Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

So many words, and yet you failed to answer the question.

It was the first electoral trial of it's kind where an MP was on trial for electoral conduct. Not for smearing an opponent during an election campaign. But for lying about his own conduct in order to affect an election result.

Hope that answers things for you in terms of what makes it unique. The rest of your last post was just full of, well, missing the point completely. Like Clapton who's gone off on a tangent.

Carmichael wasn't in trial for lying. He was on trial for trying to affect and undermine a democratic election result. He won his seat by 800 votes. There are many opinion he wouldn't have done so should all the facts have been known before GE day. Facts he kept to himself despite a full inquiry going on and tv camera's asking him straight out what he knew.

elantan

Och he won't understand that Shake ... can you maybe make it easier for him to understand ? Do you have pictures maybe ? Really simple ones ?

I've noticed these unionists really can't understand complicated ... complicated is just .... ugggggg ... my brain hurts


it's like


England pays for Scotland
.. we subsidise you ... whine whine whine moan moan moan ....


White noise


I'm at the yawn stage now


Not feeling much love for people who voted for trident and murdering people just now tbh

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It was the first electoral trial of it's kind where an MP was on trial for electoral conduct. Not for smearing an opponent during an election campaign. But for lying about his own conduct in order to affect an election result.

Hope that answers things for you in terms of what makes it unique. The rest of your last post was just full of, well, missing the point completely. Like Clapton who's gone off on a tangent.

Carmichael wasn't in trial for lying. He was on trial for trying to affect and undermine a democratic election result. He won his seat by 800 votes. There are many opinion he wouldn't have done so should all the facts have been known before GE day. Facts he kept to himself despite a full inquiry going on and tv camera's asking him straight out what he knew.

Carmichael was a liar and cheat

however do you think that at a SNP rally/conference, you could reasonably trust the specific allegation of a Scottish NHS consultant when addressing issues of the NHS ; would you reasonable assume their views were well researched and accurate or would you assume they were just pub chat?
Would you ever trust a SNP person ever again?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Carmichael was a liar and cheat

however do you think that at a SNP rally/conference, you could reasonably trust the specific allegation of a Scottish NHS consultant when addressing issues of the NHS ; would you reasonable assume their views were well researched and accurate or would you assume they were just pub chat?
Would you ever trust a SNP person ever again?

Whitford wasn't an MP or standing for election at the time. However, the full facts of her history were known at the time she did stand. It was up to the voters to decide whether they trusted her or not.

She won, fair and square. Carmichael's constituent's however, were kept in the dark over the full facts ( which he himself was aware of ) when he stood. There's a difference.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Whitford wasn't an MP or standing for election at the time. However, the full facts of her history were known at the time she did stand. It was up to the voters to decide whether they trusted her or not.

She won, fair and square. Carmichael's constituent's however, were kept in the dark over the full facts ( which he himself was aware of ) when he stood. There's a difference.

Now that reminds me of the Neverendum 1 a year back when some Scots voted for the SNP on the basis of a White Paper full of BS where, for example, the fall in oil prices was evident well before the end of the referendum campaigns yet they were not told the truth by the SNP. And now the SNP follow the same approach by ignoring all calls to state the economics of what they will do with the new Devolution powers, let alone what the economics would be like in a separated Scotland. They resort instead to spurious claims about the vow not being met (aka Smith not conforming to their wish list) and the Smith report not being followed, again without valid detail.

So if you are really keen that the electorate should be told the truth, start in your own playground, Shakey.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Whitford wasn't an MP or standing for election at the time. However, the full facts of her history were known at the time she did stand. It was up to the voters to decide whether they trusted her or not.

Lies don't stop being lies because

(a) the liar is a nationalist or
(b) people voted for them in the full knowledge they're liars

Even on an anonymous forum on an internet backwater you can't bring yourself to condemn the lies of anyone remotely connected to the SNP.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Whitford wasn't an MP or standing for election at the time. However, the full facts of her history were known at the time she did stand. It was up to the voters to decide whether they trusted her or not.

She won, fair and square. Carmichael's constituent's however, were kept in the dark over the full facts ( which he himself was aware of ) when he stood. There's a difference.

the sad truth is that she was selected BECAUSE she was willing to lie for the cause.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

Lies don't stop being lies because

(a) the liar is a nationalist or
(b) people voted for them in the full knowledge they're liars

Even on an anonymous forum on an internet backwater you can't bring yourself to condemn the lies of anyone remotely connected to the SNP.

I think you missed the 10 pages of discussion on Phillipa Whitford on a thread like this at the time. I for one can't be bothered going round the mulberry bush with Clapton once again on this one.

Carmichael is the MP we were discussing. Since he's the one in the news at the moment. Not Whitford.. who was discussed here extensively, when SHE was in the news. Get it ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Now that reminds me of the Neverendum 1 a year back when some Scots voted for the SNP on the basis of a White Paper full of BS where, for example, the fall in oil prices was evident well before the end of the referendum campaigns yet they were not told the truth by the SNP. And now the SNP follow the same approach by ignoring all calls to state the economics of what they will do with the new Devolution powers, let alone what the economics would be like in a separated Scotland. They resort instead to spurious claims about the vow not being met (aka Smith not conforming to their wish list) and the Smith report not being followed, again without valid detail.

So if you are really keen that the electorate should be told the truth, start in your own playground, Shakey.

Many Scots voted on the basis that they felt Scotland would be better run from Holyrood. Like most countries are with their own parliaments. There's not many about these days happy to be run from the country next door. I'm not quite sure why you don't get that.. but hey ho.

You'll be hearing it all again shortly via the EU referendum.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think you missed the 10 pages of discussion on Phillipa Whitford on a thread like this at the time. I for one can't be bothered going round the mulberry bush with Clapton once again on this one.

Carmichael is the MP we were discussing. Since he's the one in the news at the moment. Not Whitford.. who was discussed here extensively, when SHE was in the news. Get it ?

No, we are discussing your faux outrage about the SNP not getting the 'right' verdict in a court of law. (I'm sure the SNP will sort that out after independence)

Also we are discussing the relative seriousness of the offence of Carmichael and Whitford and the SNP's moral values (or lack of them).