Some more quotes from me on this thread:
Reply 51
I don't know here. Obviously no matter what lese you think of Salmond. he's a very able politician. But by time this is over, he will have been out of mainstream politics for 5 years. say? It's also not the only issue that some in the SNP have had with him, see the RT programme, and then there are his opponents gleefully publishing photos of him looking the worse for wear on a train, and the folks, who even if his legal challenge to the govt gets upheld, and no case is brought forward for criminal proceedings, or any such case results in a not guilty verdict. will think 'no smoke without fire'.
Though not quite in his league, Jim Sillars was once the comet streaking through the darks skies of Scottish politics, and now he has taken up the role from Gordon Wilson of the odd uncle shouting sexist and racist comments from underneath his tartan blanket. There is already a level of discomfort in the friends I have in the SNP over him in his actions here, and elsewhere, that I cannot rule out the same fate for him.
Reply 73
Except the crowdfunding is only for, and can only be for the judicial review. Salmond's language is incorrect, and I would suggest deliberately so. People may well think they are contributing to his defence for some as yet non existent criminal trial and they would be wrong. There's a case to made that any such crowdfunding description needs to be much clearer about what can actually be achieved by what the money is being raised for.
Reply 76 the 'he' in he's wrong is Salmond
yes, and he's wrong. It has nothing to do with any legal defence in any criminal case. It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money. As Andrew Tickell in the link I provided makes clear, it can do nothing to clear his name.
Reply 82 again the'he' here is Salmond
The crowd funding statement finished with
'It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'
That's wrapping up what is good for him with what is good for independence.
That you agree with him when he and you are factually wrong is of no consequence. The legal details are laid out in the Tickell column.
Reply 88
That's his case in part for the judicial review but at this stage we don't know the truth. That he thinks it can clear his name doesn't make him right, and that he may have reasons for portraying it that way even if he thinks it's incorrect needs to be understood. Agani I'll take the Tickell column as a better statement of the law than Salmond's attempt at crowdfunding
Reply 92
And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence. That covers the actoin that he is taking. Also if you want to look at some of the comments on the crowdfunding page, and indeed his support across social media, you will see that many see the judicial review as part of the fight for independence, and I would suggest that Salmpnd, being as ever a canny operator when needed, is using this exactly to his advantage with that statement - as you say, much of this is about using that 'soft' power to his advantage which is precisely why he makes this to do with independence
Reply 112
I think this is where you may be missing the political nuance going on . Let:s start with what we agree on. Salmond's statement is a self serving one designed to raise a wodge of dosh. He doesn't actually need it,, it's a statement of power. And yes you are absolutely right that that power may intimidate any accusers.
But, and here's the nuance, there has been for some time a movement in the SNP that Sturgeon isn't pushing the case for independence strongly enough, l lunatic shouts for UDI. At the same time Salmond's show on RT , following on his previous pash for Putin, has alienated some who are it as likely to win over previous No voters. Salmond, rather like Blair, has made various comments about returning to mainstream politics. The anti gradualists see this as an opportunity. Neither Salmon d, nor Sturgeon would have chosen this as a battlefield but it begins to feel increasingly like that. For anyone understanding this Salmond's 'intention now' to serve independence in that paragraph is a loud dog whistle. r
Equally when Sturgeon replied that she and Salmond were in agreement that independence was bigger than any one person, the sound of the sucking of teeth amongst those involved in Scottish politics was deafening, as it effectively translated into 'Get your tanks off my lawn, old man!'
Reply 113
As I said I take his opinion as more definitive than yours.The judicial review does nothing about Salmond clearing his name and you and Salmond are incorrect on that. By the way, I am struggling to understand why if you think Salmond is acting deviously that you take the words in the statement actually true rather than a deliberate manipulation
Reply 127
There is no ultimate outcome in that sense legally which is the point that Tickell makes which you and Salmond disagree with.
Reply 139
And yet you took the position of disagreeing with Tickell and agreeing with Salmond about what was covered by the judicial review. If you don't disagree with Tickell, then you would accept that in putting forward his case that Salmond was wrong is correct?
Reply 153
And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.
Reply 164
Sorry, I don't see where your post addresses the question. It's about your opinion of Salmond which seems to think that while being self serving, you somehow don't think that he might use people by implying that Independence is wrapped up.in how he his treated. Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic.
Reply 168
This reads as if every women I know in the Yes movement who has questioned Salmond's action and some of the support, including McWhirter who tweeted about Salmond's reputation being lost for a couple of tawdry front pages' and thereby undermining any person making the allegations, is part of the establishment trying to do Salmond down. And while that is a acerbic, it's way off nail on the head.
Reply 170 -again the he is Salmond
And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.
Reply 183
Dearie me! NS doesn't see it as purely about Scottish politics, but NS can understand why your lack of knowledge about it makes you so insecure that you have to misrepresent NS. I think that Salmond is indulging in an abuse of power here, a number of my posts make that clear. Thatthere is a nuance on how he is doing it makes no difference to that point. Kindly stop misrepresenting what is being said.
Reply 397
It tells you nothing other than the verdict. On social media I've seem those supportive of Salmond saying it shows all the women lied, and those not saying how can they be saying that that all the women lied. It says neither of those things.
Salmond is almost an irrelevance now beyond a symbol of what various groups give to him. He's got nothing to move onto other than that.
Reply 438
All such politics is the same, and all such politics is unique.
There is, in many ways, no reason why you should be closely foliowing or concerned with the internecine battles of the SNP. Their success, as is so often the case, brings about division, though the irony of politics is that failure redoubles division.
There is a longstanding division between gradualists and nowists in the SNP which is being played out in a number of ways. The Salmond rape case is one. The Gender Recognition Act reform another. The various constituency battles for who is nominated as an MSP candidate in next year's Holyrood election another. It's become a battle of Salmondites vs Sturgeonites. Each difference magnified by the overall split. In a sense this is Big Endians vs Little Endians - a tragedy of small differences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscuhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differencesThe chance for Scottish independence has never been closer but the very success of the SNP puts that in jeopardy. It is, in the Greek mythological sense, tantalising.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TantalusTo be fair, splits are always a thing in parties even without success. Salmond was, after all, thrown out of the party over 30 years ago and that was when they were not much more than a fringe grouping. No matter the size or success, there will always be the tendency to be The Judean People's Front, and The People's Front of Judea etc etc.
Reply 446
To an extent I agree but there are, as I have covered previously, 2 main splits in policy. The more important is in terms of how to pursue independence with the Salmondites looking for a much more aggressive approach versus the gradualist Sturgeonites. Given it's a party based around independence this is fundamental.
The other area is as regards the reform of the Gender Recognition Act with the Salmondites being much more likely to oppose the reforms.
