[johnbc70]

Do you think Corbyn would have said otherwise?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11680016/Why-Tories-should-join-Labour-and-back-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Of course there were Tories voting for Corbyn. Loads got caught.

You present things as fact then back it up with a link to a blog with lots of ifs and buts. Where is the evidence they did infiltrate the voting process and made a difference to the vote.

[Hibbyradge]

You present things as fact then back it up with a link to a blog with lots of ifs and buts. Where is the evidence they did infiltrate the voting process and made a difference to the vote.

I didn't say it made any difference to the vote. I said they infiltrated the voting process.

The Telegraph encouraged them (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many-Tories-joining-Labour-after-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-announcement.html) to vote for Corbyn, including this man (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/23/labour-is-pocketing-the-c_n_7646648.html]several were caught trying[/URL] and some, [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/18/tory-party-member-votes-for-jeremy-corbyn-three-times), has been bragging about doing so.

[Hibbyradge]

You present things as fact then back it up with a link to a blog with lots of ifs and buts. Where is the evidence they did infiltrate the voting process and made a difference to the vote.

I didn't say it made any difference to the vote. I said they infiltrated the voting process.

The Telegraph encouraged them (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many-Tories-joining-Labour-after-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-announcement.html) to vote for Corbyn, several were caught trying (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/23/labour-is-pocketing-the-c_n_7646648.html) and some, including this man (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/18/tory-party-member-votes-for-jeremy-corbyn-three-times), has been bragging about doing so.

[Beefster]

To turn your phrase on its head, I find it slightly bizarre that you're happy to forgive an arsonist and allow him to, literally, Lord it over us, whilst getting so indignant about someone against whom, no wrong doing has been proved.

Would you be happy if it turns out that Thomson has broken the law, gets jailed for it, and then returns to parliament when she gets out?

I haven't said that I've forgiven Watson or been in any way indignant about Thompson on here.

To be honest, if she gets jailed and serves her time, I don't really give two hoots what she does after her release as long as she doesn't do it again.


Really?

Yes, really. As you know, I'm rarely coy about sharing my opinions and, during their sponsorship with Hibs, I was pretty open about my views on McEwan Fraser.

[ronaldo7]

The issue with Thompson is that she bought the property's cheap and sold them a few hours later, even to her husband. Whether there's mortgage fraud in their is being investigated. The issue is that the SNP removed her from her post as Excutive of Business for Scotland, and yet a few months later she was allowed to stand for the SNP. Morally she appear bankrupt. The SNP have even taken her photo out of the window of her constituency office. If she resigns I fully expect the SNP to retain the seat. But I think she'll hang on but won't be selected again.

Not true, as far as I'm aware, but maybe you can point to the evidence for me.

The SNP believed that the roles of Thompson, and Macintyre Kemp were doing the same thing, and so stopped her consultancy payments. She kept the position of Executive Director.

The reason her photo has been removed is that she's no longer an SNP member, after "She" removed herself.

[marinello59]

Some of us were saying at the time that McEwan Fraser weren't a suitable sponsor for the club.
.

I was one of them and I remember having a decent exchange of views about it with at least one of the posters on this thread. :greengrin
They don't do anything illegal and those who defend them will say they are providing a service which people know they are going to have to pay a premium for. A lot of those will have little choice though having been pushed down that road by financial circumstances. Maybe Scotlands ruling establishment party at Hyrood will learn from this and try and find a solution that keeps some vulnerable people pushed down the discount buyers route in their own homes.
Sturgeon has effectively hung her MP out to dry anyhow, well done to her. The smug assertion that Scottish politicians were above any wrongdoing was always going to come back and bite them. Politicians can behave badly regardless of party or nationality. It's good to see a leader take swift action though.

[JeMeSouviens]

I haven't said that I've forgiven Watson or been in any way indignant about Thompson on here.

To be honest, if she gets jailed and serves her time, I don't really give two hoots what she does after her release as long as she doesn't do it again.



Yes, really. As you know, I'm rarely coy about sharing my opinions and, during their sponsorship with Hibs, I was pretty open about my views on McEwan Fraser.

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?286165-Official-Site-Marathonbet-Named-New-Main-Sponsor&p=4077258&viewfull=1#post4077258

"All legal activities though so it's fair enough for Hibs to take them all on as sponsors."

Not exactly damning condemnation.

[Geo_1875]

I was one of them and I remember having a decent exchange of views about it with at least one of the posters on this thread. :greengrin
They don't do anything illegal and those who defend them will say they are providing a service which people know they are going to have to pay a premium for. A lot of those will have little choice though having been pushed down that road by financial circumstances. Maybe Scotlands ruling establishment party at Hyrood will learn from this and try and find a solution that keeps some vulnerable people pushed down the discount buyers route in their own homes.
Sturgeon has effectively hung her MP out to dry anyhow, well done to her. The smug assertion that Scottish politicians were above any wrongdoing was always going to come back and bite them. Politicians can behave badly regardless of party or nationality. It's good to see a leader take swift action though.

They always have the option of defaulting on their mortgage and losing everything. Personally I'd go for the cheap sale myself?

[Mibbes Aye]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?286165-Official-Site-Marathonbet-Named-New-Main-Sponsor&p=4077258&viewfull=1#post4077258

"All legal activities though so it's fair enough for Hibs to take them all on as sponsors."

Not exactly damning condemnation.

There's something a bit creepy about you raking back over a year ago to dig up a post to have a go at Beefster, just because he responded when you made your snidey 'Whispering' comment.

Perhaps if you had done a proper job and gone back a bit further, you would have found these?


They do take advantage (and profit massively as a result) from the desperation of those in difficulty IMHO.


Some would view it as preying on desperate people

Play the ball instead of the man, eh?

[marinello59]

They always have the option of defaulting on their mortgage and losing everything. Personally I'd go for the cheap sale myself?

That makes their business practice 100% sound then. And if a member of a caring progressive party wants to benefit from it so much the better. :thumbsup:

[lucky]

Not true, as far as I'm aware, but maybe you can point to the evidence for me.

The SNP believed that the roles of Thompson, and Macintyre Kemp were doing the same thing, and so stopped her consultancy payments. She kept the position of Executive Director.

The reason her photo has been removed is that she's no longer an SNP member, after "She" removed herself.

Yet the office is hers funded by UK taxpayers. So rather than remove her photo it should have been the SNP logo that was removed.

She was stopped receiving her salary from Business for Scotland but was kept in the role. Does that not indicate something was wrong?

[lucky]

They always have the option of defaulting on their mortgage and losing everything. Personally I'd go for the cheap sale myself?

If she had nothing to hide from her business transactions why was she not more open about it during election and selection. More than 50% of our new SNP MPs own more than one home but no one is accusing them of anything

[Beefster]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?286165-Official-Site-Marathonbet-Named-New-Main-Sponsor&p=4077258&viewfull=1#post4077258

"All legal activities though so it's fair enough for Hibs to take them all on as sponsors."

Not exactly damning condemnation.

What the **** is your problem? That might be the most tragic thing anyone has ever done to me on Hibs.net. A metaphorical trawl through my bin rubbish. If I'm ever in need of a ride or a life, I'll trawl through your historic posts to make a [wrong] point.

Who mentioned 'damning condemnation' by the way?

As Mibbes Aye has already quoted a few other posts that I made about McEwan Fraser, I'll leave it there.

[Geo_1875]

If she had nothing to hide from her business transactions why was she not more open about it during election and selection. More than 50% of our new SNP MPs own more than one home but no one is accusing them of anything

If it was relevant I'm sure her opponents and the investigative "journalists" would have raised it during the election campaign.

[JeMeSouviens]

What the **** is your problem? That might be the most tragic thing anyone has ever done to me on Hibs.net. A metaphorical trawl through my bin rubbish. If I'm ever in need of a ride or a life, I'll trawl through your historic posts to make a [wrong] point.

Who mentioned 'damning condemnation' by the way?

As Mibbes Aye has already quoted a few other posts that I made about McEwan Fraser, I'll leave it there.

Oh, get over yourself. You're the one who brought up your holier-than-thou schtick about Mc F.

[steakbake]

So... anyone going to the calendar signing this year?

[ronaldo7]

Yet the office is hers funded by UK taxpayers. So rather than remove her photo it should have been the SNP logo that was removed.

She was stopped receiving her salary from Business for Scotland but was kept in the role. Does that not indicate something was wrong?

On your first point, I'd agree, she's removed herself from the party so the Logo should go. She's now an independent until the police have done their job.

On your second point, you said the SNP had removed her from her post, which was untrue.

[Hibbyradge]

I didn't say it made any difference to the vote. I said they infiltrated the voting process.

The Telegraph encouraged them (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many-Tories-joining-Labour-after-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-announcement.html) to vote for Corbyn, including this man (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/23/labour-is-pocketing-the-c_n_7646648.html]several were caught trying[/URL] and some, [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/18/tory-party-member-votes-for-jeremy-corbyn-three-times), has been bragging about doing so.

I will take your lack of response as concession, johnbc70.

[johnbc70]

I will take your lack of response as concession, johnbc70.

Maybe........I know whatever my reply is you will just come back with more :greengrin

It made no difference at all and even if a small handful managed to vote say 1,000 (which is being generous) that makes up just over 0.2% of the vote so it is a non story.

Unless of course you can tell us how many tories voted and the impact it made, seeing as you think they were so desperate to have him elected?

[Hibbyradge]

Maybe........I know whatever my reply is you will just come back with more :greengrin

It made no difference at all and even if a small handful managed to vote say 1,000 (which is being generous) that makes up just over 0.2% of the vote so it is a non story.

Unless of course you can tell us how many tories voted and the impact it made, seeing as you think they were so desperate to have him elected?

I'll settle for the "maybe". Thank you. That's as much a concession as anyone's ever likely to get in this particular playground so I'm well made up! :greengrin

However, whether it made a difference or not is irrelevant. That wasn't my point, which you'll realise if you go back and read my post again.

[johnbc70]

I'll settle for the "maybe". Thank you. That's as much a concession as anyone's ever likely to get in this particular playground so I'm well made up! :greengrin

However, whether it made a difference or not is irrelevant. That wasn't my point, which you'll realise if you go back and read my post again.

You suggested that the tories were 'hellbent' on Corbyn winning the leadership election so much so that they 'infiltrated' the voting process. I just do not think a handful of tories who may or may not have voted in the election is enough to say the party as a whole was 'hellbent' on anything.

[Hibbyradge]

You suggested that the tories were 'hellbent' on Corbyn winning the leadership election so much so that they 'infiltrated' the voting process. I just do not think a handful of tories who may or may not have voted in the election is enough to say the party as a whole was 'hellbent' on anything.

Well, that's just stupid semantics. I said, that they "were hellbent on Corbyn winning the Labour leadership to the extent that they infiltrated the voting process".

They did infiltrate the process, of that there is no doubt. How many cheats do you need before you call it infiltration? One in my book, if it was orchestrated, which it was.

I've shown you evidence of right wing newspapers encouraging Tories to pay their £3 to vote for Corbyn.

I've shown you evidence of Tory MP's, Tory journalists and many others doing so or getting caught in the act and there were others. If you want me to find the links, I'll do so, but please save me the trouble.

Have you read the Leeann D thread on the main board? You're the Holy Ground's equivalent of Hessenhibee!

[lucky]

On your first point, I'd agree, she's removed herself from the party so the Logo should go. She's now an independent until the police have done their job.

On your second point, you said the SNP had removed her from her post, which was untrue.

She was removed by Strugeons husband from her paid role. He the chief Executive of the Nats, is he not?

[ronaldo7]

She was removed by Strugeons husband from her paid role. He the chief Executive of the Nats, is he not?

You said the SNP removed her from her post. That wasn't true was it? If it was, you'll supply the evidence wont you? #waiting

[lucky]

You said the SNP removed her from her post. That wasn't true was it? If it was, you'll supply the evidence wont you? #waiting

Your playing with words, everyone know she was removed. But you keep defending her. #partyofsocialjucticemyarse

[ronaldo7]

Your playing with words, everyone know she was removed. But you keep defending her. #partyofsocialjucticemyarse

I'm playing with your words. The words that are telling lies.

As for defending her, I think you should read the thread very carefully, as I've already said I'd wait to see what the courts say. You can read right?

[lucky]

I'm playing with your words. The words that are telling lies.

As for defending her, I think you should read the thread very carefully, as I've already said I'd wait to see what the courts say. You can read right?

What a witty response. No lies just facts but hey ho jog on now.

[ronaldo7]

What a witty response. No lies just facts but hey ho jog on now.

:faf:

You've been asked several times to come up with evidence, and not done so. I rest my case M'lud:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

This from one of the petitioners taking Carmichael to court. A member of the Scottish Green Party.

More power to her pen.

http://t.co/FeyaegWuNY

[marinello59]

This from one of the petitioners taking Carmichael to court. A member of the Scottish Green Party.

More power to her pen.

http://t.co/FeyaegWuNY

Carmichael lied and deserves everything that is coming to him.
She seems more concerned with him having different political views from her own. That doesn't really do her any favours.

[Lucky_Jim]

Carmichael lied and deserves everything that is coming to him.
She seems more concerned with him having different political views from her own. That doesn't really do her any favours.


Not only that, Marinello, but included in the list of his votes that she's criticising him for is the vote to increase APD. It's remarkable that a Green supporter should criticise someone for voting to increase a tax on polluting air travel. Furthermore, does she not understand the concept of collective responsibility that applied to members of Government. Does she really think that a Government Minister voting in favour of Government policy is a good argument in favour of removing him from his job?! Utterly pathetic and, as you say, does her position no favours at all - in fact it merely serves to fuel the suspicion that part of the current action against AC is politically driven more than anything. Not good or healthy in a democracy.

[xyz23jc]

Not only that, Marinello, but included in the list of his votes that she's criticising him for is the vote to increase APD. It's remarkable that a Green supporter should criticise someone for voting to increase a tax on polluting air travel. Furthermore, does she not understand the concept of collective responsibility that applied to members of Government. Does she really think that a Government Minister voting in favour of Government policy is a good argument in favour of removing him from his job?! Utterly pathetic and, as you say, does her position no favours at all - in fact it merely serves to fuel the suspicion that part of the current action against AC is politically driven more than anything. Not good or healthy in a democracy.

What about the hullabaloo about Thompson, is that politically driven, or is it just merely in the interests of ethics morality and justice?

[Lucky_Jim]

A
What about the hullabaloo about Thompson, is that politically driven, or is it just merely in the interests of ethics morality and justice?

The latter I would suggest xyz23jc. My post very specifically highlighted the nonsense of this woman - one of the petitioners against Alistair C - citing his voting record in her ridiculously self-indulgent, pious blog as a reason for him not being suitable to represent the people of Orkney and Shetland. That is utter guff - you don't need to agree with someone's politics to support the democratic process that puts them in that position.

As far as I can see all commentary about Thompson has been about her actions and absolutely nothing to do with her voting record. Criticising AC for his actions in leaking a memo written by a civil servant is one thing but using it and legal action to attack his voting record / record as a Govt Minister is quite clearly in my view politically driven. God forbid that Scotland should retain a sole Liberal voice in the political nirvana envisaged by the nationalists.

[ronaldo7]

To all those waiting on the courts to decide the future of Michelle Thomson, they may want to look out for a Labour MP Marie Rimmer,who'll be in court tomorrow after being charged last year during the referendum, for alleged assault. She was then elected as a Labour MP for St Helens south and Whiston in May this year.

Selection processes in all parties seem to be flawed.:wink:

[lucky]

To all those waiting on the courts to decide the future of Michelle Thomson, they may want to look out for a Labour MP Marie Rimmer,who'll be in court tomorrow after being charged last year during the referendum, for alleged assault. She was then elected as a Labour MP for St Helens south and Whiston in May this year.

Selection processes in all parties seem to be flawed.:wink:

Again you hijack a thread to try and score a cheap point.

[ronaldo7]

Again you hijack a thread to try and score a cheap point.

Just thought some on here including yourself would want to know of an MP who was arrested and charged last year and who was then elected 8 months later.

How's the selection process coming along then. :wink:

[marinello59]

Just thought some on here including yourself would want to know of an MP who was arrested and charged last year and who was then elected 8 months later.

How's the selection process coming along then. :wink:

Is that you finally admiting that the SNP may have got something wrong then? That wasn't too hard was it?
They're all as bad as each other really aren't they?

[ronaldo7]

Is that you finally admiting that the SNP may have got something wrong then? That wasn't too hard was it?
They're all as bad as each other really aren't they?

Still waiting on the police to complete their business.:wink:

Got the popcorn ready for the Labour lassie tomorrow though. I wonder if she's been reprimanded by her party, or maybe she resigned the whip.

Somehow I don't think so:aok:

Anyway, as the OP wants us to get back on track, we'd better do so.

No double standards here eh.:wink:

[marinello59]

Still waiting on the police to complete their business.:wink:

Got the popcorn ready for the Labour lassie tomorrow though. I wonder if she's been reprimanded by her party, or maybe she resigned the whip.

Somehow I don't think so:aok:

Anyway, as the OP wants us to get back on track, we'd better do so. Phew, situation normal. :thumbsup:

No double standards here eh.:wink:

My mistake then. Labour bad, The PARTY good. :thumbsup:

[Jack]

My mistake then. Labour bad, The PARTY good. :thumbsup:

Maybe the thread should be renamed Naughty MPs and we could without fear or favour rip into all the parties ;-)

Shouldn't take long to overtake the sevco thread!

[marinello59]

Maybe the thread should be renamed Naughty MPs and we could without fear or favour rip into all the parties ;-)

Shouldn't take long to overtake the sevco thread!

I'd leave the Greens out of it. But just because I like green. :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I'd leave the Greens out of it. But just because I like green. :greengrin

I always loved left wingers.:greengrin

[snooky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Modern Definition of Liar :- "Less than truthful" or "South of the standard that would be expected"

Why can't he hold up his hand, say "I did it, sorry" and just resign?
Some people have no morals, ethics or shame.
And as for the wee tavished scottie yelping in the corner trying to protect his master. Woof woof to you to.

[snooky]

Can someone please explain to me what the difference is between a political lie and a common garden lie? (Seriously).
Apparently a political one is okay. How come?

[marinello59]

Carmichael cleared of misleading the Orkney and Shetland voters.
He should now do the decent thing though surely and leave under his own steam for showing himself to be dishonest.

[Northernhibee]

Carmichael cleared of misleading the Orkney and Shetland voters.
He should now do the decent thing though surely and leave under his own steam for showing himself to be dishonest.

By that reckoning so should Salmond for his "legal advice"?

[Future17]

Can someone please explain to me what the difference is between a political lie and a common garden lie? (Seriously).
Apparently a political one is okay. How come?

The law is (and has always been) an ass. Electoral law in particular is archaic and, although a Law Commission review is under way to attempt to make it more usable, it's unlikely to be successful.

There will always be slippery escape routes for those in positions of power and influence (or those who know where they bodies are buried).

This whole episode just goes to show the distinct disconnect which still exists between career politicians and the average person. Politics is practised by politicians. The people elect politicians. Politicians lie to the people. There are no immediate consequences for the politicians. It can't be right and, until it's fixed, we will continue to be treated like muppets.

[ACLeith]

O&S first voted Liberal in 1950 (Jo Grimmond), he won with 46.8% of the vote, from then until he stepped down in 1983 his share of the vote was always well above 50%, except on one occasion when it "slumped" to 47%.

Jim Wallace took over and started off with 45.9% share and rose to 52% the last time he stood.

Under Carmichael, he gradually rose to 62% in 2010 with a 10K majority, which dropped to 41% and 800 majority this year. And the decimation of his vote came after he was one of the prominent NO campaigners and where O&S recorded the highest NO majority in the country a few months earlier.

So, the safest Liberal seat in the UK has become very marginal under his stewardship and it is certain that had he admitted his lies before the election he would have lost.

My Orkney relatives who are politically minded, and not a member of any party, do not have a good word to say about him, he was only around when looking for votes and is a nasty piece of work. (Not that I have met him myself, I merely pass on what they say).

He may have "won" today based on a narrow and literal interpretation of the current electoral law, but he is discredited and is a "dead man walking" in O&S. What a wonderful democracy we live in where someone can smear and lie like he did and still collect his MPs salary and expenses.

[cabbageandribs1875]

try and find an ounce of honour carmichael....resign, your constituents that voted for you don't like you anymore, bare-faced lying deceitful twisted piece of ****

[ACLeith]

try and find an ounce of honour carmichael....resign, your constituents that voted for you don't like you anymore, bare-faced lying deceitful twisted piece of ****

That's really what my Orkney relatives were saying C&R, I was trying to politely paraphrase them, but you have summed up their views better than me :thumbsup:

[BroxburnHibee]

He won't resign because the buffoon doesn't believe he has done anything wrong.

[marinello59]

By that reckoning so should Salmond for his "legal advice"?

Fair point, if every MP who was economical with the truth was to resign we would be facing a good few by-elections.

[snooky]

O&S first voted Liberal in 1950 (Jo Grimmond), he won with 46.8% of the vote, from then until he stepped down in 1983 his share of the vote was always well above 50%, except on one occasion when it "slumped" to 47%.

Jim Wallace took over and started off with 45.9% share and rose to 52% the last time he stood.

Under Carmichael, he gradually rose to 62% in 2010 with a 10K majority, which dropped to 41% and 800 majority this year. And the decimation of his vote came after he was one of the prominent NO campaigners and where O&S recorded the highest NO majority in the country a few months earlier.

So, the safest Liberal seat in the UK has become very marginal under his stewardship and it is certain that had he admitted his lies before the election he would have lost.

My Orkney relatives who are politically minded, and not a member of any party, do not have a good word to say about him, he was only around when looking for votes and is a nasty piece of work. (Not that I have met him myself, I merely pass on what they say).

He may have "won" today based on a narrow and literal interpretation of the current electoral law, but he is discredited and is a "dead man walking" in O&S. What a wonderful democracy we live in where someone can smear and lie like he did and still collect his MPs salary and expenses.

To add insult to this dodgy decision Pinocchio is saying that the case against him was a smear campaign by the SNP. (O ma sides :rotflmao:)
I note that the quote seems to have been edited by the BBC within the past 15mins and the anti-lib part has been replaced with "....." in the middle of the quote.

FWIW, I don't care which party this man stands for, he should be launched. Also I'm disappointed at the judges 'interpretation' of the Law.

[marinello59]

To add insult to this dodgy decision Pinocchio is saying that the case against him was a smear campaign by the SNP. (O ma sides :rotflmao:)
I note that the quote seems to have been edited by the BBC within the past 15mins and the anti-lib part has been replaced with "....." in the middle of the quote.

FWIW, I don't care which party this man stands for, he should be launched. Also I'm disappointed at the judges 'interpretation' of the Law.

He said it was politically motivated by nationalists rather than saying it was an SNP smear campaign. Unfortunately one of the pursuers did reveal herself to be driven by political differences with Carmichael allowing him to make that claim.

[snooky]

He said it was politically motivated by nationalists rather than saying it was an SNP smear campaign. Unfortunately one of the pursuers did reveal herself to be driven by political differences with Carmichael allowing him to make that claim.

Oh well that's okay then. He's off the hook. :greengrin

(If the Beeb hadn't edited the quote, I would have cut & pasted it, as it is, I had to paraphrase.
Sorry if I misled the public. :wink:)

[ACLeith]

He lost 2-1 but it needed 3-0 to unseat. Judges highly critical of him but drew back from saying he was a GASL

[marinello59]

Oh well that's okay then. He's off the hook. :wink:

I didn't say that. :greengrin

[snooky]

I didn't say that. :greengrin

I know, I did. :wink:

[marinello59]

Oh well that's okay then. He's off the hook. :greengrin

(If the Beeb hadn't edited the quote, I would have cut & pasted it, as it is, I had to paraphrase.
Sorry if I misled the public. :wink:)

I'm just going by what I heard him say.

[marinello59]

He lost 2-1 but it needed 3-0 to unseat. Judges highly critical of him but drew back from saying he was a GASL

He still has Parliamentary Standards to face. It isn't over for him yet, suspension is possible.

[snooky]

He lost 2-1 but it needed 3-0 to unseat. Judges highly critical of him but drew back from saying he was a GASL

GASL? :confused:

Gent And Serial Liar? :dunno:

[ACLeith]

GASL? :confused:

Gent And Serial Liar? :dunno:
As per D C King "glib and shameless liar"

[Moulin Yarns]

He said it was politically motivated by nationalists rather than saying it was an SNP smear campaign. Unfortunately one of the pursuers did reveal herself to be driven by political differences with Carmichael allowing him to make that claim.

If it's the one I heard on the radio, Labour supporter and another is a Green party candidate, so not nationalist

[marinello59]

If it's the one I heard on the radio, Labour supporter and another is a Green party candidate, so not nationalist

Didn't the Green Party support independence so I suppose they could be described as nationalist. I wouldn't but that's how I took him to mean it.

[lucky]

He won his court case and is now going for costs. Hopefully the 4 petitioners have resources to pay. This was politically motivated and those who can't accept the democratic decision of the people of O&S will now have to pay the price

[Glory Lurker]

He won his court case and is now going for costs. Hopefully the 4 petitioners have resources to pay. This was politically motivated and those who can't accept the democratic decision of the people of O&S will now have to pay the price

Your last sentence there. We are hearing a lot of that from the pro Carmichael side. How could any action under electoral law not be politically motivated? Given we live in a democracy, surely it shouldn't be seen as a bad thing? And are you saying that people should not exercise their rights to go to court if they think there's been an injustice?? (I am sure you don't?)

[Jonnyboy]

When is a politicians lie not a lie? Never

When is a lie ok? If it fails to breach the law as set out in The Representation of the Peoples Act 1983.

Bizarre. Carmichael has a nerve saying he's glad he won the case. Makes Dave King look like an honest character :wink:

[snooky]

Admin, can we rename this smiley :fibber: from "fibber" to "Carmichael"

[Lucky_Jim]

O&S first voted Liberal in 1950 (Jo Grimmond), he won with 46.8% of the vote, from then until he stepped down in 1983 his share of the vote was always well above 50%, except on one occasion when it "slumped" to 47%.

Jim Wallace took over and started off with 45.9% share and rose to 52% the last time he stood.

Under Carmichael, he gradually rose to 62% in 2010 with a 10K majority, which dropped to 41% and 800 majority this year. And the decimation of his vote came after he was one of the prominent NO campaigners and where O&S recorded the highest NO majority in the country a few months earlier.

So, the safest Liberal seat in the UK has become very marginal under his stewardship and it is certain that had he admitted his lies before the election he would have lost.

My Orkney relatives who are politically minded, and not a member of any party, do not have a good word to say about him, he was only around when looking for votes and is a nasty piece of work. (Not that I have met him myself, I merely pass on what they say).

He may have "won" today based on a narrow and literal interpretation of the current electoral law, but he is discredited and is a "dead man walking" in O&S. What a wonderful democracy we live in where someone can smear and lie like he did and still collect his MPs salary and expenses.

So, by your own figures, Alistair Carmichael secured a percentage vote in 2010 which was a massive 10 points higher than two prominent former leaders of his party, and was one of only three Scottish MPs to withstand the nationalist landslide in 2015, yet has resided over failure has he? That's a very odd and clearly inaccurate analysis.

I'm sure your Orkney relatives are the epitome of fairness and good judgement, but my experience is that he is anything but a "nasty piece of work". In fact, quite the opposite, he's a very decent, intelligent and hard working politician. And contrary to the claims by another poster, he is far from a "career politician" having worked in the hospitality industry and then as a lawyer for many years before his election to parliament.

Alex Salmond was caught out for a far worse and potentially more far reaching lie in relation to legal advice on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU, yet no one has taken him to court, he continues to receive his former FM pension, MSP and MP salaries (despite missing a debate on war in Syria - and as his party's foreign affairs spokesman as well - in order to unveil a portrait of himself) and appear on shows like Have I Got News For You. Oh, and he genuinely is a nasty piece of work - ask any civil servant that's been humiliated by him or female that's felt uncomfortable in the presence of his wayward hands. It's a very warped nation that we live in when AS is heralded as some sort of King of Scotland, while AC is public enemy number one. If you, and others, can't admit to the fact that the action against AC has been politically motivated and about wiping out any opposing voices to Scottish nationalism then you're every bit as economical with the truth as he was with the cabinet office inquiry, for which you're all so upset about.

Time to accept the court's ruling, give the guy a break and let him get on with the democratically vital job of representing the diminished liberal voice in Westminster, I say. He's paid more than enough of a price for having the temerity for being a leading voice in the campaign against a yes vote.

[ACLeith]

So, by your own figures, Alistair Carmichael secured a percentage vote in 2010 which was a massive 10 points higher than two prominent former leaders of his party, and was one of only three Scottish MPs to withstand the nationalist landslide in 2015, yet has resided over failure has he? That's a very odd and clearly inaccurate analysis.

I'm sure your Orkney relatives are the epitome of fairness and good judgement, but my experience is that he is anything but a "nasty piece of work". In fact, quite the opposite, he's a very decent, intelligent and hard working politician. And contrary to the claims by another poster, he is far from a "career politician" having worked in the hospitality industry and then as a lawyer for many years before his election to parliament.

Alex Salmond was caught out for a far worse and potentially more far reaching lie in relation to legal advice on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU, yet no one has taken him to court, he continues to receive his former FM pension, MSP and MP salaries (despite missing a debate on war in Syria - and as his party's foreign affairs spokesman as well - in order to unveil a portrait of himself) and appear on shows like Have I Got News For You. Oh, and he genuinely is a nasty piece of work - ask any civil servant that's been humiliated by him or female that's felt uncomfortable in the presence of his wayward hands. It's a very warped nation that we live in when AS is heralded as some sort of King of Scotland, while AC is public enemy number one. If you, and others, can't admit to the fact that the action against AC has been politically motivated and about wiping out any opposing voices to Scottish nationalism then you're every bit as economical with the truth as he was with the cabinet office inquiry, for which you're all so upset about.

Time to accept the court's ruling, give the guy a break and let him get on with the democratically vital job of representing the diminished liberal voice in Westminster, I say. He's paid more than enough of a price for having the temerity for being a leading voice in the campaign against a yes vote.

I could have used his other 2 election results (41.3% and 51.5%) but in the spirit of fairness which is the epitome of Hibs.net, I chose his 2 most recent. In fact, Jo Grimmond achieved higher or equal to 62% at 4 separate elections out of the 10 he contested.

In one respect you are right in that he was a success last May, but seeing your majority cut from 10,000 to 800 is hardly something to brag about. There must be good reasons why so many NO voters deserted him in such a short space of time. Where did I use the word "failure"? I merely stated the facts, can't see how that is "odd" or inaccurate?

I am delighted you regard my relatives in such a positive light, they are indeed fine people with varying political views.

Of course the petitioners were politically motivated, they took steps to remove a sitting MP for admitting to lying, just as in the same way every time I put an X on a ballot paper I'm politically motivated. But it's a new slant to suggest that the reason they took their action was just pique at the referendum result, when no such thought of doing this happened for Mundell and Murray.

And to save you wondering or asking, I am not a member of any party, I voted Liberal for most of my voting life as I believed in their principles, but stopped doing so when they deserted the part of the political spectrum I inhabit.

[Lucky_Jim]

I could have used his other 2 election results (41.3% and 51.5%) but in the spirit of fairness which is the epitome of Hibs.net, I chose his 2 most recent. In fact, Jo Grimmond achieved higher or equal to 62% at 4 separate elections out of the 10 he contested.

In one respect you are right in that he was a success last May, but seeing your majority cut from 10,000 to 800 is hardly something to brag about. There must be good reasons why so many NO voters deserted him in such a short space of time. Where did I use the word "failure"? I merely stated the facts, can't see how that is "odd" or inaccurate?

I am delighted you regard my relatives in such a positive light, they are indeed fine people with varying political views.

Of course the petitioners were politically motivated, they took steps to remove a sitting MP for admitting to lying, just as in the same way every time I put an X on a ballot paper I'm politically motivated. But it's a new slant to suggest that the reason they took their action was just pique at the referendum result, when no such thought of doing this happened for Mundell and Murray.

And to save you wondering or asking, I am not a member of any party, I voted Liberal for most of my voting life as I believed in their principles, but stopped doing so when they deserted the part of the political spectrum I inhabit.

You clearly know a bit when it comes to past voting records in the constituency of O&S! I salute your "spirit of fairness" but in the context of your original post my response in terms of your figures quoted was entirely fair, and the accusation of your analysis offered being odd entirely justified. If you consider the majorities that sitting MPs like Michael Moore, Margaret Curran, Charlie Kennedy, Douglas Alexander et al were defending and lost in the context of an SNP landslide across Scotland then the only fair minded assessment of AC's result is that of success, regardless of a reduced majority or not. You didn't use the word 'failure' but I used it to surmise your argument. You were quite clearly proposing that he had resided over failure and but for his wicked, lying ways being hidden from the electorate until after the election would have befallen the same fate as almost ever other non-SNP candidate at the election.

Perhaps I should have prefixed the words politically motivated with the word party, as you are taking such a wide interpretation of the phrase. Taking up your democratic right to vote - for whomever you so choose - at the ballot box is hardly comparable to setting out to raise tens of thousands of pounds in an attempt to have an MP removed from his seat. You can hardly argue -at least with a straight face - that the petitioners were purely motivated by pursuit of the truth and fairness, can you? Do you not in your heart of hearts think that the action was in any way motivated by the desire to see a non nationalist - and a prominent face of the no campaign at that - removed from office for nothing more than making a silly mistake. I hate to keep reverting to the example of Salmond, but if these very same self styled truth crusaders were just that then why on earth did they not choose to take legal action against him for lying to the electorate about having legal advice on iSco's EU membership? Could it be that AS and AC are held to entirely different standards in this brave new Scotland?

Wow, it must be pretty special to be like you and not belong to any political party but instead inhabit part of a political spectrum. Whatever the deuce that means! I wasn't particularly interested in knowing if you're a member of a political party - but am of course fascinated to learn about your habitation of a political spectrum, so thanks for sharing. In the spirit of openness, I guess I'm duty bound to tell you that I am a member of a political party, and it's not the same one as AC represents. Unlike some, I can see past party politics, recognise an unfair and partisan attack on a good man and speak out in defence of him, regardless of either his or my own party allegiance.

[cabbageandribs1875]

That's really what my Orkney relatives were saying C&R, I was trying to politely paraphrase them, but you have summed up their views better than me :thumbsup:


give my regards to your good relations :thumbsup:

[ACLeith]

You clearly know a bit when it comes to past voting records in the constituency of O&S! I salute your "spirit of fairness" but in the context of your original post my response in terms of your figures quoted was entirely fair, and the accusation of your analysis offered being odd entirely justified. If you consider the majorities that sitting MPs like Michael Moore, Margaret Curran, Charlie Kennedy, Douglas Alexander et al were defending and lost in the context of an SNP landslide across Scotland then the only fair minded assessment of AC's result is that of success, regardless of a reduced majority or not. You didn't use the word 'failure' but I used it to surmise your argument. You were quite clearly proposing that he had resided over failure and but for his wicked, lying ways being hidden from the electorate until after the election would have befallen the same fate as almost ever other non-SNP candidate at the election.

Perhaps I should have prefixed the words politically motivated with the word party, as you are taking such a wide interpretation of the phrase. Taking up your democratic right to vote - for whomever you so choose - at the ballot box is hardly comparable to setting out to raise tens of thousands of pounds in an attempt to have an MP removed from his seat. You can hardly argue -at least with a straight face - that the petitioners were purely motivated by pursuit of the truth and fairness, can you? Do you not in your heart of hearts think that the action was in any way motivated by the desire to see a non nationalist - and a prominent face of the no campaign at that - removed from office for nothing more than making a silly mistake. I hate to keep reverting to the example of Salmond, but if these very same self styled truth crusaders were just that then why on earth did they not choose to take legal action against him for lying to the electorate about having legal advice on iSco's EU membership? Could it be that AS and AC are held to entirely different standards in this brave new Scotland?

Wow, it must be pretty special to be like you and not belong to any political party but instead inhabit part of a political spectrum. Whatever the deuce that means! I wasn't particularly interested in knowing if you're a member of a political party - but am of course fascinated to learn about your habitation of a political spectrum, so thanks for sharing. In the spirit of openness, I guess I'm duty bound to tell you that I am a member of a political party, and it's not the same one as AC represents. Unlike some, I can see past party politics, recognise an unfair and partisan attack on a good man and speak out in defence of him, regardless of either his or my own party allegiance.

I am sure I would enjoy discussing politics with you over a pint or 6! And it would be better than trying to summarise on here :agree:

My final comments ..

What made O&S different for me was that I expected AC to be comfortably returned, given the scale of the NO vote there, albeit with a reduced majority; for that not to happen I feel there must have been local reasons

I do think he would have lost the extra votes needed to unseat him if the proof of his lying had come out before the election – but we could debate that till the cows come home without agreeing!

All I understand of the petitioners is that none belonged to the SNP, as far as I am aware. How much of their action was caused by frustration and anger at having seen a self-confessed liar elected and how much motivated by what you say I simply don’t know.

I don’t consider this to be a “silly mistake”, neither does Westminster as their investigation is still ongoing.

I have ignored your references to AS, because this thread is not about him, even if he is/was as vile a person as you say, that does not excuse AC for his own conduct.

I respect your strongly held views, so am disappointed that you play the man and not the ball by your comment “pretty special to be like you” :confused:. What I meant is that my own views have stayed pretty much the same for a very long time, in spite of getting long in the tooth now, I regarded myself way back then as being a bit left of centre, hence why I used to support the Liberal party but as the political spectrum (there goes that phrase again :wink:) has moved well to the right in the last 20 years, especially with the Lib-Dems, I have deserted them.

Anyway, I'm off to play some music with a friend, so have to leave it there LJ

[snooky]

You've got to hand it to Pinnochio for gall....

“I don’t come from a rich family. We’ve not got lots of rich friends.

“And this was a highly politically motivated attempt to bully me out of Scottish politics.

“I hope that anybody who thinks it’s a good thing to have more than one voice in Scottish politics — not just an independence voice — might actually come forward and give me a bit of help.”


Oh the poor, poor man. :rolleyes:

[--------]

When is a politicians lie not a lie? Never

When is a lie ok? If it fails to breach the law as set out in The Representation of the Peoples Act 1983.

Bizarre. Carmichael has a nerve saying he's glad he won the case. Makes Dave King look like an honest character :wink:
Bear in mind, John, that the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983 was 'framed' by lawyers according to instructions given them by politicians, so that any concept of 'truth' or 'honesty' contained therein was bound to be somewhat unorthodox - some strange use of the words that we weren't previously aware of, as Douglas Adams might have said.

For some reason George Orwell and 1984 pop into my mind. 'Truth' means 'lies', and 'honesty' means 'hypocrisy and double-dealing'.

[snooky]

"It adds little to the clarity or dignity of political life to have ministers or former ministers called liars, argues Brian Wilson" (in the Scotsman today)

What do you suggest we call a liar then? A naughty boy? A slaver? (btw, no irony intended).
The phrase "Defending the indefensible" comes to mind.

The public expect (and should demand that) all MPs, ministers and former ministers uphold some form of integrity.
It's only right that any caught lying, especially for self political gain, should be exposed and named as such - irrespective of party or position.

Article here http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-please-let-this-uncivilised-word-lie-1-3973676

[Northernhibee]

Amuses me how the nats are up in arms about this yet ignore how their party are no better. Hypocrisy.

[ronaldo7]

With a lot being written around Carrmichael and Thompson. Which one one misled the electorate more about their personality and suitability to be an MP. Does leaking of a document to smear a rival politicians triumph fleecing vulnerable people in house deals?

For me, never surprised by the behavior of our elected representatives but it does seem that Carrimchaels sins seem a lot less than Thompson but there is not clamour for her to be deselected and Edinburgh West to have a by-election

I wondered if this would come back to bite you on the erse. It wonder if she knows you're thoughts on the matter, or maybe her Lawyer will be in touch.:greengrin

https://t.co/1X74wSIRNs

[speedy_gonzales]

I wondered if this would come back to bite you on the erse. It wonder if she knows you're thoughts on the matter, or maybe her Lawyer will be in touch.:greengrin

https://t.co/1X74wSIRNs
To be fair that BBC article (thought they weren't a reliable source?) quotes the Crown Office saying there was "absence of sufficient credible and reliable evidence", that doesn't marry up with Ms Thomsons claim that she has been "exonerated".
The Crown can't find enough credible evidence that would lead to a prosecution. The fact that her legal "partner" has been struck off by the law society would suggest that there had been some impropriety on his behalf and by extension Ms Thomsons as it was her company that was involved with the "below market value" purchases of the complainants properties.

Personally I don't think Ms Thomson has broken any law but her business model leaves a lot to be desired.

[ronaldo7]

To be fair that BBC article (thought they weren't a reliable source?) quotes the Crown Office saying there was "absence of sufficient credible and reliable evidence", that doesn't marry up with Ms Thomsons claim that she has been "exonerated".
The Crown can't find enough credible evidence that would lead to a prosecution. The fact that her legal "partner" has been struck off by the law society would suggest that there had been some impropriety on his behalf and by extension Ms Thomsons as it was her company that was involved with the "below market value" purchases of the complainants properties.

Personally I don't think Ms Thomson has broken any law but her business model leaves a lot to be desired.

The BBC article was the first that came up. I had to check some others though, but thought the Unionists on here would go to that link.:greengrin

I'd have thought having an "absence of sufficient credible, and reliable evidence", would have got you a cleared name, but maybe things have changed these days eh.

We all know why the complainants got below market value for their properties. It goes on all the time in the UK.

[speedy_gonzales]

We all know why the complainants got below market value for their properties. It goes on all the time in the UK.
Perhaps 'we' do but I genuinely don't. One party was/is a cancer sufferer who could have used every penny. If this was just the business model a la McEwan Fraser in that they offer a low price in return for a fast sale, does that make it any better? M&F Property Solutions made a LOT of money in a short time, whilst this should generally be applauded in business it shouldn't when it's to the detriment of the vendor and and (in my opinion) certainly isn't the makings for my potential representative in the House of Commons.

[marinello59]

The BBC article was the first that came up. I had to check some others though, but thought the Unionists on here would go to that link.:greengrin

I'd have thought having an "absence of sufficient credible, and reliable evidence", would have got you a cleared name, but maybe things have changed these days eh.

We all know why the complainants got below market value for their properties. It goes on all the time in the UK.

Cleared of criminal actvity, guilty of business practIces that your average Tory would be happy with. No doubt she will be welcomed back in to the 'progressive' SNP though if she wants.

[ronaldo7]

Cleared of criminal actvity, guilty of business practIces that your average Tory would be happy with. No doubt she will be welcomed back in to the 'progressive' SNP though if she wants.

I wasn't aware of her being charged with any criminal activity, so how can you be cleared of something you've not done?

[marinello59]

I wasn't aware of her being charged with any criminal activity, so how can you be cleared of something you've not done?

:rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

:rolleyes:

:tee hee:

Now, if you'd said, Investigation finds claims of fraud to be without foundation, and therefor no case to pursue, I could have given you one of these.:agree:

:aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

:tee hee:

Now, if you'd said, Investigation finds claims of fraud to be without foundation, and therefor no case to pursue, I could have given you one of these.:agree:

:aok:

It's dodgy though, isn't it?

Youre surely not defending what went on.

[Hibbyradge]

FFS Ronnie, why would anyone bother to defend Michelle Thomson?

I voted for her, but I wouldn't now, regardless if her business activities were legal or not.

Not everyone in the SNP is good, you know.

[ronaldo7]

It's dodgy though, isn't it?

Youre surely not defending what went on.

Yes, and No, in that order.


FFS Ronnie, why would anyone bother to defend Michelle Thomson?

I voted for her, but I wouldn't now, regardless if her business activities were legal or not.

Not everyone in the SNP is good, you know.

I don't think anyone's defending her, maybe the process though.

[Geo_1875]

I don't think anyone's defending her, maybe the process though.

Nobody I know is trying to defend her. What galls is that there is as bad, or worse, sitting in both Parliaments and Local Authorities throughout Scotland who don't have the weight of the BBC and other MSM outlets hounding them. The SNP suspended the whip as soon as the Police investigation started (I wonder who instigated that?) while Ruth , Kezia and the guy in charge of the Scottish LibDems brazenly ignore the wrongdoers in their parties.

[lucky]

I wondered if this would come back to bite you on the erse. It wonder if she knows you're thoughts on the matter, or maybe her Lawyer will be in touch.:greengrin

https://t.co/1X74wSIRNs

I wonder too, I'm sure the admins of this site might be too. I'd happy share my thoughts on her with her and her lawyer

[ronaldo7]

I wonder too, I'm sure the admins of this site might be too. I'd happy share my thoughts on her with her and her lawyer

:tee hee:

I'm sure you would. You could maybe double up with Hannah on Friday. :greengrin

[lucky]

:tee hee:

I'm sure you would. You could maybe double up with Hannah on Friday. :greengrin

Look forward to it but Hannah the invisible is harder to spot

[marinello59]

Nobody I know is trying to defend her. What galls is that there is as bad, or worse, sitting in both Parliaments and Local Authorities throughout Scotland who don't have the weight of the BBC and other MSM outlets hounding them. The SNP suspended the whip as soon as the Police investigation started (I wonder who instigated that?) while Ruth , Kezia and the guy in charge of the Scottish LibDems brazenly ignore the wrongdoers in their parties.

The SNP MPs or MSP's are treated no better or worse than the members of any other Party by the media when they are suspected of wrongdoing. Throwing that line out does save you from having to face up to the fact that SNP politicans are just as likely to be guilty of dodgy practices as politicans of other parties though.
Will you be happy to see her back under the SNP banner if she chooses to do that?

[snooky]

I'd punt them both - neither is fit to be an MP.

Carmichael far more heinous as he was caught with his fingers in the till, involved in a dubious underhand smear and it's cover up, in a blatant attempt to mislead the public.

However, should the allegations against Thomson be proven, the SNP should declare her unfit to represent them and demand a by-election takes place with another candidate. If they are serious about making us believe in an independent Scotland, they have to make a break with the past and send out a signal that the corruption and cronyism of Westminster and previous dominant parties in Scotland won't be tolerated. It's no good looking at all the Con/Lab MP's who make money through dubious and underhand practices, the SNP have set themselves up to be above that and they must make us believe in them.

Carmichael is more the case of a morally bankrupt man representing a corrupt and decaying system. Thomson is more about the SNP, and their tolerance (or otherwise) or this kind of person (allegedly) and their what place in the different kind of modern, clean democracy they are supposedly seeking to establish.

I can go along with your assessment of the situation, DBS. :agree:

Don't know that much about Thomson but I can't stand that Carmichael guy. He makes me squirm. What's worse, he was actually voted back in! :idiot: and that says more about the electorate than the MP.

[High-On-Hibs]

The difference is, Michelle Thompson didn't actually break any laws. You can argue about the morals of her actions until the next blue moon, but she didn't do anything that is punishable by law. She was still suspended by the party however.

Alistair Carmichael on the other hand openly broke electoral laws and a case could have also been made for slander. Despite this, the justice system claimed that "it could not be proven that Carmichaels dishonesty was an attempt to mislead the electorate in his constituency". How they came to that conclusion is anybodies guess. Despite this, the judges still judged him to have openly lied to the electorate and urged him to stand down in order to trigger a by election. Something he chose not to do and something his party chose not to force him to do.

[Hibs Class]

The difference is, Michelle Thompson didn't actually break any laws. You can argue about the morals of her actions until the next blue moon, but she didn't do anything that is punishable by law. She was still suspended by the party however.

Alistair Carmichael on the other hand openly broke electoral laws and a case could have also been made for slander. Despite this, the justice system claimed that "it could not be proven that Carmichaels dishonesty was an attempt to mislead the electorate in his constituency". How they came to that conclusion is anybodies guess. Despite this, the judges still judged him to have openly lied to the electorate and urged him to stand down in order to trigger a by election. Something he chose not to do and something his party chose not to force him to do.

Michelle Thomson is innocent in law as she hasn't been convicted of anything. She is not being tried because of insufficient evidence. That doesn't mean that you can say with certainty that she has not broken any laws.

[lucky]

Neither are guilty of breaking any laws. But Carmichael got caught spinning untruths about the FM. Thompson and her business partners were involved in making large sums of money from vulnerable people legally. Carmichael has since been reelected and Thompson deselected before her party lost the seat to the Lib Dems. Clearly their parties and constituents have decided who was fit to be an MP

[CropleyWasGod]

The difference is, Michelle Thompson didn't actually break any laws. You can argue about the morals of her actions until the next blue moon, but she didn't do anything that is punishable by law. She was still suspended by the party however.

Alistair Carmichael on the other hand openly broke electoral laws and a case could have also been made for slander. Despite this, the justice system claimed that "it could not be proven that Carmichaels dishonesty was an attempt to mislead the electorate in his constituency". How they came to that conclusion is anybodies guess. Despite this, the judges still judged him to have openly lied to the electorate and urged him to stand down in order to trigger a by election. Something he chose not to do and something his party chose not to force him to do.

This might help you:-

The letter of the law is that the false statement must be "in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct".
The petitioners claimed that the fact Mr Carmichael was caught out in a lie made it a matter of personal conduct; who would vote for a liar?
Lady Paton and Lord Matthews were not convinced. Or at least, not "beyond reasonable doubt".
In a way it was the specific nature of Mr Carmichael's denial that saved him.
The judges laid out an example. Had Mr Carmichael said that he would never leak a confidential memo, that he would not stoop to such tactics no matter how helpful it might be to his party, then that would have been a matter of personal conduct.
He would have been "falsely holding himself out as being of such a standard of honesty, honour, trustworthiness and integrity".
However, Lady Paton concluded, he "did not make such an express statement about his personal character or conduct". She was "not persuaded" that the false statement was in relation to anything other than "a political machination".
(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35050691)

And, in Scotland, there could be no case for slander.

[Future17]

This might help you:-

The letter of the law is that the false statement must be "in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct".
The petitioners claimed that the fact Mr Carmichael was caught out in a lie made it a matter of personal conduct; who would vote for a liar?
Lady Paton and Lord Matthews were not convinced. Or at least, not "beyond reasonable doubt".
In a way it was the specific nature of Mr Carmichael's denial that saved him.
The judges laid out an example. Had Mr Carmichael said that he would never leak a confidential memo, that he would not stoop to such tactics no matter how helpful it might be to his party, then that would have been a matter of personal conduct.
He would have been "falsely holding himself out as being of such a standard of honesty, honour, trustworthiness and integrity".
However, Lady Paton concluded, he "did not make such an express statement about his personal character or conduct". She was "not persuaded" that the false statement was in relation to anything other than "a political machination".
(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35050691)

And, in Scotland, there could be no case for slander.

Or, to summarise, it is to be expected that politicians will lie so, as long as they have not expressly claimed to be entirely honest during their campaign, it isn't a crime.

As an aside, had AC done what he did immediately prior to an election, rather than a referendum, it's likely he would have been found guilty.

[Geo_1875]

The SNP MPs or MSP's are treated no better or worse than the members of any other Party by the media when they are suspected of wrongdoing. Throwing that line out does save you from having to face up to the fact that SNP politicans are just as likely to be guilty of dodgy practices as politicans of other parties though.
Will you be happy to see her back under the SNP banner if she chooses to do that?

Really? You'll need to point me in the direction of this fair and balanced UK media outlet as I can't find a trace of it, at least online. Maybe they print special versions.

[Hibrandenburg]

Really? You'll need to point me in the direction of this fair and balanced UK media outlet as I can't find a trace of it, at least online. Maybe they print special versions.

:agree: The media are in no way even handed in their reporting . Every newspaper pushes it's own individual agenda and the SNP have comparatively few friends amongst the national press. An independent Scotland would mean less circulation for most national papers.

[ronaldo7]

Really? You'll need to point me in the direction of this fair and balanced UK media outlet as I can't find a trace of it, at least online. Maybe they print special versions.

The recent shenanigans re the rail spat, where Labour put out a false press statement, it's not checked, but run in some national newspapers, and then regurgitated by the Labour Leader in Scotland, when they knew it to be false.

Fair and Balanced...Aye right.