Sturgeon -v- Salmond. This is going to be very interesting. Is the SNP finished? And what impact on the Scots regarding Indy2? ?

The ordinary lunchtime and evening news contains all that needs to be said.
Try playing Sturgeon bingo while you listen to the waffle.

She has given clear and concise information throughout the pandemic. Has answered all of the questions put to her. And has had someone signing. Has made the U.K. government look life amateurs. No wonder they’re out to get her.

I watched all of the Alex Salmond ( in front of the committee)
And today all of Nicola Surgeon in the hot seat.

I don’t care for either of them and have no axe to grind......
Salmond came over very well and credible, Sturgeon just the opposite.
Salmond was clear and concise, Sturgeon rambled on and sought refuge in vagueness.You could have filled in Loch Ness
With all the things that she didn’t ‘know’ or ‘wasn’t aware of’ .
I thought she may try for tears at one point.
The committee were obviously angry at having being refused all the written info they needed to make a proper outcome.
Yes, Jackie Bailie was excellent ( I wouldn't want to mess with
her!)
I thought Sturgeons attitude to the committee bordered on arrogance.

In all fairness Maybee70 the UK news briefings by Chris Whitty and Jonathan Van Tam have been superb, they contain much better information than any politician is qualified to deliver.

If you don't like the lunchtime briefings then don't watch them. I prefer my information without the press's gloss on it though so I will continue.

I haven't noticed Whitty and JVT doing many press briefings without a politician present. The Scottish briefing today had Jeane Freeman and Gregor Smith. There is usually at least one specialist at each Scottish briefing.

I just think the politician presence is superfluous Alegrias1, unless there are changes to the lockdown arrangements the important details are best handled by the clinical experts. I thought Maybee’s comment overlooked the fact that they have been providing excellent content in the UK briefings. It was categorically not a comment on BJ v NS!

I disagree Casdon . There are more things we need to understand about the pandemic and the government's response to it than just changes to lockdown. So we need the politicians to tell us what those things are and to answer journalists questions

If people don't want to watch, fair enough. And the BBC doesn't need to televise it, but they do. Presumably because there are still enough people interested in watching it.

I don’t disagree that we need to hear from the politicians as well, but once a week from any of them is enough for me - I’ve learned to switch the TV on for the briefing after the politician bit, and only listen to the scientific bit. The questions are at the end anyway so I hear those. It’s personal preference I know.

Yes, personal preference Casdon. I prefer to hear the politician speak because too often I hear it reported in the news and think, "That's not what they said'! Each to their own ?

Casdon

In all fairness Maybee70 the UK news briefings by Chris Whitty and Jonathan Van Tam have been superb, they contain much better information than any politician is qualified to deliver.

Is that Chris Whitty that didn’t comment on Cummingsgate? To be fair to JVT he did. But even he said that masks didn’t work at one stage when the evidence didn’t seem to back that up. And Whitty stopped testing and tracing last spring because there was so much community spread it was a waste of time. I have some respect for Chris Whitty but he doesn’t seem to go against what the PM wants him to say. I do, in general, respect what JVT says. But I found Sturgeon a good source of information on a regular basis. Not so much now but at one point I did listen to her every day.

Nightsky2

She claims to have forgotten that Geoff Aberdein told her that Alex Salmond might be on the point of resigning “my recollection is not as vivid as I would like it to be” funny the things she couldn’t remember. She also claims not to have discussed it with her husband and if you believe that......

Both my spouse and I are are privy to personal details and problems of people we manage. We would never mention them, let alone discuss them.

Do you manage the same organisation? Perhaps it's the field I work in but there are very good reasons why in every where I have worked there are very strict rules about married couples working together. Thst arrangement was always going to end in disaster.

Galaxy

Do you manage the same organisation? Perhaps it's the field I work in but there are very good reasons why in every where I have worked there are very strict rules about married couples working together. Thst arrangement was always going to end in disaster.

No we don't. And I also have a problem with the principle of Sturgeon and Murrell, but I don't like it being attacked by the argument "well, I would have told my husband, so I don't believe anyone else who says they didn't".

Fair do Lemongrove if you did watch all of the Salmond and Sturgeon sessions which were each 6 to 7 hours long. I didn’t have the stamina for that.

Yes I agree Petera, I just dont really know how that situation was ever allowed to happen.

Quote from an article in the Holyrood Magazine. You can read the full thing online written by Prof James Mitchell

“ Nicola Sturgeon ‘s Government has failed . It failed women complainants. It failed the Parliament in its consistent refusal to share relevant information. It failed the public in allocating large sums of money on a legal case its advisers warned about. It has failed to be accountable. It has failed to be transparent. This ought to worry us all , including members of the SNP. “

I think if I was the chairman of a company and my husband the managing director I would certainly discuss this sort of issue with him. It would be remiss (and possibly irresponsible) not to.

varian

I think if I was the chairman of a company and my husband the managing director I would certainly discuss this sort of issue with him. It would be remiss (and possibly irresponsible) not to.

We have a SME and I cannot remember a time when any business/employee issues were not discussed between us.

Cathymac

Quote from an article in the Holyrood Magazine. You can read the full thing online written by Prof James Mitchell

“ Nicola Sturgeon ‘s Government has failed . It failed women complainants. It failed the Parliament in its consistent refusal to share relevant information. It failed the public in allocating large sums of money on a legal case its advisers warned about. It has failed to be accountable. It has failed to be transparent. This ought to worry us all , including members of the SNP. “

Yes it was a failure, and as admitted by Sturgeon a catastrophic failure and it worries me. But let’s then think of the choice this presents to voters in any future referendum

1.Support a government that has wasted at least ½ million pounds and let down two women badly – and has admitted it, or
2.Support a government that has wasted 22 billion pounds on useless track and trace thus causing countless excess deaths - and won’t even look into it

Sturgeon has sat through an 8-hour broadcast grilling by the committee and, whether or not you like her answers, can you imagine Johnson doing that?

And let’s just put this sums into context:

•½ million pounds – about 10p for each man, woman and child in Scotland
•22 billion pounds – over 300 pounds for each man, woman and child in the UK
•22 billion pounds – over 30 000 pounds for each nurse in the NHS instead of a paltry 1% pay rise
•22 billion pounds – more than 10 times the entire cost of NASA’s Perseverance Rover project.

It's all a bit fishy isn't it?

SNP have wasted a great deal of money on the hospitals, ferries, BiFab and failed airport fiascos. That's before you consider what their policies have done to education and wasted the futures of the next generation. Why are they refusing to publish the findings of the study of education in Scotland until after the election? Not publishing unfavourable documents is becoming a bit of a hallmark here!

Petera. I think every government has made mistakes...but not trying to defend Boris.
Construction of Scottish ferries scandal. .. instead of £97 million will cost double
Botched implementation of Scottish public sector computer systems have cost taxpayers £250 million
Edinburgh sick Children’s Hospital cost taxpayers at least £25 million while it was not in use.
All I’m trying to say is no Government is perfect and I agree it is difficult to know who to vote for . Anyway this is not what this thread is about. Think somehow we have gone off topic

Cathymac

*Petera*. I think every government has made mistakes...but not trying to defend Boris.
Construction of Scottish ferries scandal. .. instead of £97 million will cost double
Botched implementation of Scottish public sector computer systems have cost taxpayers £250 million
Edinburgh sick Children’s Hospital cost taxpayers at least £25 million while it was not in use.
All I’m trying to say is no Government is perfect and I agree it is difficult to know who to vote for . Anyway this is not what this thread is about. Think somehow we have gone off topic

I agree. But also I have only posted one of this Westminster government mistakes - eyewatering as it is. If anyone wants a costed list of all of them I'm happy to put some work into it.

As for the thread I (respectfully) disagree: part of the title is "what impact on the Scots regarding Indy2?"

Petera Yes you are correct . I had forgotten about the 2nd part of the title referring to Indy2.

Continuing the discussion about the impact on Indy2..
John Swinney , the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has confirmed today that there are no minutes of certain meetings between Nicola Sturgeon, the permanent Secretary Leslie Evans and the Scottish Government Legal counsel about the investigation into Alex Salmond .
John Swinney is responsible for handing all relevant minutes to the investigating committee who still haven’t received them all . Swinney says he cannot give the details as there were no formal notes. Surely the Legal Counsel must have notes and taking minutes at a meeting is basic procedure. Can anyone enlighten me ? What do you think ? Incompetence or cover up ?