The Scottish Politics thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
There's knowing and there is getting enough evidence to charge. Two different things.
There's knowing and there is getting enough evidence to charge. Two different things.
Sounds like something Spitty might say about us when we are found innocent ;-)
Sorry. That’s not a fair comparison as she wasn’t charged and we were.
 
There's a big difference between the witch hunt with City and a husband and wife embezzling money. Do you seriously nit think she would have asked why they had bought a 120k motorhome. Would your wife not have asked questions.
It wasn't a husband and wife embezzling money, the police said it wasn't. Don't know about the motor home is it part of the embezzlement charges or was his original explanation accepted. I don't know maybe you do and can enlighten us to what the charges consist of. Even if it does form part of the charges maybe she believed her husbands original explantion, again I don't know I haven't questioned her about it, the police have though, they have made their decision. Take it up with them if you think they have missed something.
 
It wasn't a husband and wife embezzling money, the police said it wasn't. Don't know about the motor home is it part of the embezzlement charges or was his original explanation accepted. I don't know maybe you do and can enlighten us to what the charges consist of. Even if it does form part of the charges maybe she believed her husbands original explantion, again I don't know I haven't questioned her about it, the police have though, they have made their decision. Take it up with them if you think they have missed something.
I think folk are also forgetting that Murrell hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything yet. Let’s see how it plays out and what evidence there is.
 
There's knowing and there is getting enough evidence to charge. Two different things.
There is armchair punditry assumption and passing judgement from the sidelines, and then there is a full lengthy investigation looking for things that can or can't be proven. I doubt they simply asked her and took her word for it.

What's hilarious is the hypocricy here, and the same posters will be arguing the opposite when our case comes back into public.

And yes, the principle is completely comparable.
 
Two completely different cases City and a husband and wife. If you're struggling to see the difference between firstly a couple living in the same house and finances where one apparently knew nothing about her finances or why a 120k motorhome suddenly appeared and then had to be handed back and secondly a multi million pound international business like City then with a paper trail and numerous people involved then that's your problem not mine.

All I will say is, sometimes it's best to be be a bit more open minded. You can still not pull on those SNP pajamas and snuggle up under that saltire duvet with your lassie every night.
 
The two situations aren’t comparable.

I expect the club to be cleared, and therefore no individual at the club will have a case to answer.

With the SNP, as it stands, we’re being asked to believe that one person would be seen as responsible for embezzlement and the broader chaos which appeared to surround its finances, but that someone like Sturgeon knew nothing about it.

Absolutely comical. If someone farted in the SNP HQ car park, she’d probably know about it.
Absolutely comparable.
You just seem to be on different sides in each case.
You looking at Sturgeon may be like a Rag or maybe a neutral supporter looking at City, only going on the media portrayals.
 
If you're struggling to see the difference between firstly a couple living in the same house and finances where one apparently knew nothing about her finances
You do understand it wasn’t the house keeping or a family business ,he’s accused of embezzling, but a political party in which she’d have little involvement in the accounting department?
I see you still have’t answered whether the motor home is part of what he is accused of ?
Let me put it this way, I have a small business with my wife, she does all the accounts and banking she deals with advertising, donations and sponsoring. I wouldn't have the faintest idea whether she was squirrelling away a few quid, or buying a few clothes and new shoes and putting it in the accounts as something else. She’s my wife and I trust she isn’t ,but never crossed my mind to check, nor will I be.
 
You do understand it wasn’t the house keeping or a family business ,he’s accused of embezzling, but a political party in which she’d have little involvement in the accounting department?
I see you still have’t answered whether the motor home is part of what he is accused of ?
Let me put it this way, I have a small business with my wife, she does all the accounts and banking she deals with advertising, donations and sponsoring. I wouldn't have the faintest idea whether she was squirrelling away a few quid, or buying a few clothes and new shoes and putting it in the accounts as something else. She’s my wife and I trust she isn’t ,but never crossed my mind to check, nor will I be.
She definitely knew aboug the motorhome and that got reposssed or returned. Why was that if it was legit? And she definitely knew about that? So how do you explain that one ? She's a bright woman, she knew what was happening. Anyway we are going round in circles here, so that is me finished on this. Have a good one.
 
Two completely different cases City and a husband and wife. If you're struggling to see the difference between firstly a couple living in the same house and finances where one apparently knew nothing about her finances or why a 120k motorhome suddenly appeared and then had to be handed back and secondly a multi million pound international business like City then with a paper trail and numerous people involved then that's your problem not mine.

All I will say is, sometimes it's best to be be a bit more open minded. You can still not pull on those SNP pajamas and snuggle up under that saltire duvet with your lassie every night.
If you are struggling with such fundamental basics of what the accusations and outcome have actually been, best not jump to such solid conclusions.

Or jump away, doesnt really matter.
 
So do you believe the police were incompetent or corrupt ?
The police could be both, either or neither.

But it doesn’t really matter to my argument. Again, the notion that she had no idea what was happening in a party had total control over is simply preposterous.

However I suppose that if people are inclined to believe that Scottish independence is a good idea, and that the SNP are capable of delivering it in good order, then they’re likely to believe quite a lot of things.
 
The police could be both, either or neither.

But it doesn’t really matter to my argument. Again, the notion that she had no idea what was happening in a party had total control over is simply preposterous.

However I suppose that if people are inclined to believe that Scottish independence is a good idea, and that the SNP are capable of delivering it in good order, then they’re likely to believe quite a lot of things.
And there we see the prejudice blinding you to the hypocrisy of not seeing the parallels with how people treat our cases. Of course she didn’t have control of accounts she isn’t an accountant.
 
Not comparable at all. Very distinct in nature for the reasons I’ve outlined.
I’ve no skin in the game, but I interpreted the argument being made to you exactly how I outlined.
I’ve no idea if she is guilty of anything or not and I believe her husband hasn’t been found guilty of anything….. yet.
What I’m talking about is the lack of presumption of innocence, in the media coverage. That and the two different perspectives people take as a result.

If your equivalent of our Dept. of Public Prosecution doesn’t charge her through lack of evidence or otherwise, then the fact is she remains innocent.
You or any part of the British public can think otherwise and I find that very comparable to the City situation. The City situation is a vindictive media campaign that at best is driven by click bait.
I don’t know enough about the media campaign around this Scottish case but for the reasons I’ve outlined, I see comparisons with the public perception.

Either way, I find Scottish politics interesting, but admit ignorance.
 
And there we see the prejudice blinding you to the hypocrisy of not seeing the parallels with how people treat our cases. Of course she didn’t have control of accounts she isn’t an accountant.
It’s not really prejudice to identify the glaring holes in the independence argument, or indeed to highlight how the SNP have failed to address them.

Matters such as monetary policy arrangements, the lender of last resort, assuming the fair share of UK debt, the need for what would be practically unprecedented austerity to comply with the convergence criteria and that’s before we even consider the additional, formidable difficulties presented by the rest of the UK being outside of the customs union and single market.

The SNP have barely attempted to tackle these issues, and so if people are still willing to back their push for independence, it suggests a level of partisan support and a suspension of critical thought.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top