You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I was thinking more of the Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge
I've not read the thread but need to vent at the bias on R4's Today. Gunning for Sturgeon already.
What news/current affairs have less bias? Preferably radio/podcast, I like C4 news but don't want to have to watch telly.
I would have far more sympathy for him tho if he had not merely said ” I was acquitted” and accepted that his behaviour was wrong albeit not criminal
Choice of words likely carefully selected by his legal team. I think we should be clear about this “not criminal” stuff though - if that is true then he has a reasonable gripe that the crown pursued a prosecution. However if, it was true then his lawyers would have made a no case to answer submission before it got to the jury - I can’t recall if they did that (or even if it reportable if the did) but I seem to recall that the crown dropped a couple of charges after the evidence (the Advocat Depute will have assessed the evidence and said it doesn’t stack up) that suggests after all the evidence the crown still believed there was criminality if the jury accepted the crown evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, if the defence didn’t make a no case to answer submission then THEY also accepted that if the jury believed the evidence it was criminal. If they did make a submission then Lady Dorian must have decided that at its highest the crown case would be criminal.
We will never know what the jury’s thinking was, but they didn’t decide his actions were not criminal - they decided that the crown had failed to convince them beyond reasonable doubt that his actions were criminal. That’s a subtle but important distinction - the defence case wasn’t that most of these things didn’t happen, but rather that there was a degree of conspiracy to exaggerate them. Ordinarily juries will dismiss conspiracy theories like the rest of us - but there’s enough mess around the whole debacle to make you think - not that you believe the conspiracy but that bits of the basis for it might be true, and that should be enough to make a jury pause and acquit. It doesn’t mean they though he definitely did not break the law; it doesn’t mean they definitely thought the women were lying; just that there was a risk that they would be making a mistake to convict.
The media reporting / bias is appalling - BBC journalist called-out for blatant mistruths and has apologised on Twitter. Quite apparently an attempt by the Westminster apparatchik to undermine the SNP and influence the outcome of the Scottish Government elections. Obviously appeals to bowler-hatted, sash wearing yoons.
my view
the case against him was thin but the decision was made to prosecute ( independently from the SNP / scottish government) to avoid accusations of bias. If this had been joe bloggs from pilton it would not have been prosecuted
The prosecutors were damned if they did damned if they didn't. Prosecute and Salmond claims malicous prosecution, do not prosecute and face accusations of cover up
I agree with TJ 👋.
I don’t really follow Scottish politics and didn’t follow the criminal case at all, but from what I’ve read the man’s arrogance is truly astounding. Rest of the parties just seem desperate to undermine Sturgeon tbh...
Sturgeons evidence will be interesting. Wednesday IIRC. I wonder how much prominence that will be given and I have no doubt she is going to show Salmond up
In terms of Salmond, I think his lawyer summed him up quite accurately during the train incident.
Scottish government handling has been questionable, but I'm swaying more towards incompetence than malice, but there does seem to be a lack of separation between politicians and bodies that should be running independently.
Sturgeon though, is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
As somebody I know who follows politics quite closely summed it up, her problem is when she unofficially found out, when she officially found out, and when she admitted to finding out.
It's highly unlikely she didn't know who was being investigated, and from quite an early date, but she has gone on record in parliament stating a date she found out.
All anybody needs to do now to discredit her, is to prove she knew before that date.
IIRC she has now corrected that saying she forgot about a short meeting 3 days before
She can avoid damage over this but it will take a good performance on Wednesday and some humility. Basically she needs to say " It was a mistake, it was an honest mistake and I am sorry"
It is pretty funny the people who now believe everything Salmond says, who a few years ago would have automatically disbelieved everything he said.
One thing I spotted, there's a line in that Andrew Neil hatchet job that I also saw repeated in the Daily Mail, that apparently when ordered to produce copies of her official diary to the court they presented completely blank sheets of paper. Has that been picked up by any reliable source? Be amazed if the court would accept it even if they'd tried it...
The partial release of the legal advice given to the Scot Gov would appear to indicate that they were advised months before Salmond's judicial review that there was a real chance that Salmond would win due to the procedural errors. A month before the hearing the Scot Gov's legal advice was that the "Least worst option" was to concede the case. This was ignored and we taxpayes ended up with the bill for Salmond's legal costs.
Sturgeon is up before the committee tomorrow so we will get her side of it then but surely someone, whether it is Sturgeon or one of her inner circle, must take the blame for ignoring this legal advice.
Anyone in Central Edinburgh tonight? I'm just wondering if the helicopter has landed outside Bute House yet.
NS did the right thing when Salmond’s victims spoke up. Lots of politicians in that position would have tried to sweep it under the carpet. It was a shit position for her to be in given how close they’d been over the years. It seems like someone screwed up and didn’t get their new complaints process right - but that doesn’t make it a conspiracy. This is all about Salmond’s ego and him getting revenge because she/the SNP didn’t close ranks to protect him. That’s my view on it, which is not as an SNP voter.
Salmond clearly wanted Sturgeon to sweep it all under the carpet and Salmonds wish that the complaints went to mediation is so clearly wrong. Sexual assault claims should never go to mediation especially when there is a situation like this where its the boss against an employee.
As for the criminal prosecutions - damned if they did and damned if they did not. A very low rate of prosecutions like this ever get to court and an even smaller % are successful. But imagine the fury from the unionist press if there had not been a prosecution
Salmonds admitted behaviour is abhorrent and the idea that because a court found him not guilty that everything was consensual is just wrong. IIRC one of the cases was found " not proven" which is far from what he is trying to claim
The whole thing is an awful mess and clearly mistakes were made
The real tragedy is that this has clearly now split the party and the infighting within the party has reached labour in the 70s / 80s proportions and the main effect of Salmonds desire for revenge is that the independence cause has been damaged.
the idea that Sturgeon does not want independence is laughable as are the various people who claim she should have moved to independence by some unspecified mechanism earlier is just nonsense.
The idea that this is some huge conspiracy against Salmond is also nonsense. To what end? He was no longer an elected member of any parliament and his political career was over
Judge a man by the company he keeps and much of the support for him seems to me to be from the lunatic end of the party. the bitterness and bile I have seen sprayed around by his supporters says an awful lot
A lot depends on Sturgeons performance today. we will see how that pans out but I expect and hope she does well.
Its long been a belief of mine that any party in power for more than ten years infighting and tensions between parts of the party build up and that 10 years is about as long as any party should remain in power because after than this is what happens
Its long been a belief of mine that any party in power for more than ten years infighting and tensions between parts of the party build up and that 10 years is about as long as any party should remain in power because after than this is what happens
Certainly the case south of the border, though depends on a credible opposition
The whole thing is an awful mess and clearly mistakes were made
By Sturgeon...
The evidence appears to suggest that the case against Salmond was known to be weak, and that she was advised accordingly and decided to press ahead anyway. Directly contradicting her previous statements that she had no hand in it. There are ways that it should've been handled that are probably only clear in hindsight, but we are where we are. I think she has the approval ratings to tough it out, but Salmond isn't going to go away if she does. The only way to really cut him off at the knees, is to resign, and like most politicians who rely on personal popularity, I can't see her doing that.
Ultimately I have sympathy for what's happened, Salmond seems like a bit of creep with a massive chip on his shoulder, but she's not played her hand well.
The evidence appears to suggest that the case against Salmond was known to be weak, and that she was advised accordingly and decided to press ahead anyway.
She had no part of the decision to prosecute and rightly so. NO one is alleging that that I can see
Its the judicial review that Salmond sought and the scottish government fought on beyond any reasonable point where one set of errors were made. who is culpable for that is not yet clear.
The main Error Sturgeon seems to have made is to muddle her role in the SNP and the government and to meet with Salmond while the investigation was ongoing. she should have known better
the other main error is the appointment of someone who had already had contact with the complainants as the investigating officer. who made that decision is not clear to me.
If only the defence witnesses, Roddy Dunlop, Geoff Aberdein and Douglas Hamilton would stop coming up with inconvenient truths, all of this would have been done and dusted by now.
Still, it was refreshing to hear the Lord Advocate argue that resisting a Search Warrant could be justified on "motive". That'll give heart to criminals throughout Scotland.
Inconvenient allegations Scotroutes? also defense witnesses to what? to the orinal allegations or to the mess over the judicial review? If the latter they are not defense witnesses
Regardless of what's happened/happening up to this point with Salmon/Sturgeon/The SNP, the media bias against Sturgeon is absolutely disgusting. But then again, Scotland is used to getting shafted one way or another by the Tories and their "we need to keep the savages in line" mentality.
getting rid of sleazy Salmond by any means, will fly with the voters its the lying that will dent her rep, Im sure she can tough it out.
Is it enough to deny SNP a majority in May?
will be weaponsied extensively then by Andrew Neil etc (who seems to be running the tories No campaign)
the media bias against Sturgeon is absolutely disgusting.
Agreed.
Thing is I'm not sure how much of an effect it has. People are so used to all the usual suspects bleating "SNP Baaad" that I doubt it will change anyone's mind.
Regardless of what’s happened/happening up to this point with Salmon/Sturgeon/The SNP, the media bias against Sturgeon is absolutely disgusting
100% this. It's getting ridiculous now. Has slippery Salmond made a deal with the Tories/media or something? It absolutely stinks!
Is it enough to deny SNP a majority in May?
If labour in Scotland had anything coherent to say then probably. However labour in Scotland are in such a state that its unlikely they will gain any traction. Tories are at around their maximum potential vote anyway and are badly damaged by Brexit and fishing so I expect their vote to fall. I expect the SNP to get around 50% of the vote.
I think much less of Sturgeon for this. the meetings with Salmond no matter what was said are clearly wrong and she did know better given she is a lawyer
She had no part of the decision to prosecute and rightly so
If you believe that, and at the same time, believe this:
The main Error Sturgeon seems to have made is to muddle her role in the SNP and the government and to meet with Salmond while the investigation was ongoing
Then you have some pretty strong cognitive dissonance going on there. I don't doubt that Sturgeon acted "legally" and made sure that appearances gave that impression, I've also no doubt that she took it as the opportunity to sink a PITA ex-politician who was getting on (the executive of the SNP's) nerves and generally making a nuisance of himself. It backfired. I think she'll survive, but if she does, Salmond isn't just going to disappear of into the sunset.
Regardless of what’s happened/happening up to this point with Salmon/Sturgeon/The SNP, the media bias against Sturgeon is absolutely disgusting
100% this. It’s getting ridiculous now. Has slippery Salmond made a deal with the Tories/media or something? It absolutely stinks!
Yup, it has always smelt like a hatchet job,a bit like the the Labour Anti Semitism fiasco.
Thank goodness we have a strong reliable UK goverment to fall back on,no corruption or dodgy dealings down there.
What I find really distressing about all this is the polarisation of the debate. On one hand we have Salmond the poor victim of a huge conspiracy and on the other we have the sainted Sturgeon who can do no wrong.
There are also all sorts of unsavoury types getting tore in to do damage to further their own causes
The truth as always in this sort of mess will be a messy muddle of conflicting opinions. mistakes made all round and a lot of she said / he said nonsense.
One thing that is good about it is that Holyrood is examining this in public. That would not happen in westminster. Holyrood as an institution will come out stronger
Nickc - I have no doubt at all that Sturgeon made a huge blunder in meeting Salmond at all once the allegations were made. She should and did know better but for whatever reason ( and I can only guess) she met with him and more than once.
Thats a huge error tho probably not illegal and that is purely down to her
The idea Sturgeon played any part in the decision to prosecute is absurd in my view and not one that I have seen alleged by any credible source
anyway - I'm off to read her evidence. It will take a good performance to come out of this without serious damage
Yup, it has always smelt like a hatchet job,a bit like the the Labour Anti Semitism fiasco.
If anything it makes the likes of the SNP and Labour rank amateurs when it comes to political hatchet jobs* The similarities and the reason that these plots are somewhat success is that they hold a kernel of truth. I don't think any-one thinks that Sturgeon didn't see this as an opportunity to finally get shot of Salmond...A court case, bought on by his own wandering hands...But to mis-quote Sate Wars, "This isn't the political assassination you're looking for"
As soon as Sturgeon realised that the evidence was weak, she should have done everything she could to have stopped it, to act otherwise casts her in the spotlight she now finds herself caught in. A vindictive witch hunt of her previous mentor and colleague. Successful Political Assassinations shot to kill, and then go over and kick the body to make sure, this one did neither of those things...
* whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your view of politics as a blood sport I guess....
Has slippery Salmond made a deal with the Tories/media or something? It absolutely stinks!
I think he feels badly wronged as he simply does not understand how allegations of this nature are dealt with in the 21st century and he cannot understand that his behaviour was abhorrent.
So from his point of view he is the wronged party here. I think he holds that point of view quite sincerely,
It is also clear that there have been seious errors made and those need to be dealt with. as ever in this sort of thing those errors are multiple and go back a long way. Not just Sturgeon meeting with him and the botched investigation and botched judicial review but also allegations about improper behaviour by Salmond in the past not being dealt with correctly
Has slippery Salmond made a deal with the Tories/media or something?
Indeed. As a v distant spectator the bit that puzzles me is what's in it for Salmond? All issues of principle aside for a moment, he's giving further airing to his bad behaviour whilst damaging the cause of independence and I can't really see why. Unless it's just spectacular pig-headed bloody mindedness?
I don’t think any-one thinks that Sturgeon didn’t see this as an opportunity to finally get shot of Salmond
I certainly do not think that indeed I see this as a very minority view
Were there those who were gleeful at the prospects of Salmonds downfall? - certainly but very few would include Sturgeon in that group
Salmond had been her friend and mentor for a long time. Why would she want to stick the knife in? What is her motivation?
As a v distant spectator the bit that puzzles me is what’s in it for Salmond? All issues of principle aside for a moment, he’s giving further airing to his bad behaviour whilst damaging the cause of independence and I can’t really see why.
You do realise that he is appearing as a witness at an inquiry into the process? He didn't call the inquiry, he has been asked questions and then answered them. Did you expect him to lie to save the blushes of the Scottish Government? He has said nothing until now.
He has said nothing until now
Indeed, it's the media whipping it up.
He has said nothing until now.
Like I say I've not followed this, but did notice that Sturgeon has accused Salmond of making “wild, untrue and baseless claims” about a conspiracy against him, which go beyond a witness making a statement?
Salmond could easily have made far more noise in the press over the last couple of years than he has done
Sturgeon has accused Salmond of making “wild, untrue and baseless claims” about a conspiracy against him,
He has done so. However that quote from Stureon is another error from her where it appears she lost her patience under hostile questioning at the covid briefing ( I think it was a covid briefing?)
She should not have made that statement even tho its basically true IMO
He's a sleazy disgrace - period. Deeply disappointing he's not seeing the inside of a jail cell for his disgusting conduct.
He needs deplatforming ASAP, the amount of public money getting sunk into this is wild.
Ah. The jury got it wrong too. I forgot to add that earlier.
And the judge looking at the ScotGov procedure.
Indeed, it’s the media whipping it up.
Aye Sarah Smith I'm looking at you
she lost her patience under hostile questioning at the covid briefing
She's one of the most skilled politicians of her generation. This was a lapse?
Yes I am sure. Her temper lets her down on occasion. there is a reason she is known as "wee nippy" by some. she certainly is a nippy sweetie
Ah. The jury got it wrong too. I forgot to add that earlier.
And the judge looking at the ScotGov procedure.
Oh come on , you don't really believe that the no guilty verdict means that his conduct was beyond reproach . If there was any kind of conspiracy or if even sturgeon just wanted him gone the only reason that could happen was because of his own inability to behave properly around women. No one's coming out of this with any credit but people shouldn't forget what started all this .
One of the verdicts was "not proven"
Because it was not found to meet the criminal standard of proof does not mean his behaviour was acceptable. He was rightly acquitted because he said / she said is not enough to convict "beyond reasonable doubt"
If I had done on works time what he has admitted to I would have been rightly sacked.
To me Salmond simply does not understand that behaviour like his is not acceptable in the 21st century
@tjagain, you forget you work in the NHS, where decency and standards are still a thing.
One of the verdicts was “not proven”
And the other 13 charges / 8 complainants?
If I had done on works time what he has admitted to I would have been rightly sacked.
How could you be sacked by an employer you no longer work for?
So one is ok then is it? The man is an odious toad!
Scotroutes - I do still work for them ( just)
The point is that if I had done what salmond has admitted then I would rightly have been sacked. Just making the point that you do not have to be found guilty in a criminal court for you behaviour to have been wrong
the other complaints he was found not guilty as the criminal standard of proof was not met.
Do you really think that his behaviour that he admitted to was acceptable? thats setting aside the contested allegations but just judging his behaviour on what he admitted he had done?
I think the point that scotroutes is making, is that at the time of the admission he no longer “worked” for the snp
One of the verdicts was “not proven”
there is no legal distinction between not proven and not guilty. As the judge will have explained to the jury they have the same outcome and legal meaning.
the other complaints he was found not guilty as the criminal standard of proof was not met.
You are aware that there were defence witnesses refuting the allegations? This wasn't all he said / she said stuff.
Salmond’s just pxxsed off at Sturgeon for not repaying the favour he did for her keeping her skeletons in the closet for the last 20 odd years. Unfortunately for him political and social attitudes have changed in that regard. There may well have been procedural faults during all this but ultimately it comes down to an old dinosaur’s ego and inability to move with the times.
I get the sense that the Convener and Deputy Convener do not like each other!
her skeletons in the closet for the last 20 odd years
What's this?
Scotroutes - do you think Salmonds admitted behaviour is acceptable?
there is no legal distinction between not proven and not guilty. As the judge will have explained to the jury they have the same outcome and legal meaning.
Except the standard text on Scottish criminal procedure states that juries should not be told anything about the meaning of "not proven" (as per Renton and Brown: Criminal Procedure according to the Law of Scotland, 6th edn (1996) para 18-79.41.) and mock jury trials examining this exact thing show that 70% of jurors thing that "not proven" should be the verdict given in cases where they think the accused is guilty but there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
"Not proven" may well be the same as "not guilty" in the legal sense but a from the jury's viewpoint a "not proven" verdict is likely to mean that 70% of them thought he was guilty.
Purely based on the amount of airtime that the BBC are devoting to this - every channel, every bulletin and appears they're being fed 'talking points' from 'Whitehall sources' to try and undermine the SNP. If only they applied the same amount of vigour to grilling Tory ministers, but 1.2 million dead, spiralling national debt, failed track and trace and stuffing public money into the pockets of your chums doesn't merit the same degree of scrutiny.
I have to say the openness with which Holyrood has approached this is a refreshing contrast to Westminster and I believe that ( hope that?) Holyrood comes out of this stronger.
there clearly are significant issues that this has highlighted. the blurred lines between SNP internal matters and Scottish government matters, the dual role of James Wolfe, the investigating officer having prior contact in breach of the procedure and the altogether too cosy relationships in the scottish establishment.
What’s this?
Closet should be enough of a clue.
Old Satan was on fine form during his questioning. Tore them up for arse paper.
I can't stick him but you cannot deny his talents. Slimy ****.
Deeply disappointing he’s not seeing the inside of a jail cell for his disgusting conduct.
What conduct that required jailing ?
Wee jimmy looks like she might crumble. She seemed to me to be a bit struggling to tie her stories together.
And to suggest she "had only an uneasy feeling" about possible allegations is utter bullshit. She knew every minutiae of what was being said and by whom. It would be stupid to believe otherwise.
I have no doubt she is going to show Salmond up
Might have to wait on that a bit longer.
1.2 million dead
really? in the UK?
swavis
Full Member100% this. It’s getting ridiculous now. Has slippery Salmond made a deal with the Tories/media or something? It absolutely stinks!
Nah, it just so happens that they have shared agendas. SNP BAAAAD means that Salmond GOOOOOD now. It doesn't have to be any more complex or any more conspiracey-ish than that. SNP have given them a bit of an opportunity and of course they're going to take it.
it's 0.125 million dead.
Closet should be enough of a clue.
Classy 🙄
Ah the joys, some definite Daily Mail devotees on here eh !
“Not proven” may well be the same as “not guilty” in the legal sense but a from the jury’s viewpoint a “not proven” verdict is likely to mean that 70% of them thought he was guilty.
No Scottish juries make decisions by simple majority so if 70% said guilty it should/would have been guilty.
The Jury Manual provides judges with suggested words to use, e.g.
"You must return a verdict on each charge separately. And, where there are more than one accused on a charge you must return a separate verdict on each accused on that charge.
"There are three verdicts you can return on any charge: Guilty, not guilty, or not proven.
"Not guilty and not proven are verdicts of acquittal and have the same effect. An accused acquitted of a charge cannot be prosecuted again on that charge, save in exceptional circumstances, and it makes no difference whether the acquittal verdict is not guilty or not
proven.
"It’s not necessary that your verdict is unanimous, it can be by a majority. But for any verdict of guilty, there must be at least eight of you, an absolute majority of your whole number (originally, not of those who remain) in favour of that."
The advice in Renton and Brown is (to my view) not that juries should be not be told anything about the meaning - but rather that judges should probably avoid falling into the trap of trying to draw a distinction between the two - exactly the same as anyone here should avoiding inferring that a person found not proven is more guilty than those found not guilty.
The nature of the jury room is such we will never why they reached that verdict or what message they may have been trying to convey with the different verdicts.
I don't think anyone, even Mr Salmond himself, has suggested that his behaviour at all times was proper. But actually that admitted behaviour applies to many of the charges not just the one he was found not proven on.
Closet should be enough of a clue.
Classy 🙄
To be fair. You were the one who asked
To be fair. You were the one who asked
He asked for someone to make a bigoted attempt at humour?
No humour was intended. Not that that will stop you and your slurs.
No humour was intended.
So you are saying the skeleton in Sturgeon's closet is that she is a lesbian?
I hate to tell you but being a lesbian isn't going to do as much damage to her political career as you might hope.
Anyway, what's the source of your information that she is a lesbian?
That rumour has been about forever. I'm not believing you haven't heard it.
And I would hope that if it was true it would make no difference to anyones career.
I actually hate homophobic attitudes.
See that wee comment "you might hope" That marks you out as a snidey small man.
Well, it looks like telling bigots where they can go gets you a warning now.
If the mods think it's acceptable to call travellers 'abnormal' and suggest that there is something shameful about being a lesbian then STW is not the place for me anymore.
It's all yours, brads.
I don’t think anyone, even Mr Salmond himself, has suggested that his behaviour at all times was proper.
Looks like we have a new leader in the 2021 Understatement of the Year trophy!
call travellers ‘abnormal’ and suggest that there is something shameful about being a lesbian
Niether of which was said or done by me, but carry on with making the narrative suit your agenda.
And another slur before you go. Well done, you must feel so small.
That rumour has been about forever. I’m not believing you haven’t heard it.
Sounds like classic Yoon nonsense, no doubt related to the fact she's never had children.
I've never once heard this "rumour" but thankfully I don't associate with the kind of people that believe it or spread it
brads
Full Member
I said they want no part in normal society and normal rules do not apply to them.
If that’s abnormal then so be it. I know plenty abnormal peopel who aren’t Gypsies.I wouldn’t want any of them as neighbours.
For context, amazing how you spout shite like that and then you are the victim.
I don't like or dislike Salmond or Sturgeon. But the problem is that they have been at the top of Scottish politics for a long time. Good or bad, I don't know. However if you stand long enough in the public eye, then eventually you become a target for everything. In Salmond's case his behaviour towards women is inexcusable today. But it is not criminal and this has been shown in a trial.
What is being examined here is the Scottish Government's role in the matter and why it cost the taxpayer a cool £500,000 in payments to Salmond plus the states own costs. Most people these day's see SNP and Scottish Government as one and the same. From the various testimonies it appears that some in the SNP and administration have the same problem.
Sturgeon has tried to point out that Salmond is an odious little toad (and he probably is) but that is not the point of this enquiry - as she knows. She is known for a her attention to detail and being able to absorb lots of information. So for her to claim that she forgot about meetings or that she was not sure if the were Government or SNP business is stretching her creditability.
The other problem is that for many people she is the SNP. She has had lots of very positive airtime with the main stream media for her handling of the pandemic. She is recognised by virtually all of the MSM as one of the leading politicians of her time across the UK. But that does not mean that the MSM should not dig into this in detail. As the leader of the SNP and Scottish Government and the most prominent supporter of an Independent Scotland, this enquiry is big news. And rightly it is getting the headlines. Across all of the media. Even in those titles that support her.
Sturgeon has had a fantastic run, but it is coming to an end. Just because she has been in power for so long. And like most leaders, leaving is unlikely to be at her choosing. It is normally death from a 1000 cuts. She may survive this. She will probably win the next Scottish election, but some of her credibility is draining away. And if the enquiry reports that she did mislead parliament then she is a dead weight.
sadmadalan
Full MemberSturgeon has had a fantastic run, but it is coming to an end.
doubt that very much tbh.
So do I , but she didn't come across all that great.
I suspect watching the old master at work got her worried before she even walked into the room.
Amazingly popular though and as of yet, Scotland has no meaningful opposition to oust her party and I doubt her party will oust her.