Could WH2024 be a re-run of Biden v Trump – politicalbetting.com

Called it.

England are going to lose this match by an innings.

Fairliered said:

First Minister’s Questions at 12.30 today. Should be interesting.
Sturgeon b Baillie 0?

Baillie has repeatedly shown in recent days that it is absurd that she is not a candidate for the leadership on a permanent basis. She has been really effective and you can't say that about the Scottish Labour leader for a very long time.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Called it.

England are going to lose this match by an innings.

Come on, Indi...er, I mean England!

What a crap shot by Bairstow. Hat trick.

tlg86 said:

Roger said:

tlg86 said:

Burgessian said:

Bernard Ponsonby quite interesting on Salmond/Sturgeon.

https://news.stv.tv/opinion/a-mess-to-embarrass-the-architects-of-devolution

"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.

No one's questioning his innocence. His own barrister said his behaviour was appalling. The jury simply decided that chasing women around bedrooms whilst dunk was just bad behaviour not something that should land him a long sentence in jail which would have been the result of a guilty verdict. Presumably they thought humiliation was enough.

https://twitter.com/CallmeRayf/status/1364571216753930245

From 0:48

"The behaviour of the complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality but that doesn't mean that the behaviour that they complained of didn't happen."

Wrong. They made allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape. He was found not guilty and that behaviour did not happen. End of story.

Yes and fact the supposed victims repeated the events kind of points to it not being anything like it was portrayed.Perhaps his mistake was not giving out positions to people who thought they should get them. As we regularly see politics is a dirty business with backstabbing and greasy pole climbing at anyone's expense the order of the day.

Lucky escape for Bairstow.

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Good start.

What is England's lowest ever score? I vaguely recall a shellacking in the WIndies on another unplayable pitch maybe 20 years ago.

40 odd, wasn't it. But at 0-2........

Andy_JS said:

Anabobazina said:

OldKingCole said:

India 125-8 now. Root 3 wickets for no nuns, according to BBC site, which is a bit slow.

You know it’s live on Channel 4?

Itll be interesting to see the viewing figures for Channel 4 cricket.

It was over a million average for the first Test. Which started at 4am.

I imagine this one will be higher, given the better time slot for the UK audience and the pace of wickets.

If England get a lead of 50 they might have a chance on this wicket.

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Good start.

What is England's lowest ever score? I vaguely recall a shellacking in the WIndies on another unplayable pitch maybe 20 years ago.

40 odd, wasn't it. But at 0-2........

I think it was 36 but I may be wrong. 36 certainly looks a long way away right now.

What the effing heck is going on in India? It didn't sound like the pitch was unplayable yesterday, how are so many wickets falling?

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorthofStoke said:

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?

All this GRA and self ID and the dodgy machinations etc will be lethal for Sturgeon and the halfwits running the show. Only today 120 women sent Sturgeon a letter re the abuse of Cherry and had to ask to keep their names private in case the attack dogs come after them.

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Burgessian said:

Bernard Ponsonby quite interesting on Salmond/Sturgeon.

https://news.stv.tv/opinion/a-mess-to-embarrass-the-architects-of-devolution

"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.

Test cricket. Bloody hell.

kle4 said:

What the effing heck is going on in India? It didn't sound like the pitch was unplayable yesterday, how are so many wickets falling?

The groundsman had to come out with a massive brush in the middle of play yesterday. Not a good sign on the first day.

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Burgessian said:

Bernard Ponsonby quite interesting on Salmond/Sturgeon.

https://news.stv.tv/opinion/a-mess-to-embarrass-the-architects-of-devolution

"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

True, but Salmond's reputation has been comprehensively trashed, and Nicola is doubling down on the trashing. Even during what was supposed to be a Covid briefing.

What I find improbable is that his, err, manner of conducting himself came as a surprise to her when briefed in 2018. There's an argument that as his deputy and chief cheerleader for so many years, and as Scotland's most powerful woman during that period, she effectively threw a shield around him which would have dissuaded women from complaining. Once he became a political problem, the shield was withdrawn, and he was thrown to the wolves.

It's not binary. Quite possible to believe they are both wrong uns.

In my opinion she looks a real bad un, he is just your average punter of that era. Things he did are happening all day every day with people, some regret it some don't but certainly not criminal. Most relationships start at work.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cue screams.....

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1364720097567375361?s=20

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...

Sandpit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cue screams.....

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1364720097567375361?s=20

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

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

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.

Fairliered said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorthofStoke said:

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.

malcolmg said:

Fairliered said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorthofStoke said:

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.

Macbeth being Robertson?

malcolmg said:

Fairliered said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorthofStoke said:

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?

Nigelb said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/MichaelVaughan/status/1364874435866558464

Let's be honest, these are not 5 day test batting lineups.

And let's be honest - in normal times England always need a bit of practice - with the expanded squad and journeys home it does feel like fulfilling an obligation rather than a ruthlessly planned path to victory

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorthofStoke said:

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.

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

Fairliered said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorthofStoke said:

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?

Go for it.

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1364899053075648513?s=20

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1364895051688665089?s=20

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Burgessian said:

Bernard Ponsonby quite interesting on Salmond/Sturgeon.

https://news.stv.tv/opinion/a-mess-to-embarrass-the-architects-of-devolution

"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.

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1364895843585785856?s=20

https://twitter.com/kellyipsosmori/status/1364896257081290753?s=21

kinabalu said:

Is the draw worth a nibble?

More chance of a speedy French vaccine rollout

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1364901073459306499?s=20

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1364900662375514114?s=20

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1364901073459306499?s=20

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.

HYUFD said:

Labour MP calls for increased corporation tax

https://twitter.com/BellRibeiroAddy/status/1364900406271295491?s=20

We should increase it to 20% to make calculation easier

To be honest I'd be happy with 0% corporation tax. I think a wholesale and high-level rethink of all taxes should be considered. "Global Britain" shouldn't be afraid to try new things.

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1364901073459306499?s=20

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.

https://twitter.com/jsinclair29/status/1364848549587017728?s=20

What was that from Sibley ?
You can't blame the pitch when top order batsmen play shots like that. This might well be a three day pitch, but not two day, FFS.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Burgessian said:

Bernard Ponsonby quite interesting on Salmond/Sturgeon.

https://news.stv.tv/opinion/a-mess-to-embarrass-the-architects-of-devolution

"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.

Nigelb said:

What was that from Sibley ?
You can't blame the pitch when top order batsmen play shots like that. This might well be a three day pitch, but not two day, FFS.

Its the indirect effect of the pitch causing shots like that, which is no excuse.

DougSeal said:

Andy_JS said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1364901073459306499?s=20

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.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/jsinclair29/status/1364848549587017728?s=20

Weak, weak, weak.

No attempt to engage in the substance of the allegations, no reference to the documentary evidence provided, just he said she said.

England just need a couple of okay partnerships.

kinabalu said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Burgessian said:

Bernard Ponsonby quite interesting on Salmond/Sturgeon.

https://news.stv.tv/opinion/a-mess-to-embarrass-the-architects-of-devolution

"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.

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1364901073459306499?s=20

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.

If BJ wants to do his father of the nation skit specifically to Scotland on a daily basis right up to the May elections, I'm fine with it.

England cannot lose by an innings, thank goodness. We can collapse again now.

YBarddCwsc said:

OldKingCole said:

Gallowgate said:

Sandpit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cue screams.....

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1364720097567375361?s=20

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.

https://twitter.com/SpecCoffeeHouse/status/1364905242333237249?s=20