Jump to content

Alex salmond scandal


Fudger

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mclean07 said:

Just checking. No response to recent posts, other than from the Head Zoomer. Another set of arguments won with facts :) 

Gordon seems to admit that he was part of the problem Mclean. The FSA which he set up in 1997 were heavily criticised. Not such a super hero after all.

Gordon Brown has admitted he made a "big mistake" over the handling of financial regulation in the run-up to the banking crisis of 2008.

The former prime minister told a US conference he had not realised the "entanglements" of global institutions.

He said: "We set up the FSA [the City regulator] believing the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution. That was the big mistake.

"We didn't understand just how entangled things were."

Mr Brown said he had to "accept my responsibility" but added he was not the only one who had made mistakes.

Addressing the Institute for New Economic Thinking in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, Mr Brown he had come under "relentless pressure" from the City not to over-regulate.

"We know in retrospect what we missed. We set up the Financial Services Authority (FSA) believing that the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution," he said.

"So we created a monitoring system which was looking at individual institutions. That was the big mistake.

"We didn't understand how risk was spread across the system, we didn't understand the entanglements of different institutions with the other and we didn't understand even though we talked about it just how global things were, including a shadow banking system as well as a banking system.

"That was our mistake, but I'm afraid it was a mistake made by just about everybody who was in the regulatory business."

'Incomplete understanding'

Mr Brown said the banking meltdown had forced a rethink of financial regulation "in its entirety".

"I have got to accept my responsibility and I do, and I have been very open about saying we made mistakes on that," he said.

"But in a world where the understanding of what global meant was incomplete, I think many writers as well as many regulators made exactly the same mistake."

The FSA, which Mr Brown established on his first day as chancellor in 1997, was widely criticised for its part in the banking collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Nope its only implied in your head.  

So why is the fact the investigators are Tory supporters relevant? If you think it was them who leaked the story the implication is clearly there.

If you said "the night sky", would my inference that you meant the sky to which you referred was black be unjustified. You never said it was black after all. Could I be guilty of just leaping to conclusions?

Edited by gdevoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RAG said:

i've no knowledge of what he's talking about but given the abundance of false flag SNP CIVIL WAR headlines that are clearly politically motivated, never mind the initial leak or where it came from that led to the reporting on the subject. this is clearly a politically motivated case now its in action.  You could hardly say the consequences - if the case against salmond is upheld  - would be "unpolitical" in scotland at present. 

The due process designed and implemented by TWO civil servants with serious links to senior Tories isn't a proper process it doesn't allow the accused access to information to properly defend themselves. 

This is about the political motivation of the process, not the subsequent leaks which were clearly political. If Beaker doesn't think the process is politically motivated why mention the politics of those involved?

Confused from Edinburgh :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gdevoy said:

The due process designed and implemented by TWO civil servants with serious links to senior Tories isn't a proper process it doesn't allow the accused access to information to properly defend themselves. 

This is about the political motivation of the process, not the subsequent leaks which were clearly political. If Beaker doesn't think the process is politically motivated why mention the politics of those involved?

Confused from Edinburgh :)  

That's the additional juice you get on stories from the internet isn't it?!   Or maybe I missed the supposed links in the MSM to senior Tories?

Besides, it seems the process Salmond's going to court about was clearly flawed and not investigated within a reasonable amount of time, as per procedure in that sort of situation.

Yet that's not really how it's being reported. 

There's a historical precedent for political motivation if you believe the politics of Scotland mirror to an extent that of Ireland before their independence.  I cite irish home rule/ scots devo max and the vow in 2014 as a belter of an example of the WM playbook. Was some leading Irish nationalist politician that got caught in a similar sex / smear / dirty tricks / scandal in the early 20c.

That wee bit of history, or indeed the blokes name I cant recall, but I'll read up on it in due course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gdevoy said:

So why is the fact the investigators are Tory supporters relevant? If you think it was them who leaked the story the implication is clearly there.

If you said "the night sky", would my inference that you meant the sky to which you referred was black be unjustified. You never said it was black after all. Could I be guilty of just leaping to conclusions?

As I said the choice of first case and the leaks i believe were entirely politically motivated.   The process isn't, it's just a clusterf**k of McCarthyism in statute, the leak made sure the accused was judged in the court of public opinion, which was then added to by the unionist press and their SNP civil war pish.

It's all classic WM tactics, but Scotland or most of it is wise to this now and it doesn't work.

I am somewhat confused though as you seem to think that if we were independent then WM could gerrymander some reason to bring us back into the union, but aren't sneaky enough to gerrymander something like this?

It's a little naive don't you think?  Yes it may also be a little paranoid bit I honestly wouldn't put ANYTHING past WM, they have 300 odd years of precious with stuff like this in all sorts of countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

As I said the choice of first case and the leaks i believe were entirely politically motivated.   The process isn't, it's just a clusterf**k of McCarthyism in statute, the leak made sure the accused was judged in the court of public opinion, which was then added to by the unionist press and their SNP civil war pish.

It's all classic WM tactics, but Scotland or most of it is wise to this now and it doesn't work.

I am somewhat confused though as you seem to think that if we were independent then WM could gerrymander some reason to bring us back into the union, but aren't sneaky enough to gerrymander something like this?

It's a little naive don't you think?  Yes it may also be a little paranoid bit I honestly wouldn't put ANYTHING past WM, they have 300 odd years of precious with stuff like this in all sorts of countries.

I am completely satisfied the leaks were politically motivated and that somebody at Westminster was, in all likelihood, behind them. I'd like to add here that, while I cannot speak for anyone else, how Alex Salmond behaves in the company of women has no bearing whatever on my decision on whether to support independence or not. And I resent the fact that somebody at Westminster may have tried to insult my intelligence by coming up with this leak wheeze.

Where I have a problem is with the notion that decision to investigate AS in the first place was "political". I have enough belief in Wee Nicola that I would expect her to cry foul very loudly if she though the allegations were entirely a fabrication. So far everything she has done indicates she has faith in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gdevoy said:

Where I have a problem is with the notion that decision to investigate AS in the first place was "political". I have enough belief in Wee Nicola that I would expect her to cry foul very loudly if she though the allegations were entirely a fabrication. So far everything she has done indicates she has faith in the process.

She doesn't really have much choice at the moment   if she said the process was wrong, everyone cries foul and says she is protecting eck.  No win situation really so she has to let the thing run.

Edited by Beaker71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorro said:

I don’t think it would be appropriate for any politician to prejudge the outcome of any inquiry. 

If they had proof that an inquiry was not in fact an inquiry but, as breaker suggests a political manoeuvre by Wwestminster, I'd expect wee Nicola to be screaming from the rooftops.

As it stands I believe the enquiry is in response to a genuine complaint. And wee Nicola just has to sit on her hands. The leak was clearly political IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, gdevoy said:

If they had proof that an inquiry was not in fact an inquiry but, as breaker suggests a political manoeuvre by Wwestminster, I'd expect wee Nicola to be screaming from the rooftops.

As it stands I believe the enquiry is in response to a genuine complaint. And wee Nicola just has to sit on her hands. The leak was clearly political IMO.

You don’t think it can be both? If the woman feels she’s been sexually assaulted, I applaud her courage in reporting it. However, both the accuser and the accused should have been afforded anonymity during the investigation. That is Scottish Government policy. For whatever reason, Alex Salmond’s name and the nature of the investigation was leaked to the Daily Record and a well known Labour supporting political journalist. It has done nothing to help the accuser and has quite possibly been prejudicial to the accused. 

Now I’m not going to go down the Beaker route of thinking it’s some kind of master plan by Westminster to damage the SNP. However at a time we should be focused on the damage Brexit is about to inflict, we’re discussing possible sexual misconduct, primary one testing, and scallop disputes. I also know that when a magician is waving one hand around, they’re usually up to something with the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Zorro said:

.... both the accuser and the accused should have been afforded anonymity during the investigation.

Here we stumble upon a legal point that does my head in. In any sexual allegations from rap down to sticking a hand up a skirt, the accuser must be afforded anonymity at all times, even should the accusations prove false. However there is no protection afforded to the accused at all.

This seems like a free pass to women to assassinate that character of any man they choose. Not an acceptable situation at all IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19 September 2018 at 10:20 AM, harley said:

Gordon seems to admit that he was part of the problem Mclean. The FSA which he set up in 1997 were heavily criticised. Not such a super hero after all.

Gordon Brown has admitted he made a "big mistake" over the handling of financial regulation in the run-up to the banking crisis of 2008.

The former prime minister told a US conference he had not realised the "entanglements" of global institutions.

He said: "We set up the FSA [the City regulator] believing the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution. That was the big mistake.

"We didn't understand just how entangled things were."

Mr Brown said he had to "accept my responsibility" but added he was not the only one who had made mistakes.

Addressing the Institute for New Economic Thinking in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, Mr Brown he had come under "relentless pressure" from the City not to over-regulate.

"We know in retrospect what we missed. We set up the Financial Services Authority (FSA) believing that the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution," he said.

"So we created a monitoring system which was looking at individual institutions. That was the big mistake.

"We didn't understand how risk was spread across the system, we didn't understand the entanglements of different institutions with the other and we didn't understand even though we talked about it just how global things were, including a shadow banking system as well as a banking system.

"That was our mistake, but I'm afraid it was a mistake made by just about everybody who was in the regulatory business."

'Incomplete understanding'

Mr Brown said the banking meltdown had forced a rethink of financial regulation "in its entirety".

"I have got to accept my responsibility and I do, and I have been very open about saying we made mistakes on that," he said.

"But in a world where the understanding of what global meant was incomplete, I think many writers as well as many regulators made exactly the same mistake."

The FSA, which Mr Brown established on his first day as chancellor in 1997, was widely criticised for its part in the banking collapse.

At least he's big enough to admit it. Nearly everyone else was looking for looser regulation and no one was advocating tighter regulation. The Tories were also pledging to match Labour spending and the Lib Dems wanted to spend more. That made them pinning the blame on Labour all the more sickening, along with the gullible public swallowing the big lie, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mclean07 said:

At least he's big enough to admit it. Nearly everyone else was looking for looser regulation and no one was advocating tighter regulation. The Tories were also pledging to match Labour spending and the Lib Dems wanted to spend more. That made them pinning the blame on Labour all the more sickening, along with the gullible public swallowing the big lie, 

It was the national debt, QE money that went to richest 10% and the bank bailouts - with no additional regulation on bonus' (unlike the eu banking system)  that did it for Labour.  Led to the old left battering the new labour / red tory element of your party from within.  The electorate didn't punish Labour really badly, Tories needed a coalition which killed the Lib Dems, now they need the DUP.  

Remember Gordon Browns massive error with that old granny on the telly during the election campaign where he called her a bigot after she'd complained about what went on to be the Brexit referendum.  labour were, as a workers party, completely out of touch by that point.  13 years in government, these things happen to all parties - SNP perhaps being the exception - the carrot of independence is yet to be achieved.

Still, the tories are yet to have any fall out from their eu / brexit internal fight, but being mostly posh public schoolboys, you'd back them to sort it out and shake hands long before the Labour party ever did.

Labour are now irrelevant in Scotland for different reasons, but that's got little to do with 2008 crash - SNP were on the rise at hollyrood before that.  If you compare Donald Dewar or even Jack McConnell to Richard Leonard there's no comparison, it's not what Labour are saying thats the problem - it's the calibre of labour politician in Scotland thats the fundamental difference to previous generations.

Edited by RAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, RAG said:

Remember Gordon Browns massive error with that old granny on the telly during the election campaign where he called her a bigot after she'd complained about what went on to be the Brexit referendum.  

A clear example of where speaking the truth just gets you in the s**t and encourages politicians to lie all the time.

The woman was a "bigot". Sadly mentioning this to a colleague lost him the bigot vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

A clear example of where speaking the truth just gets you in the s**t and encourages politicians to lie all the time.

The woman was a "bigot". Sadly mentioning this to a colleague lost him the bigot vote.

GB jumped into his Jag and called her a bigot as he drove off - was a classic soundbite example of politicians being two faced - then the apology.

To be fair, it doesn't really matter if she was a bigot or not. 

History now shows her opinions, like many in the working class of english society at the time were completely dismissed by those in WM.  How else is the Brexit vote explained?  Seems unfair in a elitist country like England, so dominated by right wing press, conditioning the natives daily, to decry people as 'bigots' for not using PC terms.  maybe that explains the popularity and rise of Farrage with the pint and the fag - who'd call you a bigot to your face!!!

Thankfully in Scotland UKIP get 2-3%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mclean07 said:

At least he's big enough to admit it. Nearly everyone else was looking for looser regulation and no one was advocating tighter regulation. The Tories were also pledging to match Labour spending and the Lib Dems wanted to spend more. That made them pinning the blame on Labour all the more sickening, along with the gullible public swallowing the big lie, 

Jeez Mclean, we just can't beat you can we. B| We even have GB apologising for the mistakes he made & when are you ever going to admit it Gordon Brown & Tony Blair both loosened bank regulation they didn't tighten it. I can admit that it was a global problem but subsequent Westminster governments didn't help. I thought that the Leeson/ Barings Bank episode would have been a warning sign to them but they just kept chasing short term gains. All they were interested in like Thatcher before them was The City.

Edited by harley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RAG said:

It was the national debt, QE money that went to richest 10% and the bank bailouts - with no additional regulation on bonus' (unlike the eu banking system)  that did it for Labour.  Led to the old left battering the new labour / red tory element of your party from within.  The electorate didn't punish Labour really badly, Tories needed a coalition which killed the Lib Dems, now they need the DUP.  

Remember Gordon Browns massive error with that old granny on the telly during the election campaign where he called her a bigot after she'd complained about what went on to be the Brexit referendum.  labour were, as a workers party, completely out of touch by that point.  13 years in government, these things happen to all parties - SNP perhaps being the exception - the carrot of independence is yet to be achieved.

Still, the tories are yet to have any fall out from their eu / brexit internal fight, but being mostly posh public schoolboys, you'd back them to sort it out and shake hands long before the Labour party ever did.

Labour are now irrelevant in Scotland for different reasons, but that's got little to do with 2008 crash - SNP were on the rise at hollyrood before that.  If you compare Donald Dewar or even Jack McConnell to Richard Leonard there's no comparison, it's not what Labour are saying thats the problem - it's the calibre of labour politician in Scotland thats the fundamental difference to previous generations.

I agree with you regarding quality. I don't think Leonard cuts it and we need a strong, charismatic leader to take things by the scruff of the neck and present a popular programme to the electorate and challenge Sturgeon more effectively. I also think a united UK Party under a strong leader would be just waiting to take over from the Tories whenever the election occurred. Corbyn is invisible. I actually think McDonnell is a far more skilled politician who actually wants power and would adapt to get it. Things can change quickly though. I am old enough to remember when people couldn't see another Labour Government coming and subsequently couldn't see another Tory Govermnent coming either. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mclean07 said:

I am old enough to remember when people couldn't see another Labour Government coming and subsequently couldn't see another Tory Govermnent coming either. 

I am old enough to remember when people thought the council providing housing to those who would never be able to afford a mortgage was part of God's plan. Then Hilda happened and the solution to stopping councils from providing housing was to let people have mortgages even if they could never afford it. People waited for the system to rebalance itself but then Tonee happened and just made things 10 times worse, making students take out loans and privatising the railways.

Then people in Scotland said f**k this and started voting for the SNP.

Now the people at Westminster just keep waiting for the Scots to "come to their senses" while negotiating a Brexit that can only force the country much further to the right. I anticipate a long wait.

P.S. quite how an educated chap like Corbyn cant grasp that a UK alone in the world and begging for trade deals would be forced to water down employment law and reduce social provision is beyond me. 

Edited by gdevoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

I am old enough to remember when people thought the council providing housing to those who would never be able to afford a mortgage was part of God's plan. Then Hilda happened and the solution to stopping councils from providing housing was to let people have mortgages even if they could never afford it. People waited for the system to rebalance itself but then Tonee happened and just made things 10 times worse, making students take out loans and privatising the railways.

Then people in Scotland said f**k this and started voting for the SNP.

Now the people at Westminster just keep waiting for the Scots to "come to their senses" while negotiating a Brexit that can only force the country much further to the right. I anticipate a long wait.

Much of Scotland has come to its sense it’s just the unionists who we are waiting to join us in sensible land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Much of Scotland has come to its sense it’s just the unionists who we are waiting to join us in sensible land.

 Scottish Labour will be fuming with a certain well known Irish republican this evening.

You could ride a fleet of double decker buses through the divisions in Tories and Labour at WM!

Jeremy Corbyn 'not ruling out' indyref2 consent

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45585737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...