I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
I think there will be a reduction in turnout from SNP voters, including activists. That’s what lost her the seats at Westminster in 2017, although that was caused by backtracking on Independence.
She is not pushing it this time either, a few vague hints to try and get back in and then kick the can down the road for 5 years. She is just hoping to survive till after the election and get Macbeth as her successor before the axe falls. Going to be very interesting between now and May.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
The "not proven" verdict is an absolutely appalling aspect of the Scottish legal system which should have been ditched decades ago. I fear it is kept out of a misplaced sense of Scottish exceptionalism.
It's awful for the defendant as they are left in limbo with a clear stain on their character and no real way to erase it. But it's no good for victims either - it's an easy way out for some juries, disproportionately used in rape cases, and doesn't actually provide a sense of justice. Criminal cases have to provide a sense of closure, and "not proven" doesn't do the job.
Agreed. It serves no useful purpose that I can see.
It works if it replaces the 'not guilty' verdict (as Malc indicates it was in the past) Then it becomes more of a quaintly misanthropic expression of the same thing - not guilty means not proven after all.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
I think there will be a reduction in turnout from SNP voters, including activists. That’s what lost her the seats at Westminster in 2017, although that was caused by backtracking on Independence.
She is not pushing it this time either, a few vague hints to try and get back in and then kick the can down the road for 5 years. She is just hoping to survive till after the election and get Macbeth as her successor before the axe falls. Going to be very interesting between now and May.
There’s 50/1 available on the SNP not being the largest party at Holyrood after the election. What do you reckon, worth a fiver?
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
The "not proven" verdict is an absolutely appalling aspect of the Scottish legal system which should have been ditched decades ago. I fear it is kept out of a misplaced sense of Scottish exceptionalism.
It's awful for the defendant as they are left in limbo with a clear stain on their character and no real way to erase it. But it's no good for victims either - it's an easy way out for some juries, disproportionately used in rape cases, and doesn't actually provide a sense of justice. Criminal cases have to provide a sense of closure, and "not proven" doesn't do the job.
You could argue it increases the strength of their not guilty verdict compared to ours. Here, "not guilty" means not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So "not proven". But they have a separate verdict for that. Therefore their "not guilty" carries the implication it IS proven. Proven innocent. Which we don't have.
Maybe, although is it reallt fair for people to have to be proven innocent, rather than actually proven guilty?
Is it an issue Scottish lawyers are wanting changed I wonder - I know there are aspects of English law that people have wanted to change for decades.
The laws of logic and the requirements of justice don't allow closure in all criminal cases. You have to be acquitted even if you are almost certainly guilty - that's the standard we all want if we are in the dock - and especially in one on one sexual offences certainty is often elusive. That standard must leave a good number of guilty people acquitted.
The Scottish system is one way of dealing with the failings of the actual world. It isn't perfect because no system can be.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
This poll might have been conducted before the latest controversies.
I follow politics quite closely and am a lawyer. It has taken me a while to get my head around what is going on. Unless the opposition in Scotland can find a way of simplifying the matter to the vast majority of people (in any country) who do not obsessively follow these things then it is unlikely to cut through.
I would say the difficulty for the SNP is -- given the depth of animosity -- that there is only one end-point.
One of the participants has to be completely vanquished. It is now a mortal combat, a fight to the very end.
If the end comes swiftly, then the SNP can escape with no real damage.
I have no idea of the disposition or strength of the various factions in the SNP, but if this fight is prolonged over many months, then I expect eventually there will be a cost.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
I think there will be a reduction in turnout from SNP voters, including activists. That’s what lost her the seats at Westminster in 2017, although that was caused by backtracking on Independence.
She is not pushing it this time either, a few vague hints to try and get back in and then kick the can down the road for 5 years. She is just hoping to survive till after the election and get Macbeth as her successor before the axe falls. Going to be very interesting between now and May.
What is clear in this Scottish affair is that there is beginning to be bleed through into the public on how they feel about the SNP, Sturgeon and independence. For the last few years and elections, the SNP have looked invulnerable and all conquering north of the border.
This is just starting to seem like that isn't 100% the case.
On topic - and, crucially, at this stage - I don't think Trump will go for it again. Despite the rhetoric, I think he knows that he is likely to motivate the opposition in ways someone else (bar perhaps Ted Cruz) wouldn't and, in many ways, what happened represents a "best" outcome - many of his supporters believe he was robbed (note: many Republicans don't believe the Dominion crap but most do believe the rules were unfairly changed pre-election to significantly ease the rules on mail-in ballots), he can very much influence things behind the scenes and his agenda is one which dominates the GOP. I think Romney is right when he says Trump can win.
The caveat to this is that if it looks like things are going Pete Tong for Biden and the 2022 midterms are an absolute rout for the Democrats. If the GOP wins both Houses, chances are there will be impeachment hearings launched plus an investigation into the election, and Trump may think then that it is worth another shot.
If the GOP stays MAGA but Trump doesn't run, who do you think will get the nomination?
At the moment, Ron DeSantis - he's attracting a lot of plaudits from the right-wing commentators both for his stance on Covid and his willingness to take on what is perceived to be a biased media. His proposed legislation on Big Tech is also going down well with the GOP MAGA side.
I think generally it's going to be hard for anyone in Congress on the GOP side to make too much of an impact given the Democrats control both Houses for now and McConnell still controls the Senate faction but is seen as soiled goods by much of the party both for Trump going after him and because many blame him for the Georgia loss due to his opposition to the $2000 stimulus cheques. That has given an opportunity for the Governors to step into the void and take more of a leadership role. I would have said before that DeSantis faced a tough battle with Greg Abbott of Texas who also gets a lot of plaudits but the electricity blackouts have knocked him.
One other thing that is key but is rarely talked about. Trump is now physically down in Florida and is likely to remain so. I think physical proximity gives DeSantis an advantage, especially if there is any way he can hinder attempts to prosecute Trump.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
Scottish politics at the moment, and indeed for most of the last year, has been Nicola Sturgeon on the TV roughly 3x a week doing her mother of the nation skit (which in fairness she does quite well). The really alarming thing is that this is intended to continue up to the week before the May elections. I seem to recall Putin achieving something similar when those who were brave enough to stand against him were not allowed on the TV but I can't recall anything similar in a western country.
In short, it's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
This is something I worried about with Trump. That period when he was on the telly every day with his interminable covid briefings. I was terrified it might be a platform for him to do "empathetic national leader" and win a 2nd term.
Thankfully he made an utter dick of himself, talking about injecting bleach and all the rest of it.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
The Scottish Greens may be the biggest winners. A way of supporting independence without voting for the SNP.
You have to be joking
I'm aware of people who vote SNP / Green because they know SNP will win list seats so may as well help their fellow (independence) party win some.
I see Gavin Williamson's (and the DfE) have been working exceptionally hard over the last few months to justify him being left in post after the fiasco of last year's exams...
aka. done nothing and just thrown their hands up in despair and made it a free for all.
It is absolutely staggering that they haven’t put in place a proper system of external moderation. It was bad enough last year and it is madness this year.
OFQUAL and the DfE both need to be axed.
If it was up to you how would you externally moderate teacher based assessments?
Isn't the fundamental problem that there are two competing things qualifications could be for. One is to demonstrate actual levels of knowledge and ability, and the other to show potential for aptitude in a subject.
Normally we go for the former, on the basis that the latter is almost impossible to measure - but because of the variable and patchy levels of schooling, this would be very unfair to some kids.
I don't see that actual conventional exams couldn't be run this year, it's just that the aforementioned patchiness will lead to lots of cries of "unfair".
I think I would run conventional exams as normal, but then moderate the results by a covid disruption score - I.e. Each child gives details for "school days lost / schooldays taught remotely" and this produces a factor by which their actual marks are multiplied prior to grading.
The other obvious tweak would be to set more exam questions than usual, but not require more than the normal number to be answered - that would go a long way to resolving the problem of patchiness.
ANY exam where the number of questions to be answered is not the same as the number of questions set will result in someone misreading the instructions and doing too many.
2. On the cricket, Root and Stokes etc should whack it around, try to get us to 180+. No point just sitting there waiting to get out as we normally do. If we can get 150 ahead we have a chance.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
The Scottish Greens may be the biggest winners. A way of supporting independence without voting for the SNP.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
I think there will be a reduction in turnout from SNP voters, including activists. That’s what lost her the seats at Westminster in 2017, although that was caused by backtracking on Independence.
She is not pushing it this time either, a few vague hints to try and get back in and then kick the can down the road for 5 years. She is just hoping to survive till after the election and get Macbeth as her successor before the axe falls. Going to be very interesting between now and May.
There’s 50/1 available on the SNP not being the largest party at Holyrood after the election. What do you reckon, worth a fiver?
Nope. Not a majority is a possibility but they will definitely be the largest party.
I'm annoyed that I grabbed at NOM too early - Ladbrokes is now 11/4, out from 13/8 three weeks ago.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
Scottish politics at the moment, and indeed for most of the last year, has been Nicola Sturgeon on the TV roughly 3x a week doing her mother of the nation skit (which in fairness she does quite well). The really alarming thing is that this is intended to continue up to the week before the May elections. I seem to recall Putin achieving something similar when those who were brave enough to stand against him were not allowed on the TV but I can't recall anything similar in a western country.
In short, it's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
Aye. And a major announcement on lockdown cannily diarised for the week before polling day.
In Scotland's case, it's the only way to ensure it gets spent.
LOL, I see their union team is scrapped after two leaders in two weeks, in disarray and having Union Jack and a cabinet committee will make little difference. The game is over we are now squabbling about who will run the country, cheats and robbers or people interested in Scotland. The union is dead. Union Jack spending money exclusively in Tory seats will go down well and for sure be money well spent.
Nice to see Mal's back.
Holyrood has screwed the local authorities in Scotland so good to see UKG circumventing the nest of vipers.
Yep. Good to see the UK Government realising that the SNP will take every pound of funding it gets and turn it against the UK. They're wising up.
Wait until the projects start turning up emblazoned with “Funded by the government of the United Kingdom”, and maybe even a 🇬🇧 or two...
I'm sure that'll make a huge difference to opinion
Loads marked 'funded by the EU' in places like Cornwall. Carole Cadwallader (I know) has a tale of interviewing someone in the Valleys and being asked 'What has the EU ever done for us?' while standing outside a sports centre emblazoned with the words 'funded by the EU'
And which Valleys architect designed the shopping centre? Which South Walian construction company got the job to build it? Which Valleys company got the publicity portfolio ? What is the name of the company who own the real estate and are collecting the rents?
Where did the money really go? Yes, there will have been some short-term local construction jobs, but almost all the EU money will not have been retained in the Valleys, and probably not even in Wales.
My bet is when we look, we'll see the architects, the construction company and the retail real estate company will all be based in Southern England.
(That is certainly what happened when Blaenau Ffestiniog got an EU makeover-- everything was done in England).
Fair points, but if it had been left to London, what would have happened? Apart from SFA? At least the building etc got built. Your argument is for greater control for Wales, not against the EU.
I am pointing out why the person interviewed by Carole Cadwalladr was correct.
Very little of the EU money given to Wales resulted in material improvement of the Welsh people. In fact, Wales was poorer after the EU Objective One funding was spent, not richer.
That is why someone in the Valleys can reasonably ask "What has the EU ever done for us?"
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
The Scottish Greens may be the biggest winners. A way of supporting independence without voting for the SNP.
You have to be joking
I'm aware of people who vote SNP / Green because they know SNP will win list seats so may as well help their fellow (independence) party win some.
There are alternative independence parties now though, couple of new ones. Be interesting to see how many give their second vote to them this time. Especially if it blows up big time and they get a few big names onboard. Greens are not well liked.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
Scottish politics at the moment, and indeed for most of the last year, has been Nicola Sturgeon on the TV roughly 3x a week doing her mother of the nation skit (which in fairness she does quite well). The really alarming thing is that this is intended to continue up to the week before the May elections. I seem to recall Putin achieving something similar when those who were brave enough to stand against him were not allowed on the TV but I can't recall anything similar in a western country.
In short, it's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
This is something I worried about with Trump. That period when he was on the telly every day with his interminable covid briefings. I was terrified it might be a platform for him to do "empathetic national leader" and win a 2nd term.
Thankfully he made an utter dick of himself, talking about injecting bleach and all the rest of it.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
I think there will be a reduction in turnout from SNP voters, including activists. That’s what lost her the seats at Westminster in 2017, although that was caused by backtracking on Independence.
She is not pushing it this time either, a few vague hints to try and get back in and then kick the can down the road for 5 years. She is just hoping to survive till after the election and get Macbeth as her successor before the axe falls. Going to be very interesting between now and May.
There’s 50/1 available on the SNP not being the largest party at Holyrood after the election. What do you reckon, worth a fiver?
Nope. Not a majority is a possibility but they will definitely be the largest party.
I'm annoyed that I grabbed at NOM too early - Ladbrokes is now 11/4, out from 13/8 three weeks ago.
NOM is a bigger price now than it was three weeks ago? That's counter intuitive isn't it?
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
The Scottish Greens may be the biggest winners. A way of supporting independence without voting for the SNP.
You have to be joking
I'm aware of people who vote SNP / Green because they know SNP will win list seats so may as well help their fellow (independence) party win some.
There are alternative independence parties now though, couple of new ones. Be interesting to see how many give their second vote to them this time. Especially if it blows up big time and they get a few big names onboard. Greens are not well liked.
Malc, what's your view on how this whole Sturgeon-Salmond thing will play out? As I said before, I don't really understand it.
This is interesting, though of uncertain importance.. It's been suggested before that the vaccine developers (AZN in particular) ought to have looked at intranasal delivery.
He's already lost, hasn't he? There's no way back for him whatever happens. Sturgeon, on the other hand...
He has nothing to lose. She has everything to lose. He won't stop. She'd be better off trying to cobble together a dignified exit, but she won't.
He also has all the evidence, he got copies of all the stuff they are desperately concealing. Assume James Hamilton will have access to lots of it as well, he may prove much worse than the parliament committee. If he is totally unbiased it would seem impossible not to confirm that she lied to parliament, once Aberdein's sworn affidavit is public the games a bogey.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
This poll might have been conducted before the latest controversies.
I follow politics quite closely and am a lawyer. It has taken me a while to get my head around what is going on. Unless the opposition in Scotland can find a way of simplifying the matter to the vast majority of people (in any country) who do not obsessively follow these things then it is unlikely to cut through.
I would say the difficulty for the SNP is -- given the depth of animosity -- that there is only one end-point.
One of the participants has to be completely vanquished. It is now a mortal combat, a fight to the very end.
If the end comes swiftly, then the SNP can escape with no real damage.
I have no idea of the disposition or strength of the various factions in the SNP, but if this fight is prolonged over many months, then I expect eventually there will be a cost.
The entire Scottish Government infrastructure has been wheeled out to support Nicola. She can't be allowed to fail. Because if she does - they all go down with her.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
The Scottish Greens may be the biggest winners. A way of supporting independence without voting for the SNP.
You have to be joking
I'm aware of people who vote SNP / Green because they know SNP will win list seats so may as well help their fellow (independence) party win some.
There are alternative independence parties now though, couple of new ones. Be interesting to see how many give their second vote to them this time. Especially if it blows up big time and they get a few big names onboard. Greens are not well liked.
Malc, what's your view on how this whole Sturgeon-Salmond thing will play out? As I said before, I don't really understand it.
That shouldn't be the slightest impediment to you commenting upon it.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
Scottish politics at the moment, and indeed for most of the last year, has been Nicola Sturgeon on the TV roughly 3x a week doing her mother of the nation skit (which in fairness she does quite well). The really alarming thing is that this is intended to continue up to the week before the May elections. I seem to recall Putin achieving something similar when those who were brave enough to stand against him were not allowed on the TV but I can't recall anything similar in a western country.
In short, it's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
This is something I worried about with Trump. That period when he was on the telly every day with his interminable covid briefings. I was terrified it might be a platform for him to do "empathetic national leader" and win a 2nd term.
Thankfully he made an utter dick of himself, talking about injecting bleach and all the rest of it.
Hard to see Nicola doing this.
The thing that cracked me up about claims that Trump would be a dictator is that he hasn't got the personal characteristics for it. Even if he wanted it (which I'm not sure he did), the number of times he got played was actually quite a lot. Hard to see a proper dictator doing that.
In Scotland's case, it's the only way to ensure it gets spent.
LOL, I see their union team is scrapped after two leaders in two weeks, in disarray and having Union Jack and a cabinet committee will make little difference. The game is over we are now squabbling about who will run the country, cheats and robbers or people interested in Scotland. The union is dead. Union Jack spending money exclusively in Tory seats will go down well and for sure be money well spent.
Nice to see Mal's back.
Holyrood has screwed the local authorities in Scotland so good to see UKG circumventing the nest of vipers.
Yep. Good to see the UK Government realising that the SNP will take every pound of funding it gets and turn it against the UK. They're wising up.
Wait until the projects start turning up emblazoned with “Funded by the government of the United Kingdom”, and maybe even a 🇬🇧 or two...
I'm sure that'll make a huge difference to opinion
Loads marked 'funded by the EU' in places like Cornwall. Carole Cadwallader (I know) has a tale of interviewing someone in the Valleys and being asked 'What has the EU ever done for us?' while standing outside a sports centre emblazoned with the words 'funded by the EU'
And which Valleys architect designed the shopping centre? Which South Walian construction company got the job to build it? Which Valleys company got the publicity portfolio ? What is the name of the company who own the real estate and are collecting the rents?
Where did the money really go? Yes, there will have been some short-term local construction jobs, but almost all the EU money will not have been retained in the Valleys, and probably not even in Wales.
My bet is when we look, we'll see the architects, the construction company and the retail real estate company will all be based in Southern England.
(That is certainly what happened when Blaenau Ffestiniog got an EU makeover-- everything was done in England).
Fair points, but if it had been left to London, what would have happened? Apart from SFA? At least the building etc got built. Your argument is for greater control for Wales, not against the EU.
I am pointing out why the person interviewed by Carole Cadwalladr was correct.
Very little of the EU money given to Wales resulted in material improvement of the Welsh people. In fact, Wales was poorer after the EU Objective One funding was spent, not richer.
That is why someone in the Valleys can reasonably ask "What has the EU ever done for us?"
It was at one stage an explicit objective of Liverpool City Council to continue to qualify for EC Objective 1 funding - i.e. to keep the city poor enough that money from Europe continued to flow. Funding often creates perverse incentives.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
The "not proven" verdict is an absolutely appalling aspect of the Scottish legal system which should have been ditched decades ago. I fear it is kept out of a misplaced sense of Scottish exceptionalism.
It's awful for the defendant as they are left in limbo with a clear stain on their character and no real way to erase it. But it's no good for victims either - it's an easy way out for some juries, disproportionately used in rape cases, and doesn't actually provide a sense of justice. Criminal cases have to provide a sense of closure, and "not proven" doesn't do the job.
"not proven" is actually an older-established court verdict than "not guilty" in Scotland.
Perhaps Boris could announce a plan for a referendum on Scotland and a referendum on Irish reunion as soon legally possible just to calm everything down a bit.
He could announce a Royal Commission on Scottish independence.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
This poll might have been conducted before the latest controversies.
I follow politics quite closely and am a lawyer. It has taken me a while to get my head around what is going on. Unless the opposition in Scotland can find a way of simplifying the matter to the vast majority of people (in any country) who do not obsessively follow these things then it is unlikely to cut through.
I dont understand this Scottish political/legal controversy at all. Its too complicated.
It's not that complicated.
Salmond was stirring up trouble for Sturgeon because a significant part of the SNP didn't believe she was committed to a second referendum. Allegations of sexual misbehavior on the part of Salmond came to the attention of the Scottish government. There was no code for dealing with former ministers so the SG made one up, retrospectively. They also got someone who had spoken to the complainers to assess the complaints. A judicial review was lodged challenging the competency of that. Independent counsel told the SG their position was unstateable but the SG soldiered on until counsel threatened to withdraw. £500k of legal expenses were paid to Salmond's lawyers. Within days a prosecution was announced and eventually 9 complainers "came forward" with or without a little encouragement. Salmond was acquitted of all charges. An inquiry as to why the SG wasted £500k (plus their own costs) in respect of the judicial review has morphed into an inquiry about whether Sturgeon lied when she reported the complaints to Parliament. She told Parliament that the first she was aware of the charges was at a meeting in her house on 2nd April. She now accepts that's not true and she knew the reason for that meeting following a discussion on 29th March. She claims to have "forgotten" about a meeting where she was told that her mentor of 30 years was facing criminal charges for sexual misconduct. The point is important because she should not have been meeting Salmond at all except in a First Minister capacity with civil servants present. She claims that she thought that this was a "party meeting." This is not consistent with prior knowledge. Salmond has lodged detailed statements with the committee investigating this matter with paper vouching in part. Crown Office have complained that this is a breach of the contempt of court order arising from the trial to protect the identity of the 9. Its really not obvious why. If she is found to have lied the Ministerial code requires her to resign.
In Scotland's case, it's the only way to ensure it gets spent.
LOL, I see their union team is scrapped after two leaders in two weeks, in disarray and having Union Jack and a cabinet committee will make little difference. The game is over we are now squabbling about who will run the country, cheats and robbers or people interested in Scotland. The union is dead. Union Jack spending money exclusively in Tory seats will go down well and for sure be money well spent.
Nice to see Mal's back.
Holyrood has screwed the local authorities in Scotland so good to see UKG circumventing the nest of vipers.
Yep. Good to see the UK Government realising that the SNP will take every pound of funding it gets and turn it against the UK. They're wising up.
Wait until the projects start turning up emblazoned with “Funded by the government of the United Kingdom”, and maybe even a 🇬🇧 or two...
I'm sure that'll make a huge difference to opinion
Loads marked 'funded by the EU' in places like Cornwall. Carole Cadwallader (I know) has a tale of interviewing someone in the Valleys and being asked 'What has the EU ever done for us?' while standing outside a sports centre emblazoned with the words 'funded by the EU'
And which Valleys architect designed the shopping centre? Which South Walian construction company got the job to build it? Which Valleys company got the publicity portfolio ? What is the name of the company who own the real estate and are collecting the rents?
Where did the money really go? Yes, there will have been some short-term local construction jobs, but almost all the EU money will not have been retained in the Valleys, and probably not even in Wales.
My bet is when we look, we'll see the architects, the construction company and the retail real estate company will all be based in Southern England.
(That is certainly what happened when Blaenau Ffestiniog got an EU makeover-- everything was done in England).
Fair points, but if it had been left to London, what would have happened? Apart from SFA? At least the building etc got built. Your argument is for greater control for Wales, not against the EU.
I am pointing out why the person interviewed by Carole Cadwalladr was correct.
Very little of the EU money given to Wales resulted in material improvement of the Welsh people. In fact, Wales was poorer after the EU Objective One funding was spent, not richer.
That is why someone in the Valleys can reasonably ask "What has the EU ever done for us?"
It's a valid point, but not EU specific (I know you never claimed that it was).
I worked for a time in the civil service in Newport. There was (is, I think) a centre housing ONS and Intellectual Property Office. They moved there some years before, presumably to cut costs and boost the local area. Fairly well paid jobs, what's not to like? However, most of the people in the higher paid jobs were not Welsh, graduates from all around the country. Lower paid jobs, as you'd expect, more locals represented (you don't move great distances for those). So what do the locals get? Some more jobs, sure and also an influx of people from outside of the region spending money locally*, but also increasing house prices, I guess.
*most of the higher earners actually lived in Cardiff (which didn't need a boost) or Monmouth, quite a few over in Bristol, not many spending much on the local economy in Newport.
Perhaps Boris could announce a plan for a referendum on Scotland and a referendum on Irish reunion as soon legally possible just to calm everything down a bit.
He could announce a Royal Commission on Scottish independence.
And indeed, should.
Yep - that should kick things into the long grass and make actually arguing for it come the second referendum far harder.
Perhaps Boris could announce a plan for a referendum on Scotland and a referendum on Irish reunion as soon legally possible just to calm everything down a bit.
He could announce a Royal Commission on Scottish independence.
And indeed, should.
Yep - that should kick things into the long grass and make actually arguing for it come the second referendum far harder.
Personally I think 500 year anniversaries are a good time for a reassessment.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
The "not proven" verdict is an absolutely appalling aspect of the Scottish legal system which should have been ditched decades ago. I fear it is kept out of a misplaced sense of Scottish exceptionalism.
It's awful for the defendant as they are left in limbo with a clear stain on their character and no real way to erase it. But it's no good for victims either - it's an easy way out for some juries, disproportionately used in rape cases, and doesn't actually provide a sense of justice. Criminal cases have to provide a sense of closure, and "not proven" doesn't do the job.
You could argue it increases the strength of their not guilty verdict compared to ours. Here, "not guilty" means not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So "not proven". But they have a separate verdict for that. Therefore their "not guilty" carries the implication it IS proven. Proven innocent. Which we don't have.
Maybe, although is it reallt fair for people to have to be proven innocent, rather than actually proven guilty?
Is it an issue Scottish lawyers are wanting changed I wonder - I know there are aspects of English law that people have wanted to change for decades.
It would be a nonsense. But it's the perception I'm talking about. Given their guilty equals our guilty, it means our not guilty equals the sum of their not guilties and not provens. Which further means their not guilties equal the slice of our not guilties that are the most innocent. It's like when the the A grade at A level was divided into A* and A. They have done that, here, but we haven't. All our not guilties leave court with grade A innocence. But their not guilties do so with A star innocence. This is what I'm getting at.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
This poll might have been conducted before the latest controversies.
I follow politics quite closely and am a lawyer. It has taken me a while to get my head around what is going on. Unless the opposition in Scotland can find a way of simplifying the matter to the vast majority of people (in any country) who do not obsessively follow these things then it is unlikely to cut through.
I would say the difficulty for the SNP is -- given the depth of animosity -- that there is only one end-point.
One of the participants has to be completely vanquished. It is now a mortal combat, a fight to the very end.
If the end comes swiftly, then the SNP can escape with no real damage.
I have no idea of the disposition or strength of the various factions in the SNP, but if this fight is prolonged over many months, then I expect eventually there will be a cost.
The entire Scottish Government infrastructure has been wheeled out to support Nicola. She can't be allowed to fail. Because if she does - they all go down with her.
Which is going to be a problem as she isn't going to resign (with slight dignity) so it's all going to go down with her.
Err, right. I thought the beauty of apps was not having to speak to anyone?
That surely is for people without Smartphones, and to chase the taxis into their last redoubt.
Who doesn't have a smartphone and is having a person operated call centre worth it to chase that demographic? I'd be shocked if the maths worked out in favour.
2. On the cricket, Root and Stokes etc should whack it around, try to get us to 180+. No point just sitting there waiting to get out as we normally do. If we can get 150 ahead we have a chance.
It is only Rohit's 66 in his first innings that stopped India looking woeful. If he fails early second innings...
On topic - and, crucially, at this stage - I don't think Trump will go for it again. Despite the rhetoric, I think he knows that he is likely to motivate the opposition in ways someone else (bar perhaps Ted Cruz) wouldn't and, in many ways, what happened represents a "best" outcome - many of his supporters believe he was robbed (note: many Republicans don't believe the Dominion crap but most do believe the rules were unfairly changed pre-election to significantly ease the rules on mail-in ballots), he can very much influence things behind the scenes and his agenda is one which dominates the GOP. I think Romney is right when he says Trump can win.
The caveat to this is that if it looks like things are going Pete Tong for Biden and the 2022 midterms are an absolute rout for the Democrats. If the GOP wins both Houses, chances are there will be impeachment hearings launched plus an investigation into the election, and Trump may think then that it is worth another shot.
If the GOP stays MAGA but Trump doesn't run, who do you think will get the nomination?
At the moment, Ron DeSantis - he's attracting a lot of plaudits from the right-wing commentators both for his stance on Covid and his willingness to take on what is perceived to be a biased media. His proposed legislation on Big Tech is also going down well with the GOP MAGA side.
I think generally it's going to be hard for anyone in Congress on the GOP side to make too much of an impact given the Democrats control both Houses for now and McConnell still controls the Senate faction but is seen as soiled goods by much of the party both for Trump going after him and because many blame him for the Georgia loss due to his opposition to the $2000 stimulus cheques. That has given an opportunity for the Governors to step into the void and take more of a leadership role. I would have said before that DeSantis faced a tough battle with Greg Abbott of Texas who also gets a lot of plaudits but the electricity blackouts have knocked him.
One other thing that is key but is rarely talked about. Trump is now physically down in Florida and is likely to remain so. I think physical proximity gives DeSantis an advantage, especially if there is any way he can hinder attempts to prosecute Trump.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
The Scottish Greens may be the biggest winners. A way of supporting independence without voting for the SNP.
You have to be joking
I'm aware of people who vote SNP / Green because they know SNP will win list seats so may as well help their fellow (independence) party win some.
There are alternative independence parties now though, couple of new ones. Be interesting to see how many give their second vote to them this time. Especially if it blows up big time and they get a few big names onboard. Greens are not well liked.
Malc, what's your view on how this whole Sturgeon-Salmond thing will play out? As I said before, I don't really understand it.
That shouldn't be the slightest impediment to you commenting upon it.
It shouldn't be indeed but I'd like to hear from someone who understands a lot more about it.
On topic - and, crucially, at this stage - I don't think Trump will go for it again. Despite the rhetoric, I think he knows that he is likely to motivate the opposition in ways someone else (bar perhaps Ted Cruz) wouldn't and, in many ways, what happened represents a "best" outcome - many of his supporters believe he was robbed (note: many Republicans don't believe the Dominion crap but most do believe the rules were unfairly changed pre-election to significantly ease the rules on mail-in ballots), he can very much influence things behind the scenes and his agenda is one which dominates the GOP. I think Romney is right when he says Trump can win.
The caveat to this is that if it looks like things are going Pete Tong for Biden and the 2022 midterms are an absolute rout for the Democrats. If the GOP wins both Houses, chances are there will be impeachment hearings launched plus an investigation into the election, and Trump may think then that it is worth another shot.
If the GOP stays MAGA but Trump doesn't run, who do you think will get the nomination?
At the moment, Ron DeSantis - he's attracting a lot of plaudits from the right-wing commentators both for his stance on Covid and his willingness to take on what is perceived to be a biased media. His proposed legislation on Big Tech is also going down well with the GOP MAGA side.
I think generally it's going to be hard for anyone in Congress on the GOP side to make too much of an impact given the Democrats control both Houses for now and McConnell still controls the Senate faction but is seen as soiled goods by much of the party both for Trump going after him and because many blame him for the Georgia loss due to his opposition to the $2000 stimulus cheques. That has given an opportunity for the Governors to step into the void and take more of a leadership role. I would have said before that DeSantis faced a tough battle with Greg Abbott of Texas who also gets a lot of plaudits but the electricity blackouts have knocked him.
One other thing that is key but is rarely talked about. Trump is now physically down in Florida and is likely to remain so. I think physical proximity gives DeSantis an advantage, especially if there is any way he can hinder attempts to prosecute Trump.
Cheers thanks.
No worries. It's a long way to go and there is still the overhanging uncertainty of whether Trump runs. Also, if the GOP wins the House and they take a more aggressive stance re impeachment etc, then I could see a candidate from there barnstorming and winning the candidacy if they use such hearings to propel themselves into the spotlight. Whom I think you can absolutely rule out winning is from the establishment side of the GOP. So anyone putting their money on Nikki Haley for starters is wasting it.
It's all a bit like the Remainers jumping up and down about the Supreme Court and the UK government breaking the law. Johnson still won bigly because he had an issue.
That's a fair analogy
One important difference, however, is that Johnson only needed to do pretty well under FPTP and he romped home in seats (against a weak and divided opposition). Sturgeon has the weak and divided opposition BUT the Holyrood system is designed to produce hung parliaments.
If Salmondgate costs the SNP just100,000 votes that could still be enough to take the Nats down, from outright majority to largest party.
Which is where they are now - having lost their majority in 2016.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
which is same as not guilty
I always thought it meant "We know you did it, you know you did it, but you managed to wriggle your way out of it this time"!
Not as simple as that , to me it means there is a possibility they could have done it but no evidence to be able to prove it. In olden days Scotland had Proven and Not Proven as verdicts.
Don't think so Malcolm. But I do agree that the correct application of the not proven verdict is that it is not proven that the accused did it to the requisite standard of proof, that is beyond a reasonably doubt, which is, of course, exactly the same standard that is applied to not guilty.
Nice to see you back btw.
Cheers David, must be fun in legal circles just now. Wolfe looks like a dead duck now as well, need him out before he bankrupts the country with his malicious cases.
In fairness the Rangers thing was before his time and the Lord Advocate of the time is now a judge. But the prosecution of Craig Murray is troubling. I really wish the decision in that would come out.
Mark Hirst one was unbelievable as well and police are still holding all his electronic goods months after case dropped. Something far wrong in Crown office.
Let's remember that this is not just a Scotland thing.
A very competitive candidate for my constituency had rumours "emerge" a few weeks before an election, and said candidate stood down.
The police eventually turned up in court and offered no evidence, having kept the candidate on tenterhooks for iirc *three* years.
He's already lost, hasn't he? There's no way back for him whatever happens. Sturgeon, on the other hand...
The only thing Salmond can possibly achieve -and this is a long shot-is bringing the whole edifice down. This even more than his liason with Trump shows the measure of the man. To find such an egregious case of back stabbing you'd have to go back to Glencoe in 1692.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
This poll might have been conducted before the latest controversies.
I follow politics quite closely and am a lawyer. It has taken me a while to get my head around what is going on. Unless the opposition in Scotland can find a way of simplifying the matter to the vast majority of people (in any country) who do not obsessively follow these things then it is unlikely to cut through.
I dont understand this Scottish political/legal controversy at all. Its too complicated.
It's not that complicated.
Salmond was stirring up trouble for Sturgeon because a significant part of the SNP didn't believe she was committed to a second referendum. Allegations of sexual misbehavior on the part of Salmond came to the attention of the Scottish government. There was no code for dealing with former ministers so the SG made one up, retrospectively. They also got someone who had spoken to the complainers to assess the complaints. A judicial review was lodged challenging the competency of that. Independent counsel told the SG their position was unstateable but the SG soldiered on until counsel threatened to withdraw. £500k of legal expenses were paid to Salmond's lawyers. Within days a prosecution was announced and eventually 9 complainers "came forward" with or without a little encouragement. Salmond was acquitted of all charges. An inquiry as to why the SG wasted £500k (plus their own costs) in respect of the judicial review has morphed into an inquiry about whether Sturgeon lied when she reported the complaints to Parliament. She told Parliament that the first she was aware of the charges was at a meeting in her house on 2nd April. She now accepts that's not true and she knew the reason for that meeting following a discussion on 29th March. She claims to have "forgotten" about a meeting where she was told that her mentor of 30 years was facing criminal charges for sexual misconduct. The point is important because she should not have been meeting Salmond at all except in a First Minister capacity with civil servants present. She claims that she thought that this was a "party meeting." This is not consistent with prior knowledge. Salmond has lodged detailed statements with the committee investigating this matter with paper vouching in part. Crown Office have complained that this is a breach of the contempt of court order arising from the trial to protect the identity of the 9. Its really not obvious why. If she is found to have lied the Ministerial code requires her to resign.
And not a banana in sight.
It's a fair assumption that every point here will be morphed, finessed, added to disagreed with and contested and as a result 'complicated' will indeed be what it is.
No, it's been claimed before, though I'm not sure there's any real evidence. Problem is that the response to disease is so variable that you need really big numbers (or an extraordinary difference in severity for a given variant) to show any significant effect.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
I think there will be a reduction in turnout from SNP voters, including activists. That’s what lost her the seats at Westminster in 2017, although that was caused by backtracking on Independence.
She is not pushing it this time either, a few vague hints to try and get back in and then kick the can down the road for 5 years. She is just hoping to survive till after the election and get Macbeth as her successor before the axe falls. Going to be very interesting between now and May.
There’s 50/1 available on the SNP not being the largest party at Holyrood after the election. What do you reckon, worth a fiver?
Nope. Not a majority is a possibility but they will definitely be the largest party.
I'm annoyed that I grabbed at NOM too early - Ladbrokes is now 11/4, out from 13/8 three weeks ago.
NOM is a bigger price now than it was three weeks ago? That's counter intuitive isn't it?
Polls vs a public perception that is slowly eroding?
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
Scottish politics at the moment, and indeed for most of the last year, has been Nicola Sturgeon on the TV roughly 3x a week doing her mother of the nation skit (which in fairness she does quite well). The really alarming thing is that this is intended to continue up to the week before the May elections. I seem to recall Putin achieving something similar when those who were brave enough to stand against him were not allowed on the TV but I can't recall anything similar in a western country.
In short, it's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
This is something I worried about with Trump. That period when he was on the telly every day with his interminable covid briefings. I was terrified it might be a platform for him to do "empathetic national leader" and win a 2nd term.
Thankfully he made an utter dick of himself, talking about injecting bleach and all the rest of it.
Hard to see Nicola doing this.
She did yesterday.
Must have missed that! Welcome back btw.
And I have a food-for-thought observation for you. Have you noticed that most of the strong opponents of Sindy here in England - esp those on the right - are behind Salmon and against Sturgeon?
Which could mean they think if she falls it sets back the Sindy cause rather than advances it.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
Scottish politics at the moment, and indeed for most of the last year, has been Nicola Sturgeon on the TV roughly 3x a week doing her mother of the nation skit (which in fairness she does quite well). The really alarming thing is that this is intended to continue up to the week before the May elections. I seem to recall Putin achieving something similar when those who were brave enough to stand against him were not allowed on the TV but I can't recall anything similar in a western country.
In short, it's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
This is something I worried about with Trump. That period when he was on the telly every day with his interminable covid briefings. I was terrified it might be a platform for him to do "empathetic national leader" and win a 2nd term.
Thankfully he made an utter dick of himself, talking about injecting bleach and all the rest of it.
Hard to see Nicola doing this.
The thing that cracked me up about claims that Trump would be a dictator is that he hasn't got the personal characteristics for it. Even if he wanted it (which I'm not sure he did), the number of times he got played was actually quite a lot. Hard to see a proper dictator doing that.
To fancy yourself as a strongman dictator implies great vanity but great vanity is in itself a weakness. I think we saw both sides of that coin with Donald Trump.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
The Scottish Greens may be the biggest winners. A way of supporting independence without voting for the SNP.
You have to be joking
I'm aware of people who vote SNP / Green because they know SNP will win list seats so may as well help their fellow (independence) party win some.
There are alternative independence parties now though, couple of new ones. Be interesting to see how many give their second vote to them this time. Especially if it blows up big time and they get a few big names onboard. Greens are not well liked.
Malc, what's your view on how this whole Sturgeon-Salmond thing will play out? As I said before, I don't really understand it.
Unless they can keep all the evidence banned she is toast. I believe they are done for now, their scheme failed and their subsequent attempts to protect themselves have made it 10 times worse. They get ever more desperate and when you see the characters involved it is very obvious what went on. There is lots out there , some has had to be removed as they have used the Crown office but you can piece together bits of it. Fact is Sturgeon lied to parliament, she has admitted meeting Aberdein , tried to say he dropped in for a coffee but obvious she is up to her neck in it, it has all gone Pete Tong and they have had to get ever more desperate to keep it hidden. If his affidavit ever sees light of day she is done.
Even factoring in that she is well regarded, leads the SNP and any rally round the flag effect, I am amazed any politician has a satisfaction rate over 50%
This poll might have been conducted before the latest controversies.
I follow politics quite closely and am a lawyer. It has taken me a while to get my head around what is going on. Unless the opposition in Scotland can find a way of simplifying the matter to the vast majority of people (in any country) who do not obsessively follow these things then it is unlikely to cut through.
I would say the difficulty for the SNP is -- given the depth of animosity -- that there is only one end-point.
One of the participants has to be completely vanquished. It is now a mortal combat, a fight to the very end.
If the end comes swiftly, then the SNP can escape with no real damage.
I have no idea of the disposition or strength of the various factions in the SNP, but if this fight is prolonged over many months, then I expect eventually there will be a cost.
The entire Scottish Government infrastructure has been wheeled out to support Nicola. She can't be allowed to fail. Because if she does - they all go down with her.
Including the civil service ( UK ) and Crown Office ( Agent is ex MI5), and useless Lord Advocate, lots of players involved.
Comments
The Scottish system is one way of dealing with the failings of the actual world. It isn't perfect because no system can be.
One of the participants has to be completely vanquished. It is now a mortal combat, a fight to the very end.
If the end comes swiftly, then the SNP can escape with no real damage.
I have no idea of the disposition or strength of the various factions in the SNP, but if this fight is prolonged over many months, then I expect eventually there will be a cost.
This is just starting to seem like that isn't 100% the case.
I think generally it's going to be hard for anyone in Congress on the GOP side to make too much of an impact given the Democrats control both Houses for now and McConnell still controls the Senate faction but is seen as soiled goods by much of the party both for Trump going after him and because many blame him for the Georgia loss due to his opposition to the $2000 stimulus cheques. That has given an opportunity for the Governors to step into the void and take more of a leadership role. I would have said before that DeSantis faced a tough battle with Greg Abbott of Texas who also gets a lot of plaudits but the electricity blackouts have knocked him.
One other thing that is key but is rarely talked about. Trump is now physically down in Florida and is likely to remain so. I think physical proximity gives DeSantis an advantage, especially if there is any way he can hinder attempts to prosecute Trump.
Not sure I have time for a whole The Hundred match - I much prefer the short form - test cricket !
Thankfully he made an utter dick of himself, talking about injecting bleach and all the rest of it.
Hard to see Nicola doing this.
Vlad has nothing on Nicola.
Very little of the EU money given to Wales resulted in material improvement of the Welsh people. In fact, Wales was poorer after the EU Objective One funding was spent, not richer.
That is why someone in the Valleys can reasonably ask "What has the EU ever done for us?"
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1364576688034742272
It's been suggested before that the vaccine developers (AZN in particular) ought to have looked at intranasal delivery.
https://twitter.com/Timothee_B/status/1364887104178823169
If he is totally unbiased it would seem impossible not to confirm that she lied to parliament, once Aberdein's sworn affidavit is public the games a bogey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Carnegie_of_Finhaven
And indeed, should.
Salmond was stirring up trouble for Sturgeon because a significant part of the SNP didn't believe she was committed to a second referendum.
Allegations of sexual misbehavior on the part of Salmond came to the attention of the Scottish government.
There was no code for dealing with former ministers so the SG made one up, retrospectively.
They also got someone who had spoken to the complainers to assess the complaints.
A judicial review was lodged challenging the competency of that.
Independent counsel told the SG their position was unstateable but the SG soldiered on until counsel threatened to withdraw.
£500k of legal expenses were paid to Salmond's lawyers.
Within days a prosecution was announced and eventually 9 complainers "came forward" with or without a little encouragement.
Salmond was acquitted of all charges.
An inquiry as to why the SG wasted £500k (plus their own costs) in respect of the judicial review has morphed into an inquiry about whether Sturgeon lied when she reported the complaints to Parliament.
She told Parliament that the first she was aware of the charges was at a meeting in her house on 2nd April.
She now accepts that's not true and she knew the reason for that meeting following a discussion on 29th March.
She claims to have "forgotten" about a meeting where she was told that her mentor of 30 years was facing criminal charges for sexual misconduct.
The point is important because she should not have been meeting Salmond at all except in a First Minister capacity with civil servants present. She claims that she thought that this was a "party meeting." This is not consistent with prior knowledge.
Salmond has lodged detailed statements with the committee investigating this matter with paper vouching in part.
Crown Office have complained that this is a breach of the contempt of court order arising from the trial to protect the identity of the 9. Its really not obvious why.
If she is found to have lied the Ministerial code requires her to resign.
And not a banana in sight.
I worked for a time in the civil service in Newport. There was (is, I think) a centre housing ONS and Intellectual Property Office. They moved there some years before, presumably to cut costs and boost the local area. Fairly well paid jobs, what's not to like? However, most of the people in the higher paid jobs were not Welsh, graduates from all around the country. Lower paid jobs, as you'd expect, more locals represented (you don't move great distances for those). So what do the locals get? Some more jobs, sure and also an influx of people from outside of the region spending money locally*, but also increasing house prices, I guess.
*most of the higher earners actually lived in Cardiff (which didn't need a boost) or Monmouth, quite a few over in Bristol, not many spending much on the local economy in Newport.
https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1364885721564250112?s=20
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1364912075370283016?s=20
NEW THREAD
A very competitive candidate for my constituency had rumours "emerge" a few weeks before an election, and said candidate stood down.
The police eventually turned up in court and offered no evidence, having kept the candidate on tenterhooks for iirc *three* years.
Problem is that the response to disease is so variable that you need really big numbers (or an extraordinary difference in severity for a given variant) to show any significant effect.
And I have a food-for-thought observation for you. Have you noticed that most of the strong opponents of Sindy here in England - esp those on the right - are behind Salmon and against Sturgeon?
Which could mean they think if she falls it sets back the Sindy cause rather than advances it.