Nicola Sturgeon - whither the SNP

Is Sturgeon's time as First Minister of Scotland coming to an end

  • Yes - she is dooomed

    Votes: 155 49.1%
  • No - this is just a storm in a tea cup

    Votes: 30 9.5%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 43 13.6%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 88 27.8%

  • Total voters
    316
It's pretty damning stuff that. The fact that they deliberately held that back prior to Shiteface (PBUH) going to committee is also damning.
I presume the committee can recall her, but will they dare to?

I suspect not, if their performance the other day is anything to go by.
 
It's pretty damning stuff that. The fact that they deliberately held that back prior to Shiteface (PBUH) going to committee is also damning.
Will they recall her, after all for someone who knew nothing and thought they “could have won part” of it and it was “just one part we conceded on, and remember it wasn’t tested” it literally has her name all over it.

TBH a VONC for Swinney could hold some water.
 
Been trying to get interest in this JKMCS for years, but unless you're up to your nuts in NHSE/I guts it won't fly.
We were quite apprehensive about it to begin with and it took a while to bed in. But it is, at least from my perspective, an excellent system. It vastly reduced our "in tray" work. The clinicians seem to like it too.
 
We were quite apprehensive about it to begin with and it took a while to bed in. But it is, at least from my perspective, an excellent system. It vastly reduced our "in tray" work. The clinicians seem to like it too.
There are ways and means to reduce admin, increase 'visibility', plan resources, but the NHS seems to be stuck in the last Century. We've approached dozens of Trusts, CCGs, AHSNs, and all we get is "who else is using it, and what do THEY think of it?"
 
There are ways and means to reduce admin, increase 'visibility', plan resources, but the NHS seems to be stuck in the last Century. We've approached dozens of Trusts, CCGs, AHSNs, and all we get is "who else is using it, and what do THEY think of it?"
There's a reason for that. A lot of NHS managers, myself included, have had their fingers burnt in the past by suppliers who over promised. I, personally, would point blank refuse to accept anything into my department without having spoken to other "customers" regarding their experience first of all. I've dodged more than one bullet thanks to that.
 
Kin 'ell. At first glance that's proper holed below the water line stuff. Good.
Yes, but would have been far better prior to the evil witch of the West (PBUH) having to give evidence. I wonder why that particular part was left out prior......

They absolutely reek of corruption. A vile, twisted cancerous lesion that needs excised. TBH I would honestly raise a glass if someone decided to introduce her (PBUH) head to something beginning with 7.62.
 

giatttt

War Hero
Yes, but would have been far better prior to the evil witch of the West (PBUH) having to give evidence. I wonder why that particular part was left out prior......

They absolutely reek of corruption. A vile, twisted cancerous lesion that needs excised. TBH I would honestly raise a glass if someone decided to introduce her (PBUH) head to something beginning with 7.62.
Don't hold back, go full Kim and dish out some 23mm AA
 

giatttt

War Hero
There are ways and means to reduce admin, increase 'visibility', plan resources, but the NHS seems to be stuck in the last Century. We've approached dozens of Trusts, CCGs, AHSNs, and all we get is "who else is using it, and what do THEY think of it?"
The dirty secret of IT is that it does not scale at all and economies of scale do not exist. Today the project manager fail was rolling out new laptops in two weeks - start to finish including disposal of all the existing ones. I explained that we were going to deliver 100 articulated lorries and could not do that in the time allocated in the morning of day one.
 
Don't hold back, go full Kim and dish out some 23mm AA
Keep talking like that and I'll just end up getting erect again.

In all seriousness, and again FF touched on this, politics has become so polarised in Scotland and the rhetoric deliberately ramped up and up, it's only a matter of time until something goes pop.
 

Old and Grumpy

Old-Salt
Plough on regardless



This release of the latest legal documents is dynamite. As the Wings chap makes out rather crudely Roddy Dunlop is in effect saying “You (government) are a bunch of lying, incompetent assholes and I’m quitting if you don’t get it together.”



Vitally this gives the lie to Sturgeon’s statement on oath that Dunlop and his junior counsel were not incredulous at the government’s stance and that he was not on the brink of resignation due to their intransigence.



IF the Scottish press are on their game (groan) this will be extremely damaging to the cocky little madam.
 
Plough on regardless



This release of the latest legal documents is dynamite. As the Wings chap makes out rather crudely Roddy Dunlop is in effect saying “You (government) are a bunch of lying, incompetent assholes and I’m quitting if you don’t get it together.”



Vitally this gives the lie to Sturgeon’s statement on oath that Dunlop and his junior counsel were not incredulous at the government’s stance and that he was not on the brink of resignation due to their intransigence.



IF the Scottish press are on their game (groan) this will be extremely damaging to the cocky little madam.
Well SUC are all over it expect some sort of VONC next week either against her or Swinney
 
At least they may bring something sensible to the chamber as at the minute the SNP appear to do nothing worthwhile for the U.K.
They're not interested in the UK.

and only ever seem to be interested in saying “Scotland didn’t want/vote for this”.
The operative word, whateffer what effer seems to be emerging.

...... An MP from any party should be looking out for the best interests of the U.K. as a whole and not just continually droning on about independence.
Conflict of interests regarding the snp.
 

Old and Grumpy

Old-Salt
New evidence ties Sturgeon directly to failure of judicial review case and loss of £500,000



Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party press office

Friday, 5 March, 2021

FAO: all newsdesks

Embargo: for immediate release


Devastating new evidence ties Nicola Sturgeon directly to the failure of the judicial review case, showing she continued against the advice of legal counsel and ultimately was responsible for costing taxpayers more than £500,000.

John Swinney has now published more legal advice revealing at least seven new and damning pieces of evidence against the government, just days after the Deputy First Minister claimed that “key legal advice” had already been handed over before Nicola Sturgeon’s Salmond inquiry session.

The latest evidence shows even more examples of the government hiding evidence from their own lawyers and continuing with their case against the advice of Queen’s Counsel.

It reveals that the First Minister and the permanent secretary Leslie Evans both disputed the advice of their lawyers that conceding the case was the “least worst option” a month before they finally conceded. A note said they were “unclear what has changed” despite legal advice from the day before stating they should concede.

When challenged, on 7 December, Roddy Dunlop QC doubled down and told the government that they had two options but “I doubt either will work”. He said one of the approaches was “probably unstatable” and the other had “problems”.

Losing taxpayers’ money by acting against legal advice is a breach of Section 2.30 of the Ministerial Code.

From 10 December, Roddy Dunlop said counsel had grounds to resign. Nicola Sturgeon denied at committee that they had threatened to do so but the new evidence states they considered “very seriously whether we were bound to withdraw from acting” and concluded “we would be entitled to do so withdraw but at this stage are not bound to do so.”

By 17 December, a joint note from both advocates begged the government to concede, warning the First Minister personally against the decision to “plough on regardless” and citing the “large expenses bill” they were running up.

He said that their legal advice had been “discounted”, confirming that the government’s own lawyers feel they ignored legal advice.

Also on 17 December, a joint note suggested the government had not complied with court instructions for six weeks. Despite a judge stressing on 6 November that the government must release documents, Roddy Dunlop wrote that he “could not properly advise the Court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candour.”

The SNP also now claim there are no minutes of the legal consultation on 13 November, which Nicola Sturgeon and the permanent secretary attended personally.

A statable case means only that it meets the minimum requirement to proceed. It does not mean lawyers advise to proceed with the case.

Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said: “These are some of the devastating documents that the First Minister hoped would never get out. The SNP fought two votes in the Scottish Parliament to shut them down and waited until after Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence session to release it.

“It’s beyond dispute that the government hid evidence from their own lawyers and then “discounted” their advice, as Roddy Dunlop QC put it.

“These new documents show Nicola Sturgeon thought she was a better lawyer than Queen’s Counsel. She was emphatically wrong and it cost taxpayers more than £500,000.

“The government was advised to concede a month before they did. Then they ran up an even bigger bill for weeks after they had been told the case was unstatable, the minimum requirement to proceed.

“Their case was doomed from the start but they hid the evidence from their own lawyers, to the embarrassment and utter dismay of Roddy Dunlop QC.

“The fact there are missing minutes from the meeting that Nicola Sturgeon herself attended confirms this is a cover up. Crucial evidence has been hidden.

“The SNP thought Nicola Sturgeon had been exonerated by an evidence session where she failed to answer questions more than 100 times.

“After the revelations of these latest documents, the First Minister’s position is more unstable than ever. These documents are a crushing blow to Nicola Sturgeon’s chances in the Vote of No Confidence.

“We will set out soon how we plan to proceed, considering that John Swinney’s statements this week have been factually inaccurate and he has seemingly still not released all the legal advice, against the will of the Scottish Parliament.”

Notes

Counsel said conceding was the “least worst option
” (Scottish Government, Joint Note by Senior and Junior Counsel, 6 December 2018, link).

Sturgeon and Evans question Roddy Dunlop’s advice of 6 December that conceding was the “least worst option”. Evidence states: “But the Perm Sec, having been aware of these concerns from the previous notes, the meeting with the FM, other advice from SGLD and on her own consideration of the matters and being fully sighted on the options that arise from these concerns and that advice, is unclear – in effect – about what has changed since the last notes and the FM meeting that leads you to write as you do. I understand that the FM has the same question.” (Scottish Government, Further Note on Prospects, 6-7 December 2018, link).

Dunlop responds that there are only two options and ‘I doubt either will work’. “The problem in this regard is the lack of arguments – hence my concerns. The only options are to argue (i) no breach or (ii) breach but its effect does not vitiate. For those reasons given in the Note, I doubt either will work. (i) is probably unstatable. (ii) faces the problems identified in the note.” (Scottish Government, Further Note on Prospects, 6-7 December 2018, link).

Counsel said their advice had been “discounted”, meaning the government ignored legal advice. On 17 December, a joint note states “We are acutely aware that much of this has already been said, and discounted.” (Scottish Government, Joint Note by Senior and Junior Counsel, 17 December 2018, link).

Counsel warned that they had considered ‘very seriously whether we were bound to withdraw from acting’ from 10 December on. They said they were “entitled to do so” but chose to continue. (Scottish Government, Joint Note by Senior and Junior Counsel, 17 December 2018, link).

Counsel warned the FM personally against ‘ploughing on regardless’. On 17 December a joint note states: “Given the potential for harm we simply wish all concerned – and we include the First Minister in this – to be absolutely certain that they wish us to plough on regardless notwithstanding the concerns which we have outlined.” (Scottish Government, Joint Note by Senior and Junior Counsel, 17 December 2018, link).

Counsel warned of the “large expenses bill that will inevitably arise.” (Scottish Government, Joint Note by Senior and Junior Counsel, 17 December 2018, link).

Six weeks after a judge told the government they had to comply with the duty of candour, their lawyers said they had not. “We reached the view that we could not properly advise the Court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candour.” (Scottish Government, Joint Note by Senior and Junior Counsel, 17 December 2018, link).

ENDS
 

Latest Threads

Top