bobzmyunkle
Veteran
Yes you have, but what's new?
Come on @Stevo 666, it's a forum. If you're misunderstood, it's your role to help us all understand. Give it a go, you might find it character building.
Yes you have, but what's new?
That there were plenty of people wanting to cling on to Scotland.
You may not have been, which is fine.
But there were plenty who were.
I think a lot of people would still take about £180 per head.Well if you're suggesting reducing the English population to 5 million I could go with that, but it seems a bit extreme.
Yes and I previously said that it was her right. I'm merely making the observation that it is counter to her promises to cooperate fully with the enquiry.
Yes and I previously said that it was her right. I'm merely making the observation that it is counter to her promises to cooperate fully with the enquiry.
Plead the 5th Amendment!
She gave a full written response a few weeks later. And was following solicitor advice at the time. The whole interview thing is not really the issue, other than the press has latched on to it.It most certainly is not contrary to her saying she will co-operate. with enquiries.
Who's desperate to cling onto Scotland? I'm not.

I was thinking more in terms of the entirety of the British political and media ecosystem, rather than some weird little random who styles themself as The Antichrist and posts right-wing bile in the arse-end of an obscure cycling forum.
But It's good that you & I agree about one thing, I guess.![]()

She was interviewed by the Police. Was that interview part of the enquiry?
After Murrell's arrest she said she would cooperate fully with the police. I took this to mean police enquiry. I do actually support the right to remain silent, but I just ask Sturgeon's staunch supporters how she squares the circle of saying she would "Fully cooperate with the Police" but then exercised her right to refuse to answer questions during a 7 hour interview.
Sturgeon had lost popularity because of her politics. She fostered a secretive and aggressive approach. "Shouty" is how I would characterise the SNP. The walls were closing in regarding the gender identity issue, because she positioned everyone who did not agree with everything she said as trans hating, which was deeply unhelpful even for the trans community. When it started to unravel as a few male prisoners decided to declare themselves women to get a nicer place to live, she dug in whilst simultaneously personally intervening to make exceptions. This is not how to govern. That's dictating."Staunch" is an interesting choice of words there, particularly in the context of Scottish politics.
Anyway, it still doesn't seem like we've reached a point of acceptance that Murrell is the c*ntbag here, rather than Sturgeon.
Maybe. Just maybe, it'll click.
Until then, I recommend watching Neil Marshall's superb Mad Max/Escape from New York homage "Doomsday" and fiddle yourselves blind over a UK without Scotland.
Agree. But the outrage now is in part because before it all came to light she actively suppressed investigations into SNP finances.So much wrong here
1. If it was a 7 hour interview, then that would be oppresive and as such would not be admissible in evidence
2. You claim to support the right of silence- yet you are trying to make some wierd contradictory point that apparently someone you seem to have a problem with should not be entitled to the right of silence
3. She did co-operate with the enquiry. She attended the police interviews etc.
4. Everyone in the law in the UK has the right of silence and the right against self- incrimination. Notice that word RIGHT - its not an option of silence or a chance of silence, it is a fundamental human right [ exception being a S2 CJA 1987 interview conducted by the SFO]
I have no time for Nicola Sturgeon at all and personally am glad to see the back of her in politics, but she has same rights as every other person and to exercise those rights is not refusing to co-operate