Printable View
To be fair Salmond was sleazy. He just should never have been near a court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Murrell has probably overstretched his authority. If he’s charged then it affects Sturgeon, if not she’ll ride it out.
Next 6 months, it’s all about Yousaf. So far, I’m not hopeful. I think he was the 2nd best candidate and it showing. Forbes would have been better at unifying the party.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What are the charges so far? When will things come to trial?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Could be months I would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Until a trial or until whatever charges exist are pressed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Nowt. Doubt it will be this year, if it ever happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Just got round to listening to the "Holyrood Sources" interview with KF. Not sure about unifying but I certainly think she would make a better job of running the government. It's a bloody shame she hadn't just gone to the regular Kirk instead of the Wee Frees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I think she would have been smart enough to have kept Yousaf very close and rewarded him with a top job. Probably deputy FM.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/buchananpost/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
This is going to be a huge issue in next few months with potential for an SNP Green split.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to Guido Fawkes - Unless a new auditor is found by May 31, the party’s Westminster Group faces losing £1.15 million in short money, which will be withdrawn under Commons rules until auditors sign off on the party accounts. Short money is the taxpayer cash given to opposition parties to pay staff wages and MP travel, which is only provided on the condition it is used “exclusively in relation to the party’s parliamentary business.” No auditor, no cash.
Our Islanders are already mightily hacked off at the Government because of the ferries situation where the aging fleet is causing real problems. The Greens look like much more of a liability than an asset to the SNP at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That's enough for ten motorhomes. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
The new SNP fleet :greengrin so instead of using a ferry you cab bed yourself down in a comfy camper :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
It's a good question... it shouldn't but there's always going to be be people who don't understand and indy Scotland isn't 'The SNP'Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Not sure how they can get that over to those that don't understand the difference.
I still believe they (SNP) will likely win the honeymoon election but after that it's up for grabs and any party could have an impact on the future, he'll, even the Conservatives unchained from Westminster and able to show some integrity will do better than many think.
https://twitter.com/_kateforbes/stat...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Forbes retweets protest song about HPMA’s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We now know that humza only found out after he became leader and apparently when he saw the police warrant to seize the asset.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
To be fair humza does appear to be honest and transparent about things right now.
Constantly saying I don’t know what’s going on is not a good look for someone running the country though. He needs political advisors and a new press guy in very quickly. Right now, everyone in the SNP is just freelancing all over the place. He needs to get control sharpish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I saw an interview with Geoff Aberdein recently and I warmed to the guy and thought he appeared to be someone who could do a good job.
Oh and I think humza has no choice as that’s the way snap we’re run and only now is he finding out. I give him some slack for a period to try and get his head around what he has taken on and see if he sorts it out.
Sorry for auto corrects
I agree, but he needs to start giving the impression he’s getting on top of it instead of reacting to each thing as it comes out. He should be starting to announce proper investigations and suspensions by now. No matter the police investigations, there was some bad business practises here and not just by Murrell. He needs to start cleaning house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol at you taking a harder line than me. A role reversal. I do agree with you on this but I suspect humza is only learning as he goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The sad fact is that many of us called out our distrust of the snp and it was dismissed out of hand at the time. I do agree though that it’s not appearing to be criminal charges and it’s not as bad as Westminster. However we should expect better.
I do expect better. That’s why there needs to be full disclosure now and better procedures in place to stop it happening again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opin...liddle-liddle/
A good article on what needs to start happening. Yousaf needs to get on top of the story. His communications have so far been horrific.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For such a high profile post, advertised for 8 days only :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=88389
Is there a suggestion he could stand for an elected position?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
They could start by encouraging all MSPs and ministers to be aware of what's in publicly available documents like their own party's accounts :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
More wasted money
https://www.insider.co.uk/news/scott...paign=sharebar
If you read the article it looks like it’s doing very well? Or was the headline enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Read the article ….losing money, should the investors remove their funds then it’s knackeredQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Headlines £3.4m loss.
Article £165m net assets.
It's a loss if you conveniently ignore the investments made with the profits. A very selective article headline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Wow, are you telling me that if people withdraw their money from banks, the bank is knackered? This is amazing. Do other people know about this?[emoji51]Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"a loss of £3.4m, largely due to the early valuation profile of fund investments where unrealised losses are expected, followed by capital appreciation in later years."
Also, set-up costs which won't recur in the future.
As you say, repeatedly admitting he didn't know about the issues he's being questioned about makes him look ever more like the Murrells' willing stooge. It's hard/impossible to imagine he'd have won the leadership election on a 'continuity' ticket had the membership been party to what was happening behind the scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Where was it wasted? How much was wasted? You surely have the answers. 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
That bank story has given me some reassurance that some good things are happening with the economy.[emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think humza genuinely didn’t know. It appears only the murrells and maybe a few select others did. However the murrells won’t disclose what they knew as they seem to have bad memories. Those that did know don’t seem willing to disclose what they knew.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I agree with Ozy in another post that his commas have been bad and this is him effectively not having the support behind him that he thought he had and at the same time being faced with sorting the mess that’s been left for him.
Now of course none of this is going to be a criminal act and there will be no charges, but it’s confirmation about how misleading things actually were. It’s going to take some fixing
What’s even worse is that there is no one on the other side who appears capable of appearing to be an alternative safe pair of hands.
Again, the accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
The accounts show the bus and the loan. They also show, and talk about, the independence fundraising.
The accounts were approved by the Murrells and the party treasurer.
Heartily agree with your last comment. Good government needs good opposition, and the latter has been poor for too long.
It’s probably Yousaf’s saving grace. The fact is, out of him, Sarwar and Ross, he looks like the best bet of the three. It’s slim pickings but it’s all we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do the accounts tell us what the ringfenced independence fundraising was spent on?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I assume peter would have just shown them the accounts and that’s why he wasnt charged
This is what the accounts say:-Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
Referendum Appeal
By 31 December 2021, a total of £740,822 had been raised through the independence related
appeals. These donations are also included in – and have been reconciled with – the total
amount for donations included in Party accounts from 2017 to 2021. Up until 31 December 2021
a total of £253,335 of expenditure had been applied against this income. The balance remains
“earmarked” for independence related campaigning.
Of course, the SNP is the party of independence and, as such, every action we take – directly or
indirectly – is in support of winning independence. However, we continue to take a very strict
approach to ensuring that this income supports expenditure directly related to the campaign
for independence. We will ensure that an amount equivalent to the sums raised from these
appeals will go directly to our work to secure a referendum and win independence.
The £253k isn't broken down any further. However, there is an amount of £1.6m in 2021 for "Campaigning Costs", which seems the best home for that £253k.
The ‘ringfenced’ reference is tricky? I don’t think there is any legal commitment to do so. Not arguing what is right and wrong here, just what’s legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
I’m struggling to see how this is a legal issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The accounts seem pretty clear. And there's no mention of "ring fencing".
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a charge yet? Given the size of the police operation, they must have been pretty certain a crime had been committed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But the fund raising was pretty clear that the money would be ring fenced. But it hasn’t been.
I am now lawyer or accountant, as is probably clear. But I can see when something has been misleading.
I have said in a few posts I don’t believe there will be any charge. However it doesn’t make it right. All my opinion of course.
I guess it’s not unlike vlad selling the cash only shares to jumbos :greengrin
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ringfence.aspQuote:
Originally Posted by Skol
"Ring-fencing can also describe earmarking assets for a particular purpose."
The accounts use the term "earmarked". Had that been not true, or the number wrong, the auditors wouldn't have given them a clean report.
The accounts might say that. The seperate website they set up to raise the funds didn’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The party has been able to be run by a tight group of individuals who are married or friends - or both
It's not healthy and it's hard to imagine many other arenas where the CEO and leader of a party be married. Especially when one is first min.
Take into account Robison is Sturgeons best pal and was hitched to Stuart Hosie. Angus Robertson another in the inner circle also married to a key party worker. Is it hard to imagine Robison and Robertson didn't know this was on the cards? The lack of the latter's candidacy for the leadership was interesting in itself.
It’s like the old Etonian Tories on speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Did it say "ring-fenced"?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
That article I posted suggests that it means the same as "ear-marked".I'm not so sure, though.
Still can't smell any cordite.
The reality of the mismanagement of our nationalised ferry service. And still nobody takes responsibility. Shambles.
Attachment 26665
It's like a Stonybridge sketch written by Franz Kafka.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
https://wingsoverscotland.com/progre...e/#more-136982
Bearing in mind this is the website which sowed the seeds of the Murrells' downfall it'll be interesting to see if this leads anywhere.
Has that website done anything else in the last 13 years that you consider of note?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I've got the advantage of having always thought the boy was a rocket. What about you? He's become credible in the last few years? And how? You're dead against independence.
He takes the credit but the Murrells did that themselves. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The bad Rev has never been a proper journalist as so many used to claim, he’s a blogger who found favour by telling a lot of people what they wanted to hear. The only difference between now and his heyday is he is preaching to a different group. A nasty piece of work who is best ignored.
Said for years he was a con man, how much did he fleece the gullible with his go fund me pages 🙄Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Yip, happy to say that I have thought he was a total prick from day 1. Never gave him a penny. Really nasty bigot and anyone from either side quoting him need to give themselves a shake. All of a sudden he is the go to for some because of his hatred of NS and the SNP. And it is hatred, mostly borne out of his bigoted views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Edit. Just realised we have agreed on something!!! Hope that's a good omen for today's football😀😀😀
I'm sure the SNP hierarchy would have liked him ignored. If he had been Murrell would quite likely still be in post.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
What constitutes a 'proper journalist' in an era where 'influencers' and bloggers carry more clout than the mainstream media? Many among the independence movement used to pretty much set their watches around Wings.
He may well be a nasty piece of work but Campbell's ability to get under the skin of those with influence and to dig deeper into stories than 'proper journalists' dare to do is reflected by the fact that issues which are initially laughed off end up dominating the front pages for weeks. He was writing not only about the 'ringfenced' 600k and the lies around membership numbers but also the dangers inherent in forging ahead with the GRR years before the established media realised the collapse of Sturgeonism was at hand.
Bearing in mind the exhaustive research which goes into much of what he publishes he clearly has a contacts book to be envied by many and the ear of certain people at the heart of the SG/SNP.
Whatever one's political allegiance (and I imagine he would swing full square back behind independence were a hierarchy he approved of put in place) he remains, I'd say, someone to ignore at your peril and as I say it will be interesting to see if his latest posting re Progress Scotland gains any traction.
https://archive.ph/2023.04.14-153224...ily-feared-me/
Interesting interview with Mandy Rhodes. Patrick Harvie features as his usual lovely self.
Yousaf's inertia around this is bewildering.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
"My enemy's enemy is my friend", you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
There you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
https://twitter.com/calumam/status/1...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gonna have to agree with you more often 🇳🇬🇳🇬🇳🇬Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
👍👍👍 Good to know that you are open to independence now 😀😀😀Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-65285660
Ministry of Defence approached for help to alleviate ferries crisis.
Unfortunately the SG's £9 million hire of a stand-in catamaran has been held up:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65286224
Isn’t that Highland council rather than Calmac?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep, separate issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-65277808
One step forward.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They have spent a year silencing anyone that wanted to look under the iron curtain, they will then review themselves after being caught. Damage is done their should be multiple people resigning or getting their jotters. Continuity Humza really has to sack people rather than going down the same path politically like he seems to be. The ship is sinking and he's saying let's bash on the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4c8376d0d9.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
External review but I agree that there should already be people suspended at the very least.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
External review that comes to them to do what the wish with. They won't get away with blaming everything on Murrell/Sturgeon the same core are very much in charge. They had a chance to change and move on. Unfortunately the opposition are going to run with this the next year and it really shouldn't be news as its unimportant in the grand scheme of thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Suspended for what? And who should be suspended?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Murrell has been arrested and not even suspended like other SNP staff have been post being charged. Murrell wasn't the only one in charge it's a huge company who else was involved. Who would have been involved with the finances at the time ring fenced money is accused of being spent. All should be suspended and away from the evidence, it's not saying there is any guilt it's good practice. Who was near buying rather than renting a 100k motor home that was never used, when the company needed 100k loan to prop its finances.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Well I'm convinced. (Just joking).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
There is def grounds for suspending Murrell. That much is obvious but there will be others that are known about. I doubt this is anything illegal but it does seem to fall well short of good governance. The fact that info was withheld from the NEC and the leadership candidates means there were serious problems behind the scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
If Yousaf wants people to believe he has what it takes he should be sorting these things out now.
People can be suspended now pending the review.
He needs to act quickly. There is a narrative being built around him that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. He needs to change that narrative quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What info was "withheld" and what evidence do you have to support that charge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Have you not been following, much of that is in this thread tbf. Start with humzas interviews. He's for some unknown reason kept the story going by releasing more nuggets each day.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Just because Yousaf didn't know something, doesn't mean that the info was necessarily withheld.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Do you believe in fairies as well ?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
You think Murrell released the (previously lied about) party membership figures willingly?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
So this is basically the 'ring fenced' issue we discussed quite a while back?
If you say you've 'ring fenced' money, then you can't just spend it and then say you're going to put it back afterwards, which appears to be what they planned to do. In no way can that possibly be described as money that is 'ring fenced'.
I'm actually a bit confused, though, as to what illegality has actually occurred, and also look forward to hearing who it was that raised the issue to the PF's office and what the actual complaint was.
However, I do think the resignation of Murrell is the correct outcome.
Members of the NEC said the same, multiple people and emails show the NEC were shut down when asking about the finances. The treasurer resigned as he wasn't allowed the information on finances he needed. Just about everyone is saying they didn't know that member numbers had plummeted, the same for auditors quiting. A bizarre secrecy. Who knew all these facts Just Murrell, that doesn't seem likelyQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I'm not sure on the law is it false advertising. If Edinburgh zoo said we are raising 500k to keep the pandas say. Instead they just spent it on general funds and staff wages ect is that fraud. Some would be happy for the snp to spend it as they like, others only would have wanted it spent on independence campaigning. So if it went to general funds that's could be anything from wages to GRR legal advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
On the subject
https://archive.ph/Y5zvv
SNP running out of cash after member exodus, warns treasurer
The SNP is running out of cash following an exodus of 30,000 members and the unexpected legal costs linked to the continuing police investigation into the party’s funding, its ruling council has been told.
Colin Beattie, the SNP treasurer, told the national executive committee (NEC) that the party was “having difficulty in balancing the books due to the reduction in membership and donors” and that fighting a potential by-election in Rutherglen & Hamilton West would “put the party under pressure”.
So he is just wasn’t listening? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I wouldn’t worry too much about the party running out of money. They could raise £500k this week if they had to. In fact, that’s what got them in this bother.[emoji6][emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
That's a possibility, yeah.
The whole point of the SNP is the pursuit of independence. It could be argued albeit tenuously that however it was spent on the party it’s in that pursuit. Whether it was good use in that pursuit should down to the members of the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
But I gave an example of spending on say legal advice on the gender reform bill or bottle return scheme. That can't be said to be anything about independence. SNP are more than independence they are the establishment in Scotland. I personally vote for them only due to independence and I fear many in the party aren't driven by that. If I had put money into the campaign I'd be fuming if it was spent on other things like a campervan or wages for careering politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
You should have mentioned this earlier! If we're to judge the guilt or otherwise of the SNP based on how you personally would react, you should make your feelings known sooner, it would save a lot of time. Forget the debate about whether they've actually done anything wrong, clearly if what they've done has upset you then they're guilty as charged. (Whatever they're charged with).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Funny you should say that, as this is what it says in the SNP accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
Me too almost exactly. I’m playing devils advocate. I say almost exactly as IMO challenging the Westminster intervention is an independence win/win. Win the challenge it cements and underscores devolution on the independence journey. Lose it and it only shows why independence is the only way to govern ourselves showing devolution up as the crock o **** it is. A democratically elected multi party vote being shut down by a one party government we didn’t vote for and haven’t for many many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Snidey comment. Of course my opinion doesn't matter but its a message board of opinions, don't be shocked when you read an opinion. There was multiple posts with accusations previous to this one but you just replied like comical Ali, all is fine nothing to see hereQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I'd be very surprised if the Scottish government paid for legal advice on bills passed in parliament with monies from the SNP bank account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Was it not the case though that the fund raising material said the money would be ring fenced for use in an Indy 2 campaign. That has not yet taken place.
I cannot believe people are still trying to say that this was all fine and don’t worry, we will spend the. Ones when we raise it again.
Criminal? I doubt it
However it’s misleading at best.
But that is ignoring the fact that the vast majority don't want them to go to court including a majority of independence voters. People can argue they think GRR is morally right if they want but no way can they say its advancing independence. Work on the bottle return scheme or GRR were just examples. I'm not sure if it is fraud or not buy surely every penny should have been directly spent on independence campaigning and with clear evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
Earmarked rather than ringfenced I think. A subtle difference however semantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
I believe The accounts said earmarked the fund raising material said ring fenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex