Comment deleted by Site Moderator
<Maybe if they didn’t ask the same questions more than once they could have got more answers in??>
Looking at today's highlights & live/
Sturgeon repeats the same mantras no matter the question.
And takes 10 minutes to do so.
She's get away with it tho.
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 2 minutes ago
<At no point there did she even suggest she asked Salmond to resign. >
Salmond said she did last Friday.
10 minutes ago she said she had suggested to him that the Party may be
damaged by him remaining in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds to me like you believe absolutely everything Salmond says and nothing that she says
Sturgeon said Aberdein had indicated to her that he may be meeting with her on the 2nd of April to resign
she never said she wanted him to resign
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Zachsda( He’s gone, the shark throwers h... (U1850)
posted 12 seconds ago
Cl;early the case against her isnt as strong legally as the bluster would suggest.From what i saw i don't think they proved anything other than this is money pashed up a wall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also say that today and the day with Salmond is a waste of money. What were the collective wages of all involved over the few days and the loss to actually getting on with ther jobs?
The only winner in this is Salmond's PR at a considerable cost to the tax payer
<Sounds to me like you believe absolutely everything Salmond says and nothing that she says>
There's a whole swathe on here who if Sturgeon said today was
Setterday they'd believe it. It would be a natural thing for someone
accused of such a tranche of serious charges to step aside from the Party
temporarily albeit. Sturgeon herself just said she ran it by him.
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 38 minutes ago
'The corroboration testifies that the meeting was arranged by her office to specifically discuss the Salmond case and everyone in attendance knew why they were going there.'
The only corroboration that gives is what they were told. That's just hearsay and doesn't confirm what actually happened.
Have you found the quote where NS called anyone a liar last week, or that the other parties released statements calling for her resignation yesterday??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
I see. So written statements from two eminent and senior individuals (one being a QC) is now deemed as being non corroborated? Well that’ll be a new one for the legal bods. Yep you can giggle that away.
And yes if you state on national tv that another country making definitive statements will be proven wrong and will have to change tact then yes you are accusing them of lying. What else would you call it?
Here’s a wee laugh emoji to be getting on with as you scoff those assertions away
Salmond
His lawyer said he was guilty.
how can you corroborate something you weren't present at?
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 29 seconds ago
<Sounds to me like you believe absolutely everything Salmond says and nothing that she says>
There's a whole swathe on here who if Sturgeon said today was
Setterday they'd believe it. It would be a natural thing for someone
accused of such a tranche of serious charges to step aside from the Party
temporarily albeit. Sturgeon herself just said she ran it by him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s no way you can get past the collective ignoring of the overall mess she has resided over. Yes she’ll walk. We all know that. The fact that so many lap up her pisssh with “not proven” never ceases to amaze me.
No wonder she is still able to treat the country and it’s people like gullible fools. Many are.
After 8 hours of tedious bluster all we have found out is what we all ready know.
Politicians spend 10 minutes answering a question with a well rehersed non answer that should take 30 seconds and politicians lie.
comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 25 seconds ago
how can you corroborate something you weren't present at?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't corroborate a testimony which wasn't even given to the committee. It was given in court and people's understanding of it is through the media...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 44 seconds ago
how can you corroborate something you weren't present at?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One was present mate.
Look there’s not much point in going on about it. People have made their minds up and are more than happy to take her word for everything so I’ll leave it that the country is run by the most forgetful and incompetent set of a collaborative cabal ever.
Just sit back and let them run it further into the ground. They’ve made a great job of it so far
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 7 seconds ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its a Two Person Party?
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 38 minutes ago
'The corroboration testifies that the meeting was arranged by her office to specifically discuss the Salmond case and everyone in attendance knew why they were going there.'
The only corroboration that gives is what they were told. That's just hearsay and doesn't confirm what actually happened.
Have you found the quote where NS called anyone a liar last week, or that the other parties released statements calling for her resignation yesterday??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
I see. So written statements from two eminent and senior individuals (one being a QC) is now deemed as being non corroborated? Well that’ll be a new one for the legal bods. Yep you can giggle that away.
And yes if you state on national tv that another country making definitive statements will be proven wrong and will have to change tact then yes you are accusing them of lying. What else would you call it?
Here’s a wee laugh emoji to be getting on withas you scoff those assertions away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What they said was true-but it was what they were told that was being discussed. If I say ‘that is what I was told’, that’s not corroboration, and neither am I lying. I’m being absolutely honest, but it doesn’t mean that the initial allegation is true.
And your words were that she called another government liars, and you repeated it several times last week before conceding that’s not what was said. Being political as you are, you’re now changing that to accusing people of lying, which I’m not sure was what was either implied or should be taken from it.
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 7 seconds ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its a Two Person Party?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
Hahahaha
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 1 minute ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority government?!
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 24 seconds ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are also the most trustworthy
<You can't corroborate a testimony which wasn't even given to the committee.>
It should have been.
Crown Office & Lord Advocate have a dual role in Scotland.
And they're political appointments.
In other words SNP appointed.
They decided Salmond's trial was by Jury.
They ruled that a whole roomful of documentary evidence would
be kept secret.
As I said if this was an African state we'd a' be tut tutting.
She could set the building on fire (Zach?) and still people would applaud
------
only if you were in it
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 38 minutes ago
'The corroboration testifies that the meeting was arranged by her office to specifically discuss the Salmond case and everyone in attendance knew why they were going there.'
The only corroboration that gives is what they were told. That's just hearsay and doesn't confirm what actually happened.
Have you found the quote where NS called anyone a liar last week, or that the other parties released statements calling for her resignation yesterday??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
I see. So written statements from two eminent and senior individuals (one being a QC) is now deemed as being non corroborated? Well that’ll be a new one for the legal bods. Yep you can giggle that away.
And yes if you state on national tv that another country making definitive statements will be proven wrong and will have to change tact then yes you are accusing them of lying. What else would you call it?
Here’s a wee laugh emoji to be getting on withas you scoff those assertions away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What they said was true-but it was what they were told that was being discussed. If I say ‘that is what I was told’, that’s not corroboration, and neither am I lying. I’m being absolutely honest, but it doesn’t mean that the initial allegation is true.
And your words were that she called another government liars, and you repeated it several times last week before conceding that’s not what was said. Being political as you are, you’re now changing that to accusing people of lying, which I’m not sure was what was either implied or should be taken from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She called them liars. The word itself may not have been used but that’s what she called them.
I’m really baffled as to why anyone would interpret it differently.
She also called other people liars today. As others have called her. Was the word used? No. Can we safety interpret it as that? Absolutely.
Sign in if you want to comment
This nonsense has to stop
Page 33 of 38
34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38
posted on 3/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/3/21
<Maybe if they didn’t ask the same questions more than once they could have got more answers in??>
Looking at today's highlights & live/
Sturgeon repeats the same mantras no matter the question.
And takes 10 minutes to do so.
She's get away with it tho.
posted on 3/3/21
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 2 minutes ago
<At no point there did she even suggest she asked Salmond to resign. >
Salmond said she did last Friday.
10 minutes ago she said she had suggested to him that the Party may be
damaged by him remaining in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds to me like you believe absolutely everything Salmond says and nothing that she says
posted on 3/3/21
Sturgeon said Aberdein had indicated to her that he may be meeting with her on the 2nd of April to resign
she never said she wanted him to resign
posted on 3/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/3/21
comment by Zachsda( He’s gone, the shark throwers h... (U1850)
posted 12 seconds ago
Cl;early the case against her isnt as strong legally as the bluster would suggest.From what i saw i don't think they proved anything other than this is money pashed up a wall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also say that today and the day with Salmond is a waste of money. What were the collective wages of all involved over the few days and the loss to actually getting on with ther jobs?
The only winner in this is Salmond's PR at a considerable cost to the tax payer
posted on 3/3/21
<Sounds to me like you believe absolutely everything Salmond says and nothing that she says>
There's a whole swathe on here who if Sturgeon said today was
Setterday they'd believe it. It would be a natural thing for someone
accused of such a tranche of serious charges to step aside from the Party
temporarily albeit. Sturgeon herself just said she ran it by him.
posted on 3/3/21
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 38 minutes ago
'The corroboration testifies that the meeting was arranged by her office to specifically discuss the Salmond case and everyone in attendance knew why they were going there.'
The only corroboration that gives is what they were told. That's just hearsay and doesn't confirm what actually happened.
Have you found the quote where NS called anyone a liar last week, or that the other parties released statements calling for her resignation yesterday??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
I see. So written statements from two eminent and senior individuals (one being a QC) is now deemed as being non corroborated? Well that’ll be a new one for the legal bods. Yep you can giggle that away.
And yes if you state on national tv that another country making definitive statements will be proven wrong and will have to change tact then yes you are accusing them of lying. What else would you call it?
Here’s a wee laugh emoji to be getting on with as you scoff those assertions away
posted on 3/3/21
Salmond
His lawyer said he was guilty.
posted on 3/3/21
how can you corroborate something you weren't present at?
posted on 3/3/21
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 29 seconds ago
<Sounds to me like you believe absolutely everything Salmond says and nothing that she says>
There's a whole swathe on here who if Sturgeon said today was
Setterday they'd believe it. It would be a natural thing for someone
accused of such a tranche of serious charges to step aside from the Party
temporarily albeit. Sturgeon herself just said she ran it by him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s no way you can get past the collective ignoring of the overall mess she has resided over. Yes she’ll walk. We all know that. The fact that so many lap up her pisssh with “not proven” never ceases to amaze me.
No wonder she is still able to treat the country and it’s people like gullible fools. Many are.
posted on 3/3/21
After 8 hours of tedious bluster all we have found out is what we all ready know.
Politicians spend 10 minutes answering a question with a well rehersed non answer that should take 30 seconds and politicians lie.
posted on 3/3/21
comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 25 seconds ago
how can you corroborate something you weren't present at?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't corroborate a testimony which wasn't even given to the committee. It was given in court and people's understanding of it is through the media...
posted on 3/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/3/21
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
posted on 3/3/21
comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 44 seconds ago
how can you corroborate something you weren't present at?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One was present mate.
Look there’s not much point in going on about it. People have made their minds up and are more than happy to take her word for everything so I’ll leave it that the country is run by the most forgetful and incompetent set of a collaborative cabal ever.
Just sit back and let them run it further into the ground. They’ve made a great job of it so far
posted on 3/3/21
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 7 seconds ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its a Two Person Party?
posted on 3/3/21
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 38 minutes ago
'The corroboration testifies that the meeting was arranged by her office to specifically discuss the Salmond case and everyone in attendance knew why they were going there.'
The only corroboration that gives is what they were told. That's just hearsay and doesn't confirm what actually happened.
Have you found the quote where NS called anyone a liar last week, or that the other parties released statements calling for her resignation yesterday??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
I see. So written statements from two eminent and senior individuals (one being a QC) is now deemed as being non corroborated? Well that’ll be a new one for the legal bods. Yep you can giggle that away.
And yes if you state on national tv that another country making definitive statements will be proven wrong and will have to change tact then yes you are accusing them of lying. What else would you call it?
Here’s a wee laugh emoji to be getting on withas you scoff those assertions away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What they said was true-but it was what they were told that was being discussed. If I say ‘that is what I was told’, that’s not corroboration, and neither am I lying. I’m being absolutely honest, but it doesn’t mean that the initial allegation is true.
And your words were that she called another government liars, and you repeated it several times last week before conceding that’s not what was said. Being political as you are, you’re now changing that to accusing people of lying, which I’m not sure was what was either implied or should be taken from it.
posted on 3/3/21
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 7 seconds ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its a Two Person Party?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
Hahahaha
posted on 3/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/3/21
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 1 minute ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority government?!
posted on 3/3/21
comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 24 seconds ago
Scotland.
One Party State since 2007.
Ruled by a Party that's a One Person Party.
Salmond and Sturgeon.
The 2 biggest egos in the history of Scottish politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are also the most trustworthy
posted on 3/3/21
<You can't corroborate a testimony which wasn't even given to the committee.>
It should have been.
Crown Office & Lord Advocate have a dual role in Scotland.
And they're political appointments.
In other words SNP appointed.
They decided Salmond's trial was by Jury.
They ruled that a whole roomful of documentary evidence would
be kept secret.
As I said if this was an African state we'd a' be tut tutting.
posted on 3/3/21
She could set the building on fire (Zach?) and still people would applaud
------
only if you were in it
posted on 3/3/21
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 38 minutes ago
'The corroboration testifies that the meeting was arranged by her office to specifically discuss the Salmond case and everyone in attendance knew why they were going there.'
The only corroboration that gives is what they were told. That's just hearsay and doesn't confirm what actually happened.
Have you found the quote where NS called anyone a liar last week, or that the other parties released statements calling for her resignation yesterday??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
I see. So written statements from two eminent and senior individuals (one being a QC) is now deemed as being non corroborated? Well that’ll be a new one for the legal bods. Yep you can giggle that away.
And yes if you state on national tv that another country making definitive statements will be proven wrong and will have to change tact then yes you are accusing them of lying. What else would you call it?
Here’s a wee laugh emoji to be getting on withas you scoff those assertions away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What they said was true-but it was what they were told that was being discussed. If I say ‘that is what I was told’, that’s not corroboration, and neither am I lying. I’m being absolutely honest, but it doesn’t mean that the initial allegation is true.
And your words were that she called another government liars, and you repeated it several times last week before conceding that’s not what was said. Being political as you are, you’re now changing that to accusing people of lying, which I’m not sure was what was either implied or should be taken from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She called them liars. The word itself may not have been used but that’s what she called them.
I’m really baffled as to why anyone would interpret it differently.
She also called other people liars today. As others have called her. Was the word used? No. Can we safety interpret it as that? Absolutely.
Page 33 of 38
34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38