salmonbuddie

Tbh I was thinking of the way they've been lining each others' pockets but now you come to mention it...

Is it a "bribe"? - I don't think so but each to their own, if that's your thinking it's your thinking. Is it timed to tie in with the upcoming election? Very probably, it has been policy for a while but politicians are politicians no matter their party. One thing it certainly is, though, is a much better use of public money - yours and mine - with a much better aim than the spending exhibited by WM during the pandemic.

Aye, that's true, my brother's 3 years younger than me and says he remembers the jail in County Square, I have no memory of it at all. I remember the piazza being built but nothing of what was there beforehand.

The current 50-50 is a move from 45-55 in the 7 years, though. I think it will only get bigger over the coming months (ever the optimist, me). [emoji846]

I think lots of people in Scotland do care about and there's always Indyref2 in September... [emoji846] The guy I'm quoting is actually trying to do something about it before then, more power to his elbow.

How long will we tolerate this? More pertinently, how much longer will England? "This week’s Panorama gave us the extraordinary tale of a dog food supplier turned PPE broker bagging herself millions acting as a ‘bridge’ for a Hong Kong supplier. Details of the largest contract - worth £178m - came to light only after the BBC’s probing prompted the Government to publish. "It sought to explain its failure as an “admin error.” But even if true - which we doubt - this doesn’t justify a further breach of the law on transparency. Despite the High Court ruling in our favour last month that Matt Hancock had broken the law in failing to publish pandemic contracts, the failures continue. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson and his Minister mislead Parliament about the scale of the breaches. And refuse to come clean about the beneficiaries of its ‘VIP’ lane. "In his judgment, Judge Chamberlain said “The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.” We agree. And so we have written to Matt Hancock launching new legal proceedings for his continuing failures to comply with the law. "Our grounds focus on two key issues: First, the Secretary of State’s failure to comply with his obligations to publish Contracts Finder notices (CFNs) within the requisite 90 days. In relation to contracts entered into on or before 7 October 2020, he had failed to do so in well over 50% of cases. Second, the Secretary of State’s decision to obscure the key provisions in contracts. Many contracts are being published in heavily redacted form - one example from December shows the quantity, unit price, size and colour of gowns being redacted; another contract entered into almost a year ago but published only this month is so heavily redacted that no information whatsoever is visible regarding what was even purchased. Publication in this form isn’t transparency; it is advertising the lack of it. "“One unfortunate consequence of non-compliance with the transparency obligations…is that people can start to harbour suspicions of improper conduct...” said Judge Chamberlain in last month’s judgment. "We agree. If they have nothing to hide why won’t they publish? Jolyon Maugham Director of Good Law Project"

From the actual Gov.UK site (ignore the made up header) "The number and nature of suspected adverse reactions reported so far are not unusual in comparison to other types of routinely used vaccines " The overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials "Based on current experience, the expected benefits of both COVID-19 vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and its serious complications far outweigh any known side effects" I'm still going for mine on Monday.

I wouldn't count on it if those carrying it out have read your stuff... [emoji846]

Not going to hold my breath waiting for DRoss calling for a vote of no confidence in BoJos for misleading Westminster. "3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today shows that what the Prime Minister told the House was not true. "The Judge confirmed: “The Defendant has published 608 out of 708 relevant contracts for supplies and services relating to COVID-19 awarded on or before 7 October 2020. In some or all of these cases, the Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to publish the contracts within the period set out in the Crown Commercial Service’s Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017).” "Remarkably, the Judge’s Order is based on Government’s own figures – so at the same time as Johnson was falsely reassuring MPs, Government lawyers were preparing a statement contradicting him – revealing 100 contracts and dozens of Contract Award Notices were missing from the public record. You can read the final Court Order here and consequential judgment in full here. "Over the course of the judicial review, Government made no less than four attempts to provide an accurate witness statement setting out the number of contracts and Contract Award Notices that had been published late – and they kept getting it wrong. As late as the hearing itself, they said they had published 28% of Contract Award Notices within the 30 day legal limit. "But when asked by the Judge to follow up with evidence of the figures so he could make his final Order, it transpired that Government had actually only published 3% of CANs in the legal timeframe. " Government has not only misled Parliament and placed inaccurate information before the Court, it has misled the country. " Unless contract details are published they cannot be properly scrutinised – there’s no way of knowing where taxpayers’ money is going and why. Billions have been spent with those linked to the Conservative Party and vast sums wasted on PPE that isn’t fit for purpose. "We have a Government, and a Prime Minister, contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability. The very least that the public deserves now is the truth." From Jolyon Maugham, Director of Good Law Project

Our definitions of "whataboutery" appear to be polar opposites so let's leave it there.

Difficult to reply coherently (insert comment here) on the phone when you comment in my quoted post like that but I'll try. "Of people NOT in the same job and in different organisations, unlike McLeish...? Ta." Of people who are UK government ministers just like the FM, the UK that Scotland is still (for now) a part of so answerable to. Or do you mean that different standards should apply in the two governments? " So only relevant to the Sturgeon case in that he resigned due to allegations of apparently minor form-filling misdemeanours? Is that right? Was he ever shown to be guilty or did he just resign as he believed that to be the honourable thing to do? I'll look for Officegate on the internet, but if you'd offered a link...?" I have no idea if he was guilty or not but he obviously felt he needed to go, fair play to him for that. The FM has clearly and lucidly explained that she is not guilty of any misdemeanour - 8 hours - so doesn't feel any need to resign. Nor do the reported 7,000 new members or the existing members. And May's election will show whether or not the majority verdict is the same (spoiler - it will be). [emoji846]

Of course it's off the Internet, didn't you read the credit at the beginning? It's from an English socialist who understands and is supportive of what Scotland is trying to do. As are many other English people barring the odd exception. To answer your question (and again it's unashamedly off the Internet and took me around 30s to find), "McLeish resigned as First Minister in November 2001, amid a scandal involving allegations he sub let part of his tax subsidised Westminster constituency office without it having been registered in the register of interests kept in the Parliamentary office. The press called the affair Officegate." So not relevant to the FM's case whereas those I quoted are direct comparisons.

Here's a summary of the current state of play by Another Angry Voice [emoji838] Priti Patel sacked for breaching the ministerial code by holding treasonous secret meetings with foreign state officials, aimed at siphoning off the UK aid budget into their illegally occupied territories. Tories: Let's bring her back into government, and put her in charge of the Home Office, that'll be good for a laugh. [emoji838] Tory Housing Minister Robert Jenrick breaches the ministerial code (and the law) by colluding with a property developer diddle £40 million off one of Britain's most deprived local councils. Tories: This is all a fuss over nothing. £40 million is mere pocket change to people like us. He can stay in his job. [emoji838] Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson unlawfully suspends parliament to evade democratic scrutiny of his shambolic Brexit bodge job, then bare-faced lies to the entire nation that he's not creating a regulatory border between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, when that's precisely what he did do. Tories: This is all above board, and Boris is doing a fantastic job [emoji838] Priti Patel is found to have breached the ministerial code again, this time by savagely bullying her subordinates to such an extent that one of them was reduced to contemplating suicide, and another highly respected civil servant quit his job claiming constructive dismissal. Tories: We must "form a square" around Priti. She will not be held to account over this. [emoji838] Tory government ministers repeatedly and egregiously breach the ministerial code by briefing major policy announcements to their chums in the corporate media, instead of announcing them in parliament, as stipulated in section 9.1 ("the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament"). Tories: Why on earth would we announce things in parliament, where opposition politicians could potentially hold us to account, when we're guaranteed the easiest possible ride whenever we leak the plans to friendly hacks in the right-wing propaganda rags? [emoji838] Tory Health Secretary Matt Hancock uses the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to launch an absolute orgy of corruption, handing out £billions in untendered contracts to his spivvy mates, tax-dodgers, scammers, empty shell companies with no employees and no experience of medical procurement, and even his former pub landlord. Furthermore he's found to have acted unlawfully by keeping the details of these ridiculously dodgy untendered contracts secret. Tories: This is so unfair, all the corruption and lawlessness we engaged in was necessary because our policy of deliberately allowing the virus to spread in the crucial early stages created absolute pandemonium! 🟠 SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon is accused of breaching the ministerial code over her handling of the false accusations against former SNP leader Alex Salmond. Tories: This is an absolute disgrace, Sturgeon must resign! I've seen reports that the SNP picked up another 7,000 new members yesterday on the back of this farce, so, to answer your question, there's not a chance she'll lose her job.

But the independence movement in Scotland doesn't demarcate against nationality, if you're registered to vote in Scotland you will have a vote in Indyref2 regardless of your nationality. And it's also why you don't get a vote in it. [emoji846]

All they would need to do was elect a party into power on the back of that commitment. A bit like the upcoming election in May, in fact, just the other way round.

Me neither, I blame Thatcher for everything... [emoji846]

Everyone's first thought was car park in the sky. You have to admire the dedication all the same - mibbes the face masks kept them that wee bit cosier... [emoji846]

In his defence he is genuinely like that. He's a Rangers fan but his daughter has bought Buddies season tickets for her 3 kids and he's been known to take them to games - if asked, they're the only reason he's there! [emoji846]

The only source that came up when I (very carefully!) Googled the story was in the Sun. Shull's absence might explain why it hasn't been on here... [emoji846]

Aye, Bullseye was before we moved here, though - keep meaning to try and find the full episode.

The guy on the right's my next door neighbour.

Cos that's your job? Aye, fair enough, then. [emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23]

At the risk of repeating myself...

It's not a strawman argument, I answered your question and gave you the analogy I used. I genuinely thought it must be similar (psychologically) to being in the trenches when I was reading it hence the analogy.

Maintaining the WW1 analogy, I imagined she did it in the same way as all those poets - Owen, Sassoon, Brooke, Graves et al - managed to write about the horrors they experienced while they were experiencing them. Are you questioning them, too?