SNP are lying b******s as well !

[Mibbes Aye]

i think the message is that devolution only works if whoever is in charge in scotland and the uk act like grown-ups. Glass bottles ffs :rolleyes:


Sent from my iphone using tapatalk

ftfy

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm still not sure you read my posts - businesses are wanting consistence and commonalities around logos, bar codes, administration fees etc. why wasnt that taken into account? Why would someone deliberately ignore that?

There's a clear answer here. Both governments need to talk to each other to get an integrated scheme on the table or risk losing the confidence of business and the public. Both governments. Not my words incidentally, the words of Circularity Scotland.

Take the petty politics out of it and give the public a solution instead of sniping at each other on our time and our money.

How much talking with the Scottish Government have Westminster done to alleviate the perceived failings of the scheme before they blocked it?

[Mibbes Aye]

How much talking with the Scottish Government have Westminster done to alleviate the perceived failings of the scheme before they blocked it?

How would I know? What I do know is it is a mess. I remember something about them asking SG for impact assessments following the formal request in March, but I don't think SG had them or was willing to supply them.

Of course, that could just be a bit of spin by the Tories, but both sides are it IMO. And I think it is a safe bet that there was more constructive communication between civil servants in both administrations behind the scenes, the politiicians are just making it into this huge thing in public.

And I don't think anyone genuinely believes it should be a huge thing but with these two governments it seems like there's a bloody-mndedness to try and pick fights over things that surely aren't a big deal to resolve. It's the mark of tired out-of-steam administrations, you see it time and time again. Business and the public deserve better though.

[J-C]

There's no English government.

:faf::faf::faf::faf:

[Hibrandenburg]

How would I know? What I do know is it is a mess. I remember something about them asking SG for impact assessments following the formal request in March, but I don't think SG had them or was willing to supply them.

Of course, that could just be a bit of spin by the Tories, but both sides are it IMO. And I think it is a safe bet that there was more constructive communication between civil servants in both administrations behind the scenes, the politiicians are just making it into this huge thing in public.

And I don't think anyone genuinely believes it should be a huge thing but with these two governments it seems like there's a bloody-mndedness to try and pick fights over things that surely aren't a big deal to resolve. It's the mark of tired out-of-steam administrations, you see it time and time again. Business and the public deserve better though.

So to summarise: You know absolutely nothing about what attempts (if any) Westminster made to negotiate a compromise that would alleviate their "concerns" before wielding the axe on a progressive recycling policy agreed by the Scottish Parliament and somehow you apportion blame equally between Westminster and Holyrood? Desperate stuff MA.

[Skol]

Did the Scottish government make any attempts to find a suitable compromise?

[JimBHibees]

:agree:

It's an effort to apply a balanced narrative to a situation that is very much unbalanced. Both Governments working together for the greater good simply can't happen when one Government can simply over reach and over rule the other Government using a court system that it has full legislative authority over. There's no room for working together, they've made sure of that.

Better together remember except when we know what is better for you.

[Ozyhibby]

Did the Scottish government make any attempts to find a suitable compromise?

Compromise on what? We have been told our system must comply with England’s system, including on price. The main problem being there is no English system yet. We have been told we need to comply with something that doesn’t exist.
Some people just want to see the bad in everything we do in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Did the Scottish government make any attempts to find a suitable compromise?

The Scottish Government passed the bill, one that was in line with a similar Welsh project that Westminster have rubber stamped. If Westminster are unhappy about any elements of the Scottish Bill it is up to them to raise their objections and justify them, but no, instead they decided to wield the axe.

[Mibbes Aye]

So to summarise: You know absolutely nothing about what attempts (if any) Westminster made to negotiate a compromise that would alleviate their "concerns" before wielding the axe on a progressive recycling policy agreed by the Scottish Parliament and somehow you apportion blame equally between Westminster and Holyrood? Desperate stuff MA.

I also don’t need to colour my posts with subjective or emotive adjectives and phrases to try and make a weak point stronger. I find it makes for a stronger argument.

[Skol]

The Scottish Government passed the bill, one that was in line with a similar Welsh project that Westminster have rubber stamped. If Westminster are unhappy about any elements of the Scottish Bill it is up to them to raise their objections and justify them, but no, instead they decided to wield the axe.

So you seem to agree the Scottish Government made no attempt to work with Westminster on this. Passed a bill anyway and see what happened.

I don’t follow what goes on in wales so have no knowledge. Has their system been given the relevant approvals whilst our exact mirror scheme was not?

[Mibbes Aye]

Compromise on what? We have been told our system must comply with England’s system, including on price. The main problem being there is no English system yet. We have been told we need to comply with something that doesn’t exist.
Some people just want to see the bad in everything we do in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of us are frankly bored stiff with being told that other people hold the copyright on being “Scottish”.
Most Scots I know don’t go around wearing grievance at the English as a comfort blanket so goodness knows why it is so pronounced on here.

The point remains. Two weak governments that have given up on the day job to have playground spats about Globe bottles. We deserve better.

[Skol]

Compromise on what? We have been told our system must comply with England’s system, including on price. The main problem being there is no English system yet. We have been told we need to comply with something that doesn’t exist.
Some people just want to see the bad in everything we do in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some people just won’t see anything wrong in Scotland and blame Westminster. I think the Scottish government should have foreseen there could be challenges and have entered into discussions with Westminster to ensure these were resolved before getting too far and crucially before committing business to expenditure.

I see fault on both sides here and it strikes me that the devolved Scottish administration want to act as if they are independent. I think that’s all wrong and just leads to issues.

[Skol]

Found this when I googled which appears to suggest wales are working with the other nations while Scotland going alone.

Wales is working with England and Northern Ireland to set up a joint scheme, meaning you can buy a drink in Barry and return it in Bristol or Belfast.

Scotland is setting up its own scheme, which starts later this year.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So you seem to agree the Scottish Government made no attempt to work with Westminster on this. Passed a bill anyway and see what happened.

Holyrood is a devolved government and it was within their own devolved competency to do so. Do you think Westminster calls up Holyrood when it's about to pass any bills into law that don't fall under the devolution remit?

[Skol]

If it was within their devolved competency why did they seek an internal markets exemption. That suggests to me it was not something they could do.

[Moulin Yarns]

If it was within their devolved competency why did they seek an internal markets exemption. That suggests to me it was not something they could do.

The scheme was already through the Scottish Parliament before the internal market bill passed at Westminster. If it had been implemented before the internal market bill came into force then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

If it was within their devolved competency why did they seek an internal markets exemption. That suggests to me it was not something they could do.

If it wasn't in their devolved competency, then why was section 35 in acted rather than section 33? If it wasn't in their devolved competency then why did it receive cross party support, including the majority of Labour MSPs and even a couple of Conservative MSPs? Evidently it was.

[Just Alf]

I'm still not sure you read my posts - businesses are wanting consistence and commonalities around logos, bar codes, administration fees etc. why wasnt that taken into account? Why would someone deliberately ignore that?

There's a clear answer here. Both governments need to talk to each other to get an integrated scheme on the table or risk losing the confidence of business and the public. Both governments. Not my words incidentally, the words of Circularity Scotland.

Take the petty politics out of it and give the public a solution instead of sniping at each other on our time and our money.The Scottish scheme was always going to be integrated... all 4 systems were with common coding etc... at least that's what circularity Scotland and their Welsh equivalent have been saying they're working too.


I also think this bit from the 2019 defra announcement is interesting...

"In-scope materials

The materials in the scope of DRS in England and Northern Ireland include PET bottles, and steel and aluminium cans. This is also the case in Wales with the addition of glass bottles. In-scope materials include drinks containers between 50ml-3L."

-Scotland is acknowledged to have alignment with Wales in terms of scope.

Bottom line the UK government had always intended for England's scheme to be slightly different from the others.
It's why them now insiting at the 11th hour after Scottish firms etc have been investing on meeting the criteria that Westminster initially set out is so outrageous.

[Skol]

The scheme was already through the Scottish Parliament before the internal market bill passed at Westminster. If it had been implemented before the internal market bill came into force then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That is a good point and I hadn’t thought of it that way before. It doesn’t change the fact though the internal markets did come about which changed things and the Scottish Government appeared to proceed without taking that into account.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That is a good point and I hadn’t thought of it that way before. It doesn’t change the fact though the internal markets did come about which changed things and the Scottish Government appeared to proceed without taking that into account.

They proceeded before it came about.

[degenerated]

They proceeded before it came about.Up until January of this year Westminster advised that it was up to devolved nations to determine the scope of their own schemes.

[Hibrandenburg]

I also don’t need to colour my posts with subjective or emotive adjectives and phrases to try and make a weak point stronger. I find it makes for a stronger argument.

I personally find facts make for a stronger argument and when people resort to being condescending in their reply to them, then you know they can't counter them.

[Mibbes Aye]

I personally find facts make for a stronger argument and when people resort to being condescending in their reply to them, then you know they can't counter them.

The facts are that businesses have invested money on DRS in Scotland on the basis that they were told they had to, and now it is the case that they didn’t need to, not now at least. In the current climate businesses are not awash with spare capital for unnecessary investment.

They have been let down. People can debate how much of the blame sits in Whitehall and how much sits in St Andrew’s House. More importantly than that, both sides could at least make a semblance of showing a bit of respect for the businesses affected and us voters generally by getting it sorted, instead of turning it into Constitution-gate, episode nine million or whatever.

[Ozyhibby]

The facts are that businesses have invested money on DRS in Scotland on the basis that they were told they had to, and now it is the case that they didn’t need to, not now at least. In the current climate businesses are not awash with spare capital for unnecessary investment.

They have been let down. People can debate how much of the blame sits in Whitehall and how much sits in St Andrew’s House. More importantly than that, both sides could at least make a semblance of showing a bit of respect for the businesses affected and us voters generally by getting it sorted, instead of turning it into Constitution-gate, episode nine million or whatever.

Putting this at the door of the SG when this has clearly been stopped by the UK govt shows a lack of an open mind. I’m happy to criticise the SG when they get it wrong but this is as clear a case of moving goal posts as you will ever see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Putting this at the door of the SG when this has clearly been stopped by the UK govt shows a lack of an open mind. I’m happy to criticise the SG when they get it wrong but this is as clear a case of moving goal posts as you will ever see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes you wonder why businesses have gone on record saying they are taking legal advice vis a vis legal action against SG.

Makes you wonder why FSB Scotland have welcomed the delay and called for an urgent wholesale review.

And it makes you wonder why Circularity Scotland says both governments need to sort out this mess.

But even you are still playing the blame game, with your comments about it being the death of devolution or whatever.

Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that a common system for the U.K. makes sense for business. It seems to be online for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So can the pair of them, SG and HMG, these two bald men fighting over a comb, just sit down and sort it out like adults?

After all they are living off our money while they indulge themselves in their unionist or nationalist gameplaying. They are meant to be ministers and servants of the people FFS.

[Ozyhibby]

Makes you wonder why businesses have gone on record saying they are taking legal advice vis a vis legal action against SG.

Makes you wonder why FSB Scotland have welcomed the delay and called for an urgent wholesale review.

And it makes you wonder why Circularity Scotland says both governments need to sort out this mess.

But even you are still playing the blame game, with your comments about it being the death of devolution or whatever.

Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that a common system for the U.K. makes sense for business. It seems to be online for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So can the pair of them, SG and HMG, these two bald men fighting over a comb, just sit down and sort it out like adults?

After all they are living off our money while they indulge themselves in their unionist or nationalist gameplaying. They are meant to be ministers and servants of the people FFS.

Will be interesting to see where that legal advice takes them? I await the court case. I doubt it comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Will be interesting to see where that legal advice takes them? I await the court case. I doubt it comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m inclined to agree. But it’s not my area of expertise, I would hasten to add.

It certainly helps inflame the issue. Businesses (which means people working and paying taxes) just want a resolution. Unhelpful rhetoric makes that less likely.

[Keith_M]

It's understood that Nicola Sturgeon has now passed phase one of her driving test. A police investigation into this scandalous event is now in progress.

Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have released a joint statement urging Westminster to intervene immediately.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's understood that Nicola Sturgeon has now passed phase one of her driving test. A police investigation into this scandalous event is now in progress.

Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have released a joint statement urging Westminster to intervene immediately.

There’s no way her feet can reach the pedals. Swinney will be in the well pushing them down for her :greengrin

[degenerated]

It's understood that Nicola Sturgeon has now passed phase one of her driving test. A police investigation into this scandalous event is now in progress.

Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have released a joint statement urging Westminster to intervene immediately.Viceroy jack will be preparing a section 35 to have it withdrawn.

[Skol]

Putting this at the door of the SG when this has clearly been stopped by the UK govt shows a lack of an open mind. I’m happy to criticise the SG when they get it wrong but this is as clear a case of moving goal posts as you will ever see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whilst it has been stopped by Westminster, I think it also shows a lack of an open mind in not acknowledging that the Scottish government could have taken a different approach in an effort to reach a suitable compromise.

I know it suits the independence strategy to point the finger at Westminster, but I really think they could represent scotlands interests much better.

[Ozyhibby]

Whilst it has been stopped by Westminster, I think it also shows a lack of an open mind in not acknowledging that the Scottish government could have taken a different approach in an effort to reach a suitable compromise.

I know it suits the independence strategy to point the finger at Westminster, but I really think they could represent scotlands interests much better.

What approach should they have taken?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

What approach should they have taken?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They should have sought the internal markets exemption earlier and should have engaged with Westminster as part of that process to ensure that a suitable approach was agreed by both parties. Or at least tried that approach.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What approach should they have taken?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I would like to know as well. What was the alternative approach?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

They should have sought the internal markets exemption earlier and should have engaged with Westminster as part of that process to ensure that a suitable approach was agreed by both parties. Or at least tried that approach.

But as has already been pointed out, the internal market bill wasn't yet in force. So how could they have claimed exception from a bill that hadn't yet been legislated?

[Skol]

But as has already been pointed out, the internal market bill wasn't yet in force. So how could they have claimed exception from a bill that hadn't yet been legislated?

That’s not what I said though ! I really struggle to understand why you seem to think it’s ok to just crack on. Politics and leadership should be all about working together.

At the point internal markets came in and it was known an exemption was required, we should have been engaging with Westminster to smooth the path. Businesses should not have been committed to costs until that was in place.

[degenerated]

They should have sought the internal markets exemption earlier and should have engaged with Westminster as part of that process to ensure that a suitable approach was agreed by both parties. Or at least tried that approach.They were being told by Westminster up until January that there was no issue.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That’s not what I said though ! I really struggle to understand why you seem to think it’s ok to just crack on. Politics and leadership should be all about working together.

At the point internal markets came in and it was known an exemption was required, we should have been engaging with Westminster to smooth the path. Businesses should not have been committed to costs until that was in place.

The bill was blocked before the internal market legislation. There was no opportunity or time to "engage" with Westminster.

[J-C]

They should have sought the internal markets exemption earlier and should have engaged with Westminster as part of that process to ensure that a suitable approach was agreed by both parties. Or at least tried that approach.


You have 4 knowledgeable posters telling you that the SG have done nothing wrong and it's the fault of Westminster, yet you still will not listen, why?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You have 4 knowledgeable posters telling you that the SG have done nothing wrong and it's the fault of Westminster, yet you still will not listen, why?

We also know that Westminster is the problem because it's not just the Scottish Government that complains about the shambolic level of communication with Westminster over constitutional matters. Both the Welsh and Northern Irish Assembly's share the same complaints.

[marinello59]

You have 4 knowledgeable posters telling you that the SG have done nothing wrong and it's the fault of Westminster, yet you still will not listen, why?

Define knowledgable poster. ( Without saying not marinello59 of course. :greengrin)

[Keith_M]

There’s no way her feet can reach the pedals. Swinney will be in the well pushing them down for her :greengrin



:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

:greengrin

You're smiling but it's not fun for him.

He has to smear his baldy napper with Kiwi black polish to avoid dazzling her when the sun's up :greengrin

[marinello59]

But as has already been pointed out, the internal market bill wasn't yet in force. So how could they have claimed exception from a bill that hadn't yet been legislated?

The UK internal market bill was passed in December 2020. It may not have been in force but both Governments were aware, or should have been aware , that it would be an issue.
Westminster and Holyrood are both playing political games here. We can argue to what degree each side are to blame but completely absolving one party of any blame at all doesn’t really hold water.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The UK internal market bill was passed in December 2020. It may not have been in force but both Governments were aware, or should have been aware , that it would be an issue.
Westminster and Holyrood are both playing political games here. We can argue to what degree each side are to blame but completely absolving one party of any blame at all doesn’t really hold water.

It only became an issue after the fact. Holyrood had been working on this bill for quite a number of years (longest in the history of the parliament I believe). Westminster had plenty of time to raise objections between 2020 and the point in which the bill was voted through Holyrood with cross party support. They didn't. Instead they waited until the bill had already past before inventing their implied implication. There was no scope for cross government discussions, as Westminster hadn't raised any official objections up to that point.

[marinello59]

It only became an issue after the fact. Holyrood had been working on this bill for quite a number of years (longest in the history of the parliament I believe). Westminster had plenty of time to raise objections between 2020 and the point in which the bill was voted through Holyrood with cross party support. They didn't. Instead they waited until the bill had already past before inventing their implied implication. There was no scope for cross government discussions, as Westminster hadn't raised any official objections up to that point.

Do you think Slater did a good job on this?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Do you think Slater did a good job on this?

Scottish Labour seemed to think so, along with a handful of Conservative MSPs.

[marinello59]

Scottish Labour seemed to think so, along with a handful of Conservative MSPs.

All of the leadership contenders for the SNP expressed concerns about the way the scheme was going and that was before Westminster intervention.
Not what I asked though. Do you think she did a good job?

[Mibbes Aye]

The UK internal market bill was passed in December 2020. It may not have been in force but both Governments were aware, or should have been aware , that it would be an issue.
Westminster and Holyrood are both playing political games here. We can argue to what degree each side are to blame but completely absolving one party of any blame at all doesn’t really hold water.

The white paper was issued and consultation took place several months before that,

i remember Ed Miliband responded for Labour as it was his Tory oppo who announced it in the House. Ed's concern was that lower standards in one nation would essentially level-down everyone else to that standard. Prescient chap, Ed Miliband.

The Tory minister also said to Blackford that UKG and SG had been in talks about it in 2019 but SG walked away. Blackford didn't deny that. Doesn't really matter now I guess.

Whats important is that the silly games stop nd they get their act tgether and work it out between themselves. No more government by slogan - from both sides.

Less posturing, more delivering, basically.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

All of the leadership contenders for the SNP expressed concerns about the way the scheme was going and that was before Westminster intervention.
Not what I asked though. Do you think she did a good job?

I think she did a great job on a bill that was always going to create controversy regardless of how the details were laid out. But it wasn't just her job. MSPs across all parties in parliament worked on that bill, including Monica Lennon and Jamie Greene. It was far from being a one person job. The vote to get the bill through parliament was unanimous.

[Hibs Class]

Define knowledgable poster. ( Without saying not marinello59 of course. :greengrin)

You’re wasting your time with that question!

[Skol]

You have 4 knowledgeable posters telling you that the SG have done nothing wrong and it's the fault of Westminster, yet you still will not listen, why?

Not sure why you are having a go at me today !

It is quite simple, I hold a different view to them. And those people regularly defend everything from the Scottish government and blame Westminster. Why should I believe they are right.

I am not saying Westminster are blameless here either btw. I would expect better from both sides but instead we seem to have a situation where snp/green manufacture a situation for a grievance and Westminster are only too happy to oblige.

The sooner we change both the better, albeit I accept none of the alternatives stand out either.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Not sure why you are having a go at me today !

It is quite simple, I hold a different view to them. And those people regularly defend everything from the Scottish government and blame Westminster. Why should I believe they are right.

I am not saying Westminster are blameless here either btw. I would expect better from both sides but instead we seem to have a situation where snp/green manufacture a situation for a grievance and Westminster are only too happy to oblige.

The sooner we change both the better, albeit I accept none of the alternatives stand out either.

In what way did the SNP/Greens "manufacture a situation for a grievance"? You mean a bill that the Scottish Government had been working on (with cross party support) for a number of years with no objection from Westminster up until the point in which it was in acted? Again with cross party support.

[Skol]

In what way did the SNP/Greens "manufacture a situation for a grievance"? You mean a bill that the Scottish Government had been working on (with cross party support) for a number of years with no objection from Westminster up until the point in which it was in acted? Again with cross party support.

Trying to push ahead with a scheme on their own which clearly has wider uk impacts and without trying to ensure these were worked through with the other nations and the businesses.

[Ozyhibby]

In what way did the SNP/Greens "manufacture a situation for a grievance"? You mean a bill that the Scottish Government had been working on (with cross party support) for a number of years with no objection from Westminster up until the point in which it was in acted? Again with cross party support.

In dealing with the SG, the Tories can do no wrong. I’m out on this issue now before the forum gets shut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Trying to push ahead with a scheme on their own which clearly has wider uk impacts and without trying to ensure these were worked through with the other nations and the businesses.

If it was really such an issue, why were concerns not raised sooner by the Conservative Government in London? Why did Conservative MSPs actively work on this bill along with the SNP, Greens and Labour in Holyrood for a good number of years before it suddenly became a problem?

[Mibbes Aye]

I think she did a great job on a bill that was always going to create controversy regardless of how the details were laid out. But it wasn't just her job. MSPs across all parties in parliament worked on that bill, including Monica Lennon and Jamie Greene. It was far from being a one person job. The vote to get the bill through parliament was unanimous.

I don't see your point. I don't think anyone has a problem with recycling or the DRS, maybe a few people who think current arrangememnts work fine for them, depending on their location. I'm probably in that group - taking the glass to the recycling units as part of a run to the shops, that's normalised behaviour for me and I don't need 20p back when I drop off my kalamata olive jars, or my organic tahini jars or my juggernaut-size Glen's vodka bottles (joking about the last one)

It's the lack of dialogue, and both sides need to own some of that as they run about creating political half-bricks to lob at each other.

That's not good government, it is petty and tedious nonsense on our money, and it's not victimless, as businesses are finding out.

Slater doesn't inspire confidence that she could manage to press 'return' on a keyboard, let alone implement a nationwide return scheme,

Jack looks like he feels being a minister is a dratted inconvenience, that he will politely put up with but he's not happy about it.

Both mobs need to get ther act together and make stuff work rather than finding ridiculous spaces to have their identity wars in.

[Skol]

If it was really such an issue, why were concerns not raised sooner by the Conservative Government in London? Why did Conservative MSPs actively work on this bill along with the SNP, Greens and Labour in Holyrood for a good number of years before it suddenly became a problem?

As I said, neither party come out of this with credit

[marinello59]

In dealing with the SG, the Tories can do no wrong. I’m out on this issue now before the forum gets shut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who has said that?

[Skol]

I don't see your point. I don't think anyone has a problem with recycling or the DRS, maybe a few people who think current arrangememnts work fine for them, depending on their location. I'm probably in that group - taking the glass to the recycling units as part of a run to the shops, that's normalised behaviour for me and I don't need 20p back when I drop off my kalamata olive jars, or my organic tahini jars or my juggernaut-size Glen's vodka bottles (joking about the last one)

It's the lack of dialogue, and both sides need to own some of that as they run about creating political half-bricks to lob at each other.

That's not good government, it is petty and tedious nonsense on our money, and it's not victimless, as businesses are finding out.

Slater doesn't inspire confidence that she could manage to press 'return' on a keyboard, let alone implement a nationwide return scheme,

Jack looks like he feels being a minister is a dratted inconvenience, that he will politely put up with but he's not happy about it.

Both mobs need to get ther act together and make stuff work rather than finding ridiculous spaces to have their identity wars in.

I am one of those who find the current scheme works perfectly well for me and my family and I would find the new scheme to be a hassle. Right now I recycle 100% of my drinks containers. Most of those are picked up from the end of my path and it’s easy. If I now have to take them to the supermarket weekly that makes that visit more of a pain.

When I the office I often get a meal deal for lunch with a drink. As it’s flexible working I have nowhere to store my empty until the n3xt day in the office and my next visit to the retailer and so would need to take my empty home. It’s quiet possible my recycling rate could reduce

[TrumpIsAPeado]

As I said, neither party come out of this with credit

I respectfully disagree. The Scottish Government were acting within their own devolved competency over a delicate issue that had MSPs from all parties in parliament working together for the greater good. Only Westminster comes out of this situation looking bad.

[Skol]

I respectfully disagree. The Scottish Government were acting within their own devolved competency over a delicate issue that had MSPs from all parties in parliament working together for the greater good. Only Westminster comes out of this situation looking bad.

I respect your right to hold a different view. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything. The key for me is we should be able to have a good discussion and try to understand each others viewpoints, but if we hold different view that’s fine.

[marinello59]

I think she did a great job on a bill that was always going to create controversy regardless of how the details were laid out. But it wasn't just her job. MSPs across all parties in parliament worked on that bill, including Monica Lennon and Jamie Greene. It was far from being a one person job. The vote to get the bill through parliament was unanimous.

It was just her job at Holyrood. She is the Minister in charge.

Politicians of every party in the UK are in favour of the principles of this scheme. Which makes it all the more frustrating to see so many of them playing games with this. Both Governments need to remember they are there to serve us, not their respective Parties.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I respect your right to hold a different view. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything. The key for me is we should be able to have a good discussion and try to understand each others viewpoints, but if we hold different view that’s fine.

:aok:


It was just her job at Holyrood. She is the Minister in charge.

Being the person in charge doesn't make it solely her job. Numerous MSPs worked on and shaped the legislation across all parties.


Politicians of every party in the UK are in favour of the principles of this scheme. Which makes it all the more frustrating to see so many of them playing games with this. Both Governments need to remember they are there to serve us, not their respective Parties.

I'm still not sure as to what games the Scottish Government are being accused of playing here? But if I've missed something obvious then by all means clarify it for me. Was there some stipulation contained within the bill itself that was designed to pull one over on Westminster? A stipulation missed by Labour and Conservative MSPs in Holyrood?

[Skol]

They left any discussion on the internal market exemption until very late on. I also seem to recall slater at one stage said it wasn’t even required. That for me is one area where they could have smoothed the past. Also to say Westminster didn’t tell us they had issues does t cut it for me as there should have been joint working on this.

If ever there was a policy that needs consistency across the uk, this is it.

[Mibbes Aye]

They left any discussion on the internal market exemption until very late on. I also seem to recall slater at one stage said it wasn’t even required. That for me is one area where they could have smoothed the past. Also to say Westminster didn’t tell us they had issues does t cut it for me as there should have been joint working on this.

If ever there was a policy that needs consistency across the uk, this is it.

They also could have gone ahead with the pilot, but excluding glass. But they threw the baby out with the bathwater, over Globe bottles and gherkin jars. And Slater, backed by Humza,tried to turn it into claiming the Scottish Parliament was being deliberately sabotaged.

She is an absolute loose cannon, reminds me a little of Clare Short when she was a Cabinet minister - all over the place and all about themself.

HMG has culpability here as well though. Eight Tory environment secretaries in ten years, eight business secretaries in ten years, no wonder they are years behind the curve. The scary thing is eight in ten years is perfectly respectable compared to some other departmentts!

[Moulin Yarns]

It only became an issue after the fact. Holyrood had been working on this bill for quite a number of years (longest in the history of the parliament I believe). Westminster had plenty of time to raise objections between 2020 and the point in which the bill was voted through Holyrood with cross party support. They didn't. Instead they waited until the bill had already past before inventing their implied implication. There was no scope for cross government discussions, as Westminster hadn't raised any official objections up to that point.

I think we are on the same side in this, but, the DRS was passed into being at Holyrood in May 2020 while the internal market bill passed at Westminster in December 2020.

[Moulin Yarns]

i remember Ed Miliband responded for Labour as it was his Tory oppo who announced it in the House. Ed's concern was that lower standards in one nation would essentially level-down everyone else to that standard. Prescient chap, Ed Miliband.


That's the problem with the internal market bill, a dive to the lowest common denominator. If one country, let's say England for arguments sake, wants to allow chlorinated chicken, the rest of the UK has to comply. It's a crap piece of legislation.

[Curried]

That's the problem with the internal market bill, a dive to the lowest common denominator. If one country, let's say England for arguments sake, wants to allow chlorinated chicken, the rest of the UK has to comply. It's a crap piece of legislation.

Interestingly, all chickens sold in Australian supermarkets are chlorinated, so it wouldn't surprise me if Westminster has already signed up to this as part of the Australian Trade deal.

[Mibbes Aye]

That's the problem with the internal market bill, a dive to the lowest common denominator. If one country, let's say England for arguments sake, wants to allow chlorinated chicken, the rest of the UK has to comply. It's a crap piece of legislation.

:agree:

They can chlorinate our chcken but they will never take our 20p for that jar of berry compote we bought in the farm shop that time and put at the back of the fridge and forgot about and then found it when we were looking for piccalilli and it was all covered in mould

:saltireflag

[Moulin Yarns]

:agree:

They can chlorinate our chcken but they will never take our 20p for that jar of berry compote we bought in the farm shop that time and put at the back of the fridge and forgot about and then found it when we were looking for piccalilli and it was all covered in mould

:saltireflag

Fortunately, possibly, you won't have to pay 20p deposit for a jar of jam.

[He's here!]

SNP raised DRS concerns three years ago despite '11th hour' claim | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23580198.snp-raised-drs-concerns-three-years-ago-despite-11th-hour-claim/)

[TrumpIsAPeado]

SNP raised DRS concerns three years ago despite '11th hour' claim | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23580198.snp-raised-drs-concerns-three-years-ago-despite-11th-hour-claim/)


However, in October 2020, Mr Gove wrote to MSPs stressing that he was “confident the deposit return scheme can be brought into effect in compliance with the market access principles”.


But Humza Yousaf has insisted that the actions of the UK Government shows “the grim reality that under Westminster control, even the limited measure of self-government that devolution provides is no longer guaranteed”.

He added: “It is the case that this Tory Government has ensured that devolution in Scotland is becoming unworkable.

“We are facing a steady erosion of the powers of our Parliament, the routine undermining of the Sewel convention, UK Government ministers blocking laws passed by a majority of MSPs in explicitly devolved areas, and senior Tories interfering in the Scottish Government’s vital work abroad.

“All of this amounts to a pattern of unprecedented assaults on the Scottish Parliament – putting the entire devolution settlement at risk.

"Addressing this effectively requires urgent and meaningful action from all political parties which supported the establishment of Holyrood almost 25 years ago.”
.

[He's here!]

They also could have gone ahead with the pilot, but excluding glass. But they threw the baby out with the bathwater, over Globe bottles and gherkin jars. And Slater, backed by Humza,tried to turn it into claiming the Scottish Parliament was being deliberately sabotaged.

She is an absolute loose cannon, reminds me a little of Clare Short when she was a Cabinet minister - all over the place and all about themself.

HMG has culpability here as well though. Eight Tory environment secretaries in ten years, eight business secretaries in ten years, no wonder they are years behind the curve. The scary thing is eight in ten years is perfectly respectable compared to some other departmentts!

Absolutely. You only have to look back at some of the proclamations she was making around the time of the gender reform furore to know that.

[Skol]

.

That gove quote you have is seen differently if it is read with the two paragraphs before it.

[He's here!]

You have 4 knowledgeable posters telling you that the SG have done nothing wrong and it's the fault of Westminster, yet you still will not listen, why?

Maintaining an entrenched stance that the Scottish government is never in the wrong doesn't equate to 'knowledgeable'. It's merely an opinion.

Bottom line is the SG have made a mess of this, as they did with gender reform legislation. If you're avidly pro-independence it's easy enough to play the 'blame Westminster' card, but the truth is this is just the latest in a series of botched ventures now gathering dust on the shelf, including the named person's scheme, the alcohol advertising ban, the offensive behaviour at football legislation, the watering down of the hate crime bill...not to mention key manifesto pledges such as closing the attainment gap in education (upon which Sturgeon asked to be judged). Throw in last year's foolhardy/showboating Supreme Court challenge over this October's 'save the date' referendum and the plain daft 'de facto referendum' plans and it's not really so hard to see why Sturgeon moved the independence dial not a jot.

[Just Alf]

I am one of those who find the current scheme works perfectly well for me and my family and I would find the new scheme to be a hassle. Right now I recycle 100% of my drinks containers. Most of those are picked up from the end of my path and it’s easy. If I now have to take them to the supermarket weekly that makes that visit more of a pain.

When I the office I often get a meal deal for lunch with a drink. As it’s flexible working I have nowhere to store my empty until the n3xt day in the office and my next visit to the retailer and so would need to take my empty home. It’s quiet possible my recycling rate could reduceThis also reflects my situation

... that said my neighbour who has 4 kids recycles nothing and constantly moans about the size of their grey landfill bin as not being big enough... she got a additional big one from the council and still it's not enough. ... [emoji20]

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That gove quote you have is seen differently if it is read with the two paragraphs before it.


In March 2018, Mr Gove approached Ms Cunningham, stating the UK Government was “keen to explore with you whether we can develop a system that works across the different parts of the United Kingdom”.

The next year, Mr Gove told Ms Cunningham that the DRS was “an area of environmental policy where we can maximise benefits through the UK nations working together”.

By the looks of it, it was England that was behind in making this work UK wide, despite having more than ample time to do so.

Environmental policy is also devolved in Scotland: https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/devolved-and-reserved-powers

[He's here!]

https://i0.wp.com/wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/max2.jpg?resize=460%2C336&ssl=1

Starmer's made it more than clear there will be no deals with the SNP at the next general election (understandable when polls point to a Labour landslide) but judging by what Hepburn's saying here a Labour/SNP coalition at the next Holyrood election might not be out of the question, with some 'devo max' morsels thrown in to placate independence supporters.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Starmer's made it more than clear there will be no deals with the SNP at the next general election (understandable when polls point to a Labour landslide).

But not in Scotland. Labour would be as well just sticking their fingers up at Scotland and making it clear that democracy doesn't exist in Scotland, unless we vote the way they want us to vote. (Interestingly, he hasn't publicly ruled out any deals with the DUP, or even the Conservative Party)

[grunt]

Starmer's made it more than clear there will be no deals with the SNP at the next general election (understandable when polls point to a Labour landslide) but judging by what Hepburn's saying here a Labour/SNP coalition at the next Holyrood election might not be out of the question, with some 'devo max' morsels thrown into placate independence supporters.
Do you have any idea just how patronising that sounds?

[Skol]

By the looks of it, it was England that was behind in making this work UK wide, despite having more than ample time to do so.

Environmental policy is also devolved in Scotland: https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/devolved-and-reserved-powers

That’s not how I read those, although I do agree that England are working to a different timetable and behind on this. To me those show gove was trying to work with Scotland but we decided to go it alone.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That’s not how I read those, although I do agree that England are working to a different timetable and behind on this. To me those show gove was trying to work with Scotland but we decided to go it alone.

It was a devolved matter. If Westminster didn't intend on us using our own powers over environmental law, then why devolve it in the first place? Why should the Scottish Government have to work with Westminster over issues that are fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament? That completely undermines the point of devolution.

[Skol]

It was a devolved matter. If Westminster didn't intend on us using our own powers over environmental law, then why devolve it in the first place? Why should the Scottish Government have to work with Westminster over issues that are fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament? That completely undermines the point of devolution.

All fair points. However brexit happened and along came internal markets.

Putting that aside though, do you agree that there is an impact by having different schemes. Impact on business in particular, but also on consumers but in a more limited fashion unless you live close to the border.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

All fair points. However brexit happened and along came internal markets.

Putting that aside though, do you agree that there is an impact by having different schemes. Impact on business in particular, but also on consumers but in a more limited fashion unless you live close to the border.

It was a brexit that Scotland didn't vote for. So internal market consequences that arised from Brexit should not have been the concern of the Scottish Parliament over an issue that was fully devolved.

Impacts created by circumstances that were not the making of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish electorate.

[Ozyhibby]

Proper devo max could win me over. Unfortunately nobody is offering it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

It was a brexit that Scotland didn't vote for. So internal market consequences that arised from Brexit should not have been the concern of the Scottish Parliament over an issue that was fully devolved.

Impacts created by circumstances that were not the making of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish electorate.

c40% scots did vote for brexit and that included a sizeable minority of yes voters as well.

We also didn’t vote for independence ;-)

[Skol]

Proper devo max could win me over. Unfortunately nobody is offering it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Something does need to change, that much is clear. I do agree though that certainly no one in the UK acknowledges that and sadly very few in Scotland realise that as well.

I have been reading robin mcalpines blogs recently and whilst I don’t agree with his views on independence, he does call out many of the issues with the way things are run right now and the many flaws that are there.

[Smartie]

Proper devo max could win me over. Unfortunately nobody is offering it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are we not due Gordon Brown coming along and offering it again at some point soon?

[Ozyhibby]

Are we not due Gordon Brown coming along and offering it again at some point soon?

The Scottish political scene is a bit crowded these days but I wonder if there is a chance for someone to come through the middle with such an offer.
The SNP want full Indy while all three unionist parties want the status quo.
We are stuck at 50/50ish just now and no sign of something to break the deadlock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Are we not due Gordon Brown coming along and offering it again at some point soon?

It'll be him or somebody else with no power or accountability over false promises. A common unionist tactic.

[grunt]

:faf:

[Just Alf]

Here we go... might finally start getting answers

BBC News - Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon arrested in SNP finance inquiry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857

[Hibbyradge]

Sturgeon arrested!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/11/nicola-sturgeon-arrestedquestioned-in-snp-finances-inquiry?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Pretty Boy]

It was an inevitability that this was going to happen at some point.

From an optics point of view it looks a lot worse than her husband or the treasurer and is arguably far more damaging politically.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Here we go... might finally start getting answers

BBC News - Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon arrested in SNP finance inquiry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857

They'll hold her for the maximum of 12 hours then release her without charge.

[Bristolhibby]

They'll hold her for the maximum of 12 hours then release her without charge.

Will they get the tent out again?

J

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Will they get the tent out again?

J

There's a few tents being pitched over this already. So they won't need to.

[Colr]

Sturgeon arrested!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/11/nicola-sturgeon-arrestedquestioned-in-snp-finances-inquiry?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Genuinely shocked and surprised by this.

I had the view that she is a highly principled individual and had a legal background so should have a solid understanding of ethics and due process.

Have the leader and CEO as a married couple is crazy but she was brilliant during covid and the SNP have been pretty competent as a governing party generally.

Genuinely surprised by the turn of events.

[Bristolhibby]

If you go in voluntarily for questioning is that being arrested?

No idea on the ins and outs. Presume it means she can’t leave for 12 hours.

J

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Is there a legal difference between being questioned under caution and questioned while under arrest? For conspiracy theorists, it's a good attempt at a smokescreen to the Westminster corruption.

[Smartie]

Genuinely shocked and surprised by this.

I had the view that she is a highly principled individual and had a legal background so should have a solid understanding of ethics and due process.

Have the leader and CEO as a married couple is crazy but she was brilliant during covid and the SNP have been pretty competent as a governing party generally.

Genuinely surprised by the turn of events.

Worth remembering that she’s guilty of nothing yet…

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Is there a legal difference between being questioned under caution and questioned while under arrest? For conspiracy theorists, it's a good attempt at a smokescreen to the Westminster corruption.

Under caution means already being charged for a minor offence. Under arrest means no initial charges but still held under questioning.

[Hibbyradge]

Worth remembering that she’s guilty of nothing yet…

She might well be guilty whether it's proven or not.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She might well be guilty whether it's proven or not.

She'll be guilty in the minds of those who want her to be guilty and innocent in the minds of those that don't.

[marinello59]

Huge news. This has been signposted for a while but it is still a shocking turn of events. We have little idea though why she has been arrested. It may be that this is her chance to prove that personally she has done nothing wrong.

[Colr]

Worth remembering that she’s guilty of nothing yet…

No…. but nevertheless.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Huge news. This has been signposted for a while but it is still a shocking turn of events. We have little idea though why she has been arrested. It may be that this is her chance to prove that personally she has done nothing wrong.

The onus isn't on her to prove her innocence. It's on the authorities to prove her guilt.

[grunt]

No…. but nevertheless.
:greengrin

[marinello59]

She'll be guilty in the minds of those who want her to be guilty and innocent in the minds of those that don't.

That might apply to the small number of people on either side of the political divide in Scotland who blindly follow their own political heroes like they were a football team. The vast majority of the population in Scotland is more than capable of letting the emerging facts enable them to understand where guilt, if any, lies.

[marinello59]

The onus isn't on her to prove her innocence. It's on the authorities to prove her guilt.

I’m not saying the onus is on anybody.

[grunt]

The vast majority of the population in Scotland is more than capable of letting the emerging facts enable them to understand where guilt, if any, lies.
What facts have emerged?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That might apply to the small number of people on either side of the political divide in Scotland who blindly follow their own political heroes like they were a football team. The vast majority of the population in Scotland is more than capable of letting the emerging facts enable them to understand where guilt, if any, lies.

You know what else is made up of the population of Scotland? The police force in Scotland. If she's guilty of anything, they'll charge her for it. But so far there's been no such charges. Until such times that the "emerging facts" actually emerge, the vast majority of the population in Scotland will withhold any assumptions until the investigation has concluded.

[marinello59]

What facts have emerged?

I didn’t say any have. We will have to wait a while yet. Im going with innocent until proved guilty for now as we all should. I’m not really sure why you jumped on to that one. :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

#timing

[grunt]

I didn’t say any have. We will have to wait a while yet. Im going with innocent until proved guilty for now as we all should. I’m not really sure why you jumped on to that one. :greengrin
Using the phrase "emerging facts" implies to me that there are facts which are emerging, coming to light. One feature of this long investigation is the complete lack of any facts to emerge.

Once they do, maybe I'll pay attention. Maybe not.

[marinello59]

Using the phrase "emerging facts" implies to me that there are facts which are emerging, coming to light. One feature of this long investigation is the complete lack of any facts to emerge.

Once they do, maybe I'll pay attention. Maybe not.

Erm…. Ok. Sorry for any offence caused by my controversial use of the term ‘emerging facts’
:greengrin

[Colr]

Maybe Scottish Police should come down to London and give the Met police some training!!

[grunt]

Erm…. Ok. Sorry for any offence caused by my controversial use of the term ‘emerging facts’
:greengrin
Not controversial. Just inaccurate. :wink:

[marinello59]

Police Scotlands update.

https://twitter.com/policescotland/status/1667886686552969221?s=46&t=g56YtFxM9eX9bjSt-hqkKQ

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Police Scotlands update.

https://twitter.com/policescotland/status/1667886686552969221?s=46&t=g56YtFxM9eX9bjSt-hqkKQ

I find if amusing that they use the description of "52 year old woman", as if her identity was somehow anonymous. Besides that, it's basically just confirming the media reports of the arrest.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Police Scotlands update.

https://twitter.com/policescotland/status/1667886686552969221?s=46&t=g56YtFxM9eX9bjSt-hqkKQ

Surprised that The Contempt of Court Act has not had an amendment since 1981. It would be interesting to see if the definition of media is the same in 2023 as it was in 1981.

[Since90+2]

Like most people I've no idea if she has done anything wrong or not, but I seen an interview a while back that struck me as really odd.

She was asked about the £200,000 donation Murrell made to the party and she said something like "it's his money, I don't know anything about it" and when asked again she said "it's his money, I've no idea". It just seemed an odd thing to say, this isn't your husband lending someone a tenner for a taxi home, it's £200,000 and she just basically said she didn't know anything. That strikes me as just being odd.

And I say that as someone who was generally a big fan of hers as FM.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Like most people I've no idea if she has done anything wrong or not, but I seen an interview a while back that struck me as really odd.

She was asked about the £200,000 donation Murrell made to the party and she said something like "it's his money, I don't know anything about it" and when asked again she said "it's his money, I've no idea". It just seemed an odd thing to say, this isn't your husband lending someone a tenner for a taxi home, it's £200,000 and she just basically said she didn't know anything. That strikes me as just being odd.

And I say that as someone who was generally a big fan of hers as FM.

She was likely speaking under legal advice or political instruction. I agree that it comes across as weird, but it was perhaps concluded that it was the best thing she could say under the circumstances without her words being misconstrued or twisted by media or other political forces.

[weecounty hibby]

What amazingly coincidental timing again!!

[Ozyhibby]

Giving how long this has gone on, I’m surprised no charges have been laid?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Giving how long this has gone on, I’m surprised no charges have been laid?
I'm sure there will be charges soon.

[Mibbes Aye]

Surprised that The Contempt of Court Act has not had an amendment since 1981. It would be interesting to see if the definition of media is the same in 2023 as it was in 1981.

It has been amended a number of times by other acts and statutory orders. Because the authority rests in the original act, that's what gets cited. Technically, it should be written as the Contemot of Court Act 1981 (as amended by the blah blah blah 2013) to take account of changesetc

It's relatively common in areas of law that have been affected by significant change in execution but not in who holds the legal resonsibility ( 'may' and 'must')

[Pretty Boy]

Giving how long this has gone on, I’m surprised no charges have been laid?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's a fair assumption that whatever is being investigated will be fairly complex. A few years back I worked in the cash office at a major retailer and there was cash going missing from the tills. It took minimal effort to find out the culprit and she admitted her guilt immediately. Following that it took months for the Police to interview her, a follow up interview weeks later when she was charged and her court appearance was a full 16 months after she had been caught and admitted her guilt. That was over about £800 and was open and shut, if that took so long I can imagine an investigation into party political finances could take years.

Fwiw my gut instinct is 'something' has gone on but it may be more morally dubious rather than illegal. That's based on little more than the evasiveness around finances and the like for the last couple of years and the lack of specifics in the reporting. I could be wrong either way of course and it's either a completely innocent misunderstanding, a deep state conspiracy or a major fraud that sees multiple people doing jail time.

We'll find out soon enough.

[Mibbes Aye]

Erm…. Ok. Sorry for any offence caused by my controversial use of the term ‘emerging facts’
:greengrin

There are emerging facts. These are facts that we know are emerging. There are unemerging facts. That is to say, there are facts we know are unemerging. But there are also unemerging facts we don't know. These are unknown facts we don't know are unemerging........I think :greengrin

[Keith_M]

It's understood that Nicola Sturgeon has now passed phase one of her driving test. A police investigation into this scandalous event is now in progress.

Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have released a joint statement urging Westminster to intervene immediately.


Sturgeon arrested!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/11/nicola-sturgeon-arrestedquestioned-in-snp-finances-inquiry?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other



Coincidence? :hmmm:


I think not!!

[Ozyhibby]

Given the amount of money being trousered in London over the last few years without the mearest hint of an investigation it seems very strange. It’s like unionist are trying to arrest their way back to power in Scotland. That could be counter productive though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

I think it's a fair assumption that whatever is being investigated will be fairly complex. A few years back I worked in the cash office at a major retailer and there was cash going missing from the tills. It took minimal effort to find out the culprit and she admitted her guilt immediately. Following that it took months for the Police to interview her, a follow up interview weeks later when she was charged and her court appearance was a full 16 months after she had been caught and admitted her guilt. That was over about £800 and was open and shut, if that took so long I can imagine an investigation into party political finances could take years.

Fwiw my gut instinct is 'something' has gone on but it may be more morally dubious rather than illegal. That's based on little more than the evasiveness around finances and the like for the last couple of years and the lack of specifics in the reporting. I could be wrong either way of course and it's either a completely innocent misunderstanding, a deep state conspiracy or a major fraud that sees multiple people doing jail time.

We'll find out soon enough.

Yip, that’s my take.

There’s clearly no smoking gun here otherwise this would be over by now and people charged.

It may well be that even after all this the Procurator Fiscal won’t continue with this.

I’m sure we will find out in due course.

Guaranteed she will be released without charge today.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Yip, that’s my take.

There’s clearly no smoking gun here otherwise this would be over by now and people charged.

It may well be that even after all this the Procurator Fiscal won’t continue with this.

I’m sure we will find out in due course.

Guaranteed she will be released without charge today.

J

:agree:

The police need to take the time they need to gather evidence and then make a decision aboout charging.

And even then, as you say, PF may choose not toake a case to court.

[Rumble de Thump]

Is there a need to arrest people who are happy to cooperate with an investigation? I haven't watched The Bill for ages so not sure how it all works these days.

[WhileTheChief..]

Why is the timing of this an issue?

For weeks we were hearing that the police should either make an arrest or drop it all together. Now they've done so, what is there to criticise?

NS has said all along she wanted the chance to give her account of things, now she's doing exactly that.

[marinello59]

Is there a need to arrest people who are happy to cooperate with an investigation? I haven't watched The Bill for ages so not sure how it all works these days.

I think it’s just procedure. There wasn’t the indignity of a public arrest, she turned up willingly to help police with their enquiries. That must have been arranged between her and the police.

[marinello59]

Why is the timing of this an issue?

For weeks we were hearing that the police should either make an arrest or drop it all together. Now they've done so, what is there to criticise?

NS has said all along she wanted the chance to give her account of things, now she's doing exactly that.

Outside of the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists on Twitter it isn’t an issue. Good to see things being investigated properly in Scotland. If no charges are forthcoming , and my guess is there won’t be any, then nobody can say there has been a cover up. Police Scotland might get a wee bit of a kicking over it though. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that if it happens. :greengrin

[McD]

Is there a need to arrest people who are happy to cooperate with an investigation? I haven't watched The Bill for ages so not sure how it all works these days.


perhaps to do with making sure that procedurally NS (or other any given person) is given their full rights, with no confusion or misconstruing of what is happening, and keeps the police on the right side of what they can and can’t do. That’s just me making a guess though

[grunt]

Outside of the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists on Twitter it isn’t an issue. I admit I did initially think the timing was iffy, thought it might be a ruse to divert attention away from all the Johnson/Tory disasters in the media. Then I had a cup of tea and realised that this argument doesn't really work as there are Johnson/Tory disasters in the media every day.


If no charges are forthcoming , and my guess is there won’t be any, then nobody can say there has been a cover up. Hope you're right.

[Since90+2]

I admit I did initially think the timing was iffy, thought it might be a ruse to divert attention away from all the Johnson/Tory disasters in the media. Then I had a cup of tea and realised that this argument doesn't really work as there are Johnson/Tory disasters in the media every day.

Hope you're right.

Why would Police Scotland be complicity in working with the Tories?

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1667890238503415808?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Supposedly a journalist.

The tweets today from Foulkes, Fraser, McNeil etc are horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1667890238503415808?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Supposedly a journalist.

The tweets today from Foulkes, Fraser, McNeil etc are horrific.
Not to mention Cherry.

[grunt]

Why would Police Scotland be complicity in working with the Tories?
I have no idea. Why did Police Scotland send an army of officers to a detached house in Glasgow, dig up the back garden, put a huge evidence tent in the front garden, all for an alleged investigation into financial matters? No idea.

[Since90+2]

I have no idea. Why did Police Scotland send an army of officers to a detached house in Glasgow, dig up the back garden, put a huge evidence tent in the front garden, all for an alleged investigation into financial matters? No idea.

Yeah but you're sort of throwing the idea out there.

It sounds tin foil hat to me.

[Colr]

Why would Police Scotland be complicity in working with the Tories?

I would imagine many SNP voters, if the WHERE to turn from the party, would be likely to go to Labour before Conservative. So, if there is a political strategy behind this, it may not be a very well considered one.

[grunt]

Yeah but you're sort of throwing the idea out there.

It sounds tin foil hat to me.Fine. We live in strange times.

[Skol]

The timing is irrelevant and it was a question of when not if sturgeon would be arrested.

Has anything criminal gone on. I suspect not. Has there been dishonesty. Yes.

To try and brush this off as a non event because of Westminster is just a smokescreen and diversion.

Let’s hope we are close to closure either way.

[Mibbes Aye]

I would imagine many SNP voters, if the WHERE to turn from the party, would be likely to go to Labour before Conservative. So, if there is a political strategy behind this, it may not be a very well considered one.

Unless.......

26869

[Moulin Yarns]

I find if amusing that they use the description of "52 year old woman", as if her identity was somehow anonymous. Besides that, it's basically just confirming the media reports of the arrest.

Is it not rude to divulge a woman's age? 😉

[grunt]

To try and brush this off as a non event because of Westminster is just a smokescreen and diversion.
If this comment is directed at me, then I don't think that's what I said. I certainly didn't mean that.

[grunt]

Is it not rude to divulge a woman's age? 😉I love that you're so quaint sometimes!:greengrin

[Bristolhibby]

Nicola Sturgeon released without charge after questioning by Police Scotland.

Quel Suprise.

J

[Skol]

If this comment is directed at me, then I don't think that's what I said. I certainly didn't mean that.

Not at you specifically. It’s been stated by many and my view is that it’s irrelevant. If something should be investigated then it should be investigated regardless of worse things going on elsewhere.

[Stokesy's on fire]

What amazingly coincidental timing again!!

Why?

[Pretty Boy]

Not at you specifically. It’s been stated by many and my view is that it’s irrelevant. If something should be investigated then it should be investigated regardless of worse things going on elsewhere.

It's arguably a political asset for the SNP albeit it may not seem that way now.

Rather than supporters saying 'aye but what about Boris, Mone, Hancock....'. They have the opportunity to show we judge to higher standards. 'This is Scotland and it doesn't matter who you are, if you do wrong you will be properly investigated.'

[grunt]

Murray - Scotland's only Labour MP - sticks his oar in

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyWWjD9WAAAvZ6K?format=jpg&name=medium

[Smartie]

It's arguably a political asset for the SNP albeit it may not seem that way now.

Rather than supporters saying 'aye but what about Boris, Mone, Hancock....'. They have the opportunity to show we judge to higher standards. 'This is Scotland and it doesn't matter who you are, if you do wrong you will be properly investigated.'

One of many reasons why it is sensible for everyone of every persuasion to keep the powder dry for now.

[Ozyhibby]

Released without charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

Released without charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that was always going to be the case as with Murrell and Beattie. We now need to wait and see what the next steps are. My guess is there are no charges brought.

You will claim this to be vindication. Doesn’t mean their actions were honest transparent and above board.

[Colr]

Is it not rude to divulge a woman's age? 😉

A 21 year old woman….

[Mibbes Aye]

Released without charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Pending further investigation”, so leaves the door open to re-arrest. I think that was the case with all of them.

Doesn’t mean they will be re-arrested of course.

[Stokesy's on fire]

Murray - Scotland's only Labour MP - sticks his oar in

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyWWjD9WAAAvZ6K?format=jpg&name=medium

He makes a good point though

[Stokesy's on fire]

Released without charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They will all be rounded up and charged at a later date

[grunt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY8WwAI9llO?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY7WwAEy66E?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY7WAAEd4Fh?format=jpg&name=large

[Skol]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY8WwAI9llO?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY7WwAEy66E?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY7WAAEd4Fh?format=jpg&name=large

I presume she has shown Police Scotland where in the accounts they will find the £600k.

[grunt]

I presume she has shown Police Scotland where in the accounts they will find the £600k.Is that all this is about? £600k? You'd think she'd made off with £120m of public funds given all the fuss they're making. :wink:

[marinello59]

Released without charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty much what I expected. I don’t think anyone will face charges in the end but if somebody was to be charged my guess is it wouldn’t be her.

[GlesgaeHibby]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY8WwAI9llO?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY7WwAEy66E?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyW9AY7WAAEd4Fh?format=jpg&name=large

A shock? Who is she trying to kid? Resigns shortly after a visit from the Chief Constable, who shortly thereafter announces he is also resigning. She's known this has been coming for ages.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm sure there will be charges soon.

There will be smoke bellowing out of that gun before you can say "wee Jimmy Crankie ate my hamster".

[Just Alf]

Is that all this is about? £600k? You'd think she'd made off with £120m of public funds given all the fuss they're making. :wink:I'm still to find an actual SNP donator who thinks this is at a level it needs police involvement.

Compare to cases elsewhere, inn keepers and the likes of Mone trousering £millions of taxpayers money... zero desire for.a.police investigation.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

It has been amended a number of times by other acts and statutory orders. Because the authority rests in the original act, that's what gets cited. Technically, it should be written as the Contemot of Court Act 1981 (as amended by the blah blah blah 2013) to take account of changesetc

It's relatively common in areas of law that have been affected by significant change in execution but not in who holds the legal resonsibility ( 'may' and 'must')


Not my area of expertise, so I appreciate the details. Interesting though, that it hasn't stopped NS, all but denying everything. I'm sure that she knows the law inside out.

[He's here!]

A shock? Who is she trying to kid? Resigns shortly after a visit from the Chief Constable, who shortly thereafter announces he is also resigning. She's known this has been coming for ages.

As the only one of the 3 signatories on the SNP's accounts not to have been arrested it can surely have come as no surprise to her that she now has been.

Be interesting to see if Yousaf has the courage to suspend her while the police investigation runs its course. I suspect he'll bottle out of it despite the damage today's events will do to his party.

What a mess Sturgeon has left him to deal with. He was was probably daring to hope things were calming down a bit!

[Ozyhibby]

As the only one of the 3 signatories on the SNP's accounts not to have been arrested it can surely have come as no surprise to her that she now has been.

Be interesting to see if Yousaf has the courage to suspend her while the police investigation runs its course. I suspect he'll bottle out of it despite the damage today's events will do to his party.

What a mess Sturgeon has left him to deal with. He was was probably daring to hope things were calming down a bit!

Not a question of courage. He doesn’t want to and there is no pressure from the members to do so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

As the only one of the 3 signatories on the SNP's accounts not to have been arrested it can surely have come as no surprise to her that she now has been.

Be interesting to see if Yousaf has the courage to suspend her while the police investigation runs its course. I suspect he'll bottle out of it despite the damage today's events will do to his party.

What a mess Sturgeon has left him to deal with. He was was probably daring to hope things were calming down a bit!

Why would he suspend her? She hasn't been shown to have done done anything wrong.

We don't even know what or who the police are investigating.

You'd like her to be suspended because of your bias against her, not because it would be the right thing.

The same applies to the folk who are saying she should face charges when they have zero proof of any wrongdoing.

[marinello59]

As the only one of the 3 signatories on the SNP's accounts not to have been arrested it can surely have come as no surprise to her that she now has been.

Be interesting to see if Yousaf has the courage to suspend her while the police investigation runs its course. I suspect he'll bottle out of it despite the damage today's events will do to his party.

What a mess Sturgeon has left him to deal with. He was was probably daring to hope things were calming down a bit!

Why on earth would he suspend her? Innocent until proven guilty. He doesn’t have a decision to make.

[Bristolhibby]

I'm still to find an actual SNP donator who thinks this is at a level it needs police involvement.

Compare to cases elsewhere, inn keepers and the likes of Mone trousering £millions of taxpayers money... zero desire for.a.police investigation.

Don’t forget, PPE Contracts, Russian Money in Brexit, Russian Cash for Peerages (see Lord Lebdev), etc. the Russians figured out a long time ago for minimum investment you don’t fight your enemy, destabilise them.

J

[He's here!]

Why on earth would he suspend her? Innocent until proven guilty. He doesn’t have a decision to make.

They were quick enough to suspend the likes of Mackay, McDonald, Thomson, McGarry and Ferrier prior to any charges/admissions of guilt. Yousaf just doesn't want to have to take that decision when it comes to Sturgeon.

Bottom line is that the arrest of a former FM is a pretty seismic event (though I guess Salmond set the precedent there) and even an SNP MP is calling for her suspension:

SNP MP joins Conservatives in call for Nicola Sturgeon to be suspended after arrest over party finance probe | STV News (https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-mp-joins-conservatives-in-call-for-nicola-sturgeon-to-be-suspended-after-arrest-over-party-finance-probe)

[Hibbyradge]

They were quick enough to suspend the likes of Mackay, McDonald, Thomson, McGarry and Ferrier prior to any charges/admissions of guilt. Yousaf just doesn't want to have to take that decision when it comes to Sturgeon.

Bottom line is that the arrest of a former FM is a pretty seismic event (though I guess Salmond set the precedent there) and even an SNP MP is calling for her suspension:

SNP MP joins Conservatives in call for Nicola Sturgeon to be suspended after arrest over party finance probe | STV News (https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-mp-joins-conservatives-in-call-for-nicola-sturgeon-to-be-suspended-after-arrest-over-party-finance-probe)

She's not even been accused of anything. Your prejudice is skewing your logic.

[marinello59]

They were quick enough to suspend the likes of Mackay, McDonald, Thomson, McGarry and Ferrier prior to any charges/admissions of guilt. Yousaf just doesn't want to have to take that decision when it comes to Sturgeon.

Bottom line is that the arrest of a former FM is a pretty seismic event (though I guess Salmond set the precedent there) and even an SNP MP is calling for her suspension:

SNP MP joins Conservatives in call for Nicola Sturgeon to be suspended after arrest over party finance probe | STV News (https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-mp-joins-conservatives-in-call-for-nicola-sturgeon-to-be-suspended-after-arrest-over-party-finance-probe)

The difference is all the others were accused of something.

[He's here!]

The difference is all the others were accused of something.

Presumably she wasn't arrested just for the hell of it?

Nicola Sturgeon's arrest is a hammer blow for the SNP | Politics News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-sturgeons-arrest-is-a-hammer-blow-for-the-snp-12900545)

[grunt]

Presumably she wasn't arrested just for the hell of it?
Why would you presume that?

[Ozyhibby]

Presumably she wasn't arrested just for the hell of it?

Nicola Sturgeon's arrest is a hammer blow for the SNP | Politics News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-sturgeons-arrest-is-a-hammer-blow-for-the-snp-12900545)

Def not although the motivations have still to be ascertained.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/whatscotsthink/status/1667983371232849921?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Why would he suspend her? She hasn't been shown to have done done anything wrong.

We don't even know what or who the police are investigating.

You'd like her to be suspended because of your bias against her, not because it would be the right thing.

The same applies to the folk who are saying she should face charges when they have zero proof of any wrongdoing.


The police made the 'who' and 'what' pretty clear when stating why she'd been arrested as a suspect:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyWGGlsWIAAIvT0?format=png&name=900x900

[pollution]

What's the difference between Trump, Sturgeon and Johnson ?

Only one of the above has been arrested...

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What's the difference between Trump, Sturgeon and Johnson ?

Only one of the above has been arrested...

Two of them have physically and sexually assaulted women while having multiple affairs. The other has been arrested....

[TrumpIsAPeado]

They were quick enough to suspend the likes of Mackay, McDonald, Thomson, McGarry and Ferrier prior to any charges/admissions of guilt. Yousaf just doesn't want to have to take that decision when it comes to Sturgeon.

Bottom line is that the arrest of a former FM is a pretty seismic event (though I guess Salmond set the precedent there) and even an SNP MP is calling for her suspension:

SNP MP joins Conservatives in call for Nicola Sturgeon to be suspended after arrest over party finance probe | STV News (https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-mp-joins-conservatives-in-call-for-nicola-sturgeon-to-be-suspended-after-arrest-over-party-finance-probe)

I find it interesting that you hold the SNP to a much higher standard than your own political party.

[He's here!]

Nicola Sturgeon arrest: Ash Regan and Jackie Baillie say former first minister should either resign or be suspended from SNP by Humza Yousaf (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/nicola-sturgeon-arrest-ash-regan-and-jackie-baillie-say-former-first-minister-should-either-resign-or-be-suspended-from-snp-by-humza-yousaf/ar-AA1cqFlk)

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230612/7f4055a0e5cbd9eaf199ba5ed7e69f7e.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Nicola Sturgeon arrest: Ash Regan and Jackie Baillie say former first minister should either resign or be suspended from SNP by Humza Yousaf (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/nicola-sturgeon-arrest-ash-regan-and-jackie-baillie-say-former-first-minister-should-either-resign-or-be-suspended-from-snp-by-humza-yousaf/ar-AA1cqFlk)

NS’s opponents are starting to sound desperate.[emoji23]
She won’t be suspended and she’ll be back on the campaign trail next election.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Nicola Sturgeon arrest: Ash Regan and Jackie Baillie say former first minister should either resign or be suspended from SNP by Humza Yousaf (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/nicola-sturgeon-arrest-ash-regan-and-jackie-baillie-say-former-first-minister-should-either-resign-or-be-suspended-from-snp-by-humza-yousaf/ar-AA1cqFlk)Dearie me, that's desperate stuff :hilarious

[He's here!]

NS’s opponents are starting to sound desperate.[emoji23]
She won’t be suspended and she’ll be back on the campaign trail next election.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, they're the desperate ones...

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

NS’s opponents are starting to sound desperate.[emoji23]
She won’t be suspended and she’ll be back on the campaign trail next election.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Although I am no supporter of the SNP. in situations like this, the composed response should be that these are issues for the SNP to deal with as they see fit.

[CropleyWasGod]

Although I am no supporter of the SNP. in situations like this, the composed response should be that these are issues for the SNP to deal with as they see fit.

From politicians? :greengrin

[J-C]

Nicola Sturgeon arrest: Ash Regan and Jackie Baillie say former first minister should either resign or be suspended from SNP by Humza Yousaf (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/nicola-sturgeon-arrest-ash-regan-and-jackie-baillie-say-former-first-minister-should-either-resign-or-be-suspended-from-snp-by-humza-yousaf/ar-AA1cqFlk)

And the trolling begins again, all we need is Archie and this forum will he closed again soon.

[archie]

And the trolling begins again, all we need is Archie and this forum will he closed again soon.

I wasn't aware that I was responsible for the forum being closed. I think the excruciating thead on political violence did that. As for trolling - I don't think so.

[Stairway 2 7]

Michelle Thompson says NS should resign

https://twitter.com/MichelleThomson/status/1668199640708046849

[He's here!]

Michelle Thompson says NS should resign

https://twitter.com/MichelleThomson/status/1668199640708046849

Thomson is entitled to feel aggrieved if Sturgeon isn't suspended. As she implies, Sturgeon would normally be the first one to preach about consistent values.

It's a big call for Yousaf, but if he doesn't put some distance between him and Sturgeon her continued presence at Holyrood while this saga rolls on will keep coming back to bite him.

[Ozyhibby]

Michelle Thompson says NS should resign

https://twitter.com/MichelleThomson/status/1668199640708046849

Only the whip, not her membership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Only the whip, not her membership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes as Sturgeon oversaw happen to MT. Humza can distance himself from Sturgeons past tough actions though

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Michelle Thompson resigned voluntarily when it was brought to light that she was buying up property well below the market value. Even though she didn't technically break any laws, it certainly didn't reflect well on her person.

[Hibrandenburg]

Nicola Sturgeon arrest: Ash Regan and Jackie Baillie say former first minister should either resign or be suspended from SNP by Humza Yousaf (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/nicola-sturgeon-arrest-ash-regan-and-jackie-baillie-say-former-first-minister-should-either-resign-or-be-suspended-from-snp-by-humza-yousaf/ar-AA1cqFlk)

Do they say on what grounds?

[archie]

Michelle Thompson resigned voluntarily when it was brought to light that she was buying up property well below the market value. Even though she didn't technically break any laws, it certainly didn't reflect well on her person.

Did she? https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15456354.michelle-thomson-breaks-silence-my-two-years-hell/ BTW pointing out inconvenient facts isn't trolling.

[Pretty Boy]

And the trolling begins again, all we need is Archie and this forum will he closed again soon.

In what way is linking to that article trolling?

2 well known figures in the Scottish Parliament, one form her own party, call for her to resign. It's the biggest news story in Scotland right now and their comment seems relevant to the thread.

Even stretching the definition to it's limits there is now way that is trolling. Unless there is a desire to clamp down on the frequent links that are critical of the Tories and Labour and the various calls for their MPs and Ministers to resign. There are far more of them that would have to be dealt with mind you.

[He's here!]

Did she? https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15456354.michelle-thomson-breaks-silence-my-two-years-hell/ BTW pointing out inconvenient facts isn't trolling.

Thomson added: "I didn't choose to resign the whip. I was asked to resign the whip."
Asked if she believed the decision to oust her had been taken by Sturgeon, Thomson said: "I think that's a reasonable assumption."

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Did she? https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15456354.michelle-thomson-breaks-silence-my-two-years-hell/ BTW pointing out inconvenient facts isn't trolling.

Indeed. So here is the inconvenient fact for you.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13791520.snp-mp-michelle-thomson-suspended-party-police-launch-inquiry-property-deals/


In a statement, Ms Thomson said: "I am aware of the police investigation and will cooperate fully if required to do so. I have always acted within the law and look forward to being cleared of any wrongdoing.

"I have this afternoon decided to withdraw from the party whip whilst an investigation takes place. Once the investigation is concluded I look forward to returning to play a full role in party activities. I will be making no further comment on this matter."

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Thomson added: "I didn't choose to resign the whip. I was asked to resign the whip."
Asked if she believed the decision to oust her had been taken by Sturgeon, Thomson said: "I think that's a reasonable assumption."

So she was asked to resign the whip, then proceeded to resign the whip. That's a choice.

[archie]

Indeed. So here is the inconvenient fact for you.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13791520.snp-mp-michelle-thomson-suspended-party-police-launch-inquiry-property-deals/

Your quote is from two years before. The article I posted includes a direct quote from an interview with Michelle Thomson. The later article contradicts the earlier one. Which one do you think is right?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Your quote is from two years before. The article I posted includes a direct quote from an interview with Michelle Thomson. The later article contradicts the earlier one. Which one do you think is right?

The first one from 2015. MPs can't be legally "forced" to resign the whip, unless they are found guilty of either committing a crime or breaking parliamentary rules. They can however be asked to resign the whip voluntarily while an investigation takes place, which she did. Nobody "forced" her to, because forcing her wasn't an option.

[Keith_M]

Any more arrests?

I've got my popcorn at the ready.

[archie]

The first one from 2015. MPs can't be legally "forced" to resign the whip, unless they are found guilty of either committing a crime or breaking parliamentary rules. They can however be asked to resign the whip voluntarily while an investigation takes place, which she did. Nobody "forced" her to, because forcing her wasn't an option.

So she is making it up? BTW, this is a quote from the article:

'Thomson hit out at party leader Nicola Sturgeon, saying that it was a "reasonable assumption" that the First Minister was behind the decision to force her to resign the SNP whip and that Sturgeon may have "panicked" when the allegations first surfaced. '

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1668228533351591936?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Well done Humza.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

So she is making it up? BTW, this is a quite from the article:

'Thomson hit out at party leader Nicola Sturgeon, saying that it was a "reasonable assumption" that the First Minister was behind the decision to force her to resign the SNP whip and that Sturgeon may have "panicked" when the allegations first surfaced. '

Assumption?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Assumption?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously I can't know what is true. Michelle Thomson says it is a 'reasonable assumption' that Nicola Sturgeon was behind the decision to force her to quit. She seems clear that she was forced to quit.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So she is making it up? BTW, this is a quite from the article:

'Thomson hit out at party leader Nicola Sturgeon, saying that it was a "reasonable assumption" that the First Minister was behind the decision to force her to resign the SNP whip and that Sturgeon may have "panicked" when the allegations first surfaced. '

The date of the Herald article you posted was on the 6th of August 2017. That was just 5 days after the charges against her had been dropped. Interesting that she suddenly changed her narrative from "voluntary" to "forced" just several days after a 2 year investigation. Considering she has shown herself to have very little in the way of a moral compass, despite not technically breaking the law, I'm quite comfortable in saying that she did indeed make it up.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Obviously I can't know what is true. Michelle Thomson says it is a 'reasonable assumption' that Nicola Sturgeon was behind the decision to force her to quit. She seems clear that she was forced to quit.

Yet, she couldn't have been forced to quit. As the party had no legal grounds for forcing her out. It had to be voluntary under the circumstances.

[archie]

The date of the Herald article you posted was on the 6th of August 2017. That was just 5 days after the charges against her had been dropped. Interesting that she suddenly changed her narrative from "voluntary" to "forced" just several days after a 2 year investigation. Considering she has shown herself to have very little in the way of a moral compass, despite not technically breaking the law, I'm quite comfortable in saying that she did indeed make it up.

Any evidence for your view?

[Ozyhibby]

NS done things her way, Yousaf is doing things his way. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Any evidence for your view?

Neither of us have any real evidence. But what I do have are odd coincidences in the timing of her switch in narrative and what we know about her general character. For example. In one of her business deals, she got her business partner to purchase a house off a cancer patient who needed to move for medical reasons for £64,000. She then got her business partner to sell the house to her for £95,000 with a cashback payment of over £28,000.

Not technically illegal, but morally abhorrent all the same.

[archie]

Neither of us have any real evidence. But what I do have are odd coincidences in the timing of her switch in narrative and what we know about her general character. For example. In one of her business deals, she got her business partner to purchase a house off a cancer patient who needed to move for medical reasons for £64,000. She then got her business partner to sell the house to her for £95,000 with a cashback payment of over £28,000.

Not technically illegal, but morally abhorrent all the same.

I have no evidence at all. I'm just going by her 'unchallenged' statement.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

From politicians? :greengrin


:greengrin I accept that might be a bit of a reach. I suppose that opposition parties have to get with the rhetoric and hope that some of it sticks, but if you take the whole situation in to account and not just cherry-picking, people are asking for Sturgeon to be sacked for something that there is no evidence that she has done. If they are are in so much of a stooshie, then surely they should be questioning the competence of Police Scotland for releasing her with no charge.

[He's here!]

Neither of us have any real evidence. But what I do have are odd coincidences in the timing of her switch in narrative and what we know about her general character. For example. In one of her business deals, she got her business partner to purchase a house off a cancer patient who needed to move for medical reasons for £64,000. She then got her business partner to sell the house to her for £95,000 with a cashback payment of over £28,000.

Not technically illegal, but morally abhorrent all the same.

So no evidence that she made it up then.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So no evidence that she made it up then.

Do you have any evidence that she was making it up the first time when she made it quite clear that it was voluntary?

[grunt]

So no evidence that she made it up then.


Do you have any evidence that she was making it up the first time when she made it quite clear that it was voluntary?
I love this forum sometimes! :greengrin

[He's here!]

:greengrin I accept that might be a bit of a reach. I suppose that opposition parties have to get with the rhetoric and hope that some of it sticks, but if you take the whole situation in to account and not just cherry-picking, people are asking for Sturgeon to be sacked for something that there is no evidence that she has done. If they are are in so much of a stooshie, then surely they should be questioning the competence of Police Scotland for releasing her with no charge.

Not sure anyone is asking for her to be sacked (or at least not yet)? Most, including several from her own party, think she should have had the whip withdrawn while the police investigation runs its course. I'm not surprised Yousaf backed away from such a big call though. It would have taken a strong constitution to suspend somebody who remains such a big beast of the party (in political stature rather than physical size of course). I guess the fact she's likely to step down at the next Holyrood election means he reckons he can handle her shadow hanging over him as long as she maintains a low key back bench presence until then - unless of course subsequent developments in the criminal investigation force his hand before then.

[He's here!]

Do you have any evidence that she was making it up the first time when she made it quite clear that it was voluntary?

I never claimed to. I just posted a link to an article which quoted her saying she reckoned Sturgeon was behind her being suspended.

There are few genuinely 'voluntary' decisions to step aside in politics. It's usually just a way of giving the MP/MSP the chance to depart with a modicum of dignity, having essentially been told their time's up.

[grunt]

I'm not surprised Yousaf backed away from such a big call though. It would have taken a strong constitution to suspend somebody who remains such a big beast of the party (in political stature rather than physical size of course).
It would have taken a strong constitution to suspend somebody who doesn't appear to have done anything wrong.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I never claimed to. I just posted a link to an article which quoted her saying she reckoned Sturgeon was behind her being suspended.

There are few genuinely 'voluntary' decisions to step aside in politics. It's usually just a way of giving the MP/MSP the chance to depart with a modicum of dignity, having essentially been told their time's up.

Which would be a fair point if the SNP had been in a legal position to force her out. But that wasn't the case. Parties can't force MPs to stand down when they're simply under investigation. They can only request that they stand down, then it's up to the MP themselves whether they follow through with it or not.

She claims that Nicola Sturgeon was behind her being suspended. But doesn't go into any details on the mechanisms used to enforce her suspension without her own co-operation. Which makes sense, because there were none. It had to be voluntary.

[archie]

Which would be a fair point if the SNP had been in a legal position to force her out. But that wasn't the case. Parties can't force MPs to stand down when they're simply under investigation. They can only request that they stand down, then it's up to the MP themselves whether they follow through with it or not.

She claims that Nicola Sturgeon was behind her being suspended. But doesn't go into any details on the mechanisms used to enforce her suspension without her own co-operation. Which makes sense, because there were none. It had to be voluntary.

This is a very literal interpretation (I suspect deliberate). Just because there is no legal power doesn't mean it can't happen. If you really think that then you are extraordinarily naive. Do you think Liz Truss 'voluntarily' stood down? Or Thatcher?

[Jack]

So nobody knows. Not even the MSP herself 😆

[Ozyhibby]

So nobody knows. Not even the MSP herself [emoji38]

I don’t even care, never mind know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The first one from 2015. MPs can't be legally "forced" to resign the whip, unless they are found guilty of either committing a crime or breaking parliamentary rules. They can however be asked to resign the whip voluntarily while an investigation takes place, which she did. Nobody "forced" her to, because forcing her wasn't an option.

The whip isn’t the same as your seat. The whip means you are not treated as a MP of that party and as a result you aren’t required to follow party direction on how to vote on bills and amendments. It also means you aren’t paired with an opposition MP. This is a device where you can miss a vote if necessary and your pair doesn’t vote either.

So, Jeremy Corbyn has the whip removed which means he is no longer a Labour MP. If he stands against an official Labour candidate he will be expelled from the party, because that’s against the rules. But if his voters re-elect him he will continue as an MP, either independent or as part of another party or with the Labour whip restored.

Incidentally, if a Labour MP was arrested and questioned as a suspect then there is a strong likelihood they would be administratively suspended by the party until it was resolved. Administrative suspension would automatically see them lose the Labour whip for that period. It is probably a tough regime but if the crime is serious then it is understandable.

[Moulin Yarns]

This is a very literal interpretation (I suspect deliberate). Just because there is no legal power doesn't mean it can't happen. If you really think that then you are extraordinarily naive. Do you think Liz Truss 'voluntarily' stood down? Or Thatcher?

Or Johnson or Dorries?

[He's here!]

It would have taken a strong constitution to suspend somebody who doesn't appear to have done anything wrong.

She's certainly vehement in her denials of wrongdoing, though I cannot believe she was genuinely shocked to be arrested. What was more surprising was why it took so long.

Yousaf also pretty much owes Sturgeon his job having been endorsed as the 'continuity candidate' so he was always going to favour the loyalty option over showing a ruthless streak.

[grunt]

She's certainly vehement in her denials of wrongdoing, though I cannot believe she was genuinely shocked to be arrested. What was more surprising was why it took so long.
I genuinely have no idea what she's supposed to have done

[degenerated]

I genuinely have no idea what she's supposed to have doneShe's meant to have chored 600k and blown it on pens, razors, teabags and driving lessons.

[greenginger]

I genuinely have no idea what she's supposed to have done

If it’s to do with the accuracy of the accounts, the funds raised for the Indy ref getting muddled in with other SNP spending, it might be serious enough to be considered false accounting as she was a signatory of the accounts,

Worst likely to happen is a fine and directorship
ban for a few years.

[grunt]

If it’s to do with the accuracy of the accounts, the funds raised for the Indy ref getting muddled in with other SNP spending, it might be serious enough to be considered false accounting as she was a signatory of the accounts.
Is that against the law? Which law would that be?

I thought the accounts had been audited and given a clean audit report?

[Ozyhibby]

She's meant to have chored 600k and blown it on pens, razors, teabags and driving lessons.

Don’t forget the campervan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I genuinely have no idea what she's supposed to have done

Kept winning elections handsomely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

Don’t forget the campervan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't forget the garden tools!! Who can forget the trowel and secateurs!!!

[Moulin Yarns]

She's meant to have chored 600k and blown it on pens, razors, teabags and driving lessons.

She must learn to drive the battle campervan, after all she won't be an MSP for long. 😉

[degenerated]

Don’t forget the campervan.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkHow could I forget :greengrin

[Keith_M]

I genuinely have no idea what she's supposed to have done


Tried to split up the UK? Surely that would make her an enemy of the state.

I expect some future song writer will create a lyrical song about her escaping 'over the sea to Skye'...

...or at least they would if the Ferries aren't cancelled.












:greengrin

[Bristolhibby]

If it’s to do with the accuracy of the accounts, the funds raised for the Indy ref getting muddled in with other SNP spending, it might be serious enough to be considered false accounting as she was a signatory of the accounts,

Worst likely to happen is a fine and directorship
ban for a few years.

If that is all that we are dealing with then it’s a nonsense.

Giving money to the SNP to fight a new Independence campaign is just like giving money to the SNP.

Their whole Raison d'être is to achieve Independence for Scotland.

J

[greenginger]

Is that against the law? Which law would that be?

I thought the accounts had been audited and given a clean audit report?

Raising money to campaign for an Indy ref and spending it on other things could be considered fraud which is against the law.

As for the accounts , I think it’s this years that have recently been signed off, any dodgy bookkeeping would be in previous years.

[Moulin Yarns]

Tried to split up the UK? Surely that would make her an enemy of the state.

I expect some future song writer will create a lyrical song about her escaping 'over the sea to Skye'...

...or at least they would if the Ferries aren't cancelled.












:greengrin

That's a bridge too far. 😉

[Ozyhibby]

Raising money to campaign for an Indy ref and spending it on other things could be considered fraud which is against the law.

As for the accounts , I think it’s this years that have recently been signed off, any dodgy bookkeeping would be in previous years.

But also signed off?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk