You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Minor point here Peter Murrell isnt a politician. A few people above have referred to him as such.
I guess it depends on the definition you use.
Whilst in the UK its normally used for those in an elected role he does look to meet the more general one about being professionally involved in politics.
Private Eye mentioned that in the last issue. Reference in their last accounts to ~80k on motor vehicles.
OK, I think I actually read the first couple of paragraphs of that over my brekkie, then saw the BBC story and somehow conflated the two.
😀
I guess it depends on the definition you use.
It really doesn't unless it suits the narrative.
Dodgy dealings in politics etc !!! Never 🤣
Minor point here Peter Murrell isnt a politician.
So only people who win an election are politicians?
I think it is fair to describe someone who has worked full-time for a political party and is a former chief executive of the SNP as a politician.
Unless you also want to deny that people who sit in the House of Commons aren't "politicians"? Goddamnit some aren't even members of political parties!
"Political figure" would be my suggestion.
So thats the second case of SNP employee/politician stealing from Independence funds, ooops!
“Political figure” would be my suggestion.
Or perhaps "professionally involved in politics".
It really doesn’t unless it suits the narrative.
Its a valid usage although not one I would generally use myself.
So thats the second case of SNP employee/politician stealing from Independence funds, ooops!
No wonder they lost!
Shame the brexiteers hadnt done the same.
I think it's been almost 500 years since the parliamentary forces arrested anyone in England.
Unlike some other parliaments I could mention, in Scotland we arrest our politicians:)
I don't think this is a good day for more Scottish smugness about their self-perceived superiority to others. The current and last UK prime ministers have both been fined by police. Beyond that, Jonathan Aitkin, Jeffrey Archer, David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Elliot Morley, Eric Illsley, Denis MacShane, John Taylor, Paul White, Fiona Onasanya, Chris Huhne, Imran Ahmed Khan and Charlie Elphick were all UK politicians investigated, arrested, charged and convicted of criminal offences. (White was acquitted after).
The current and last UK prime ministers have both been fined by police.
I know she only served as PM for 49 days but will people please remember Liz Truss.
She did after all dramatically improve Labour's chances of forming a majority government.
A similar amount of time as pantomime season.
please remember Liz Truss
Who?😜
@dissonance I'd rather not be in the UK so I'll happily accept your other definition
@ Ernie I'll happily say that someone who does back office work for a political party isn't a politician. It becomes less clear perhaps when they have a policy making or strategic role but I don't think lobbyists or the various types of advisors think of themselves as politicians.
Perhaps there's a case for greater public oversight of the lobbyists and advisers.
someone who does back office work
The ruling National Executive Committee of the SNP is a back office?
Oxford Dictionary
a person whose job is concerned with politics, especially as an elected member of a legislature (= governing body)
I'd say being Chairman of a political party and working for that party in one role or another for pretty much his whole career and being married to the (former) party leader qualifies as a job concerned with politics.
I’d say being Chairman of a political party and working for that party in one role or another for pretty much his whole career and being married to the (former) party leader qualifies as a job concerned with politics.
Being chairman of the SNP makes you no more a politician than Elon Musk is an astronaut or rocket scientist. As for who he's married to, that's the most ridiculous argument yet.
Whether he was a ‘politician’ or not there is no denying this is a politically significant arrest. It had the possibility of affecting the leadership result and, depending on how it goes may well taint Sturgeon’s political reputation & legacy. It may well also influence the SNP’s future and that of the Independence movement. So I don’t think it particularly matters what you think his job status is
Whether he was a ‘politician’ or not there is no denying this is a politically significant arrest. It had the possibility of affecting the leadership result and, depending on how it goes may well taint Sturgeon’s political reputation & legacy. It may well also influence the SNP’s future and that of the Independence movement.
Agree.
So I don’t think it particularly matters what you think his job status is
Don't agree.
A politician is an elected representative or someone within government and as such any allegations of criminality carry far more baggage.
Yeah it is probably best to just describe Peter Murrell as 'a person whose job is concerned with politics'.
Or a 'politician' according to the Oxford dictionary.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/politician
I don’t think this is a good day for more Scottish smugness about their self-perceived superiority to others.
It's always a good day for more Scottish smugness about our self-perceived superiority to others.
Call me when Carrie gets arrested for appalling taste in wallpaper.
What are the cops digging up their front lawn hoping to find? Any suggestions
are the cops digging up their front lawn
No.
Or not as far as I've seen.
Nicola Sturgeon's husband Peter Murrell arrested in SNP finance probe - BBC News
It's been reported that under that blue tent, there are cops with spades...
What are the cops digging up their front lawn hoping to find? Any suggestions
I imagine Douglas Ross has hammered frozen sausages into the lawn
Nicola Sturgeon’s husband Peter Murrell arrested in SNP finance probe – BBC News
It’s been reported that under that blue tent, there are cops with spades…
Where has that been reported? because its certainly not in the BBC article that you liked to which seems to give credence to your words. I'm not sure there's any need to make stuff up (or repeat unsubstantiated rumour) - theres enough of a story as it is. Perhaps worth a reminder that publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest.
I hope they were finest Scotish Angus Beef sausages !
Where has that been reported?
I was trying to work out if it was a joke I wasn't getting.
They had spades......and hearts, clubs and diamonds maybe.
What are the cops digging up their front lawn hoping to find? Any suggestions
Carrots 🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕
Being chairman of the SNP makes you no more a politician than Elon Musk is an astronaut or rocket scientist
The chief exec is chosen by the NEC I think? If so, your analogy doesn't work.
Where has that been reported? because its certainly not in the BBC article that you liked to which seems to give credence to your words
Pics on Daily Mail website if you can bare to look!
Here you go. Good honest journalism.
Officers with spades were this afternoon spotted digging in the garden of the modest family home the couple share.
Here you go. Good honest journalism.
I liked the "Police with riot shields" caption under a photo of some cops taking stuff out of the back of a van with a single shield leaning against the door.
Two possibilities:
Either they are ready for a riot (with one shield)
or
It was just in the back of the van and they took it out to get to all the other gear they routinely have in there.
Doesnt seem to be any evidence of them digging inside that tent and it doesnt seem overly likely. Its an unfenced/hedged/anything garden right next to the road.
Whilst I have never felt the need to dig holes to hide things I think my first criteria would be a location which isnt easily observed by dogwalkers/people driving home etc etc.
Perhaps worth a reminder that publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest.
This ain't true, hoss.
As for who he’s married to, that’s the most ridiculous argument yet.
Just out of interest, do you think it is credible that Sturgeon's husband "loaned" the SNP £107,000 but didn't mention it until after the fact, and that Sturgeon didn't remember when she heard about it?
And if you do, do you think that a power couple that chucks £100,000s with such gay abandon can really be in touch with ordinary Scottish people?
Officers with spades were this afternoon spotted digging in the garden of the modest family home the couple share... Officers with spades were this afternoon spotted digging in the garden of the modest family home the couple share, focusing on the area around their bins.
Doesnt seem to be any evidence of them digging inside that tent and it doesnt seem overly likely.
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me for a second if the Daily Mail just made it up, because they're an awful rag, but FTR no-one said the cops were digging inside the tent, did they?
Here you go. Good honest journalism.
The headline says shovels but the article says spades.
I believe in calling a spade a spade, not a shovel.
Maybe they had shovels and spades?
Well they should have said so...."spades and shovels"
Sloppy journalism, no excuse.
Just out of interest, do you think it is credible that Sturgeon’s husband “loaned” the SNP £107,000 but didn’t mention it until after the fact, and that Sturgeon didn’t remember when she heard about it?
And if you do, do you think that a power couple that chucks £100,000s with such gay abandon can really be in touch with ordinary Scottish people?
FWIW no, I'm just making the point that who he is married to has absolutely no relevance as to his occupation. As far as we know Sturgeon isn't being investigated so isn't relevant (although still stretching the limits of credibility it wouldn't be the first time someone has hidden dodgy financial transactions from a partner, just look at gambling addicts).
Something I've found oddly interesting over the last few weeks .... Outside of this thread - across the various social medias I consume which are mostly populated by Scottish friends and colleagues - these events just dont seem to have been a talking point.
Up to the point of Sturgeon's resignation if there had been an annoncemt or initiative by the governent I'd see id see it commented on, shared, amplified in some way every day or so before I actually read it as news.
Her resignation caused a stir, the leadership campaign a little less so - and where I saw mention it was people with SNP membership asking openly who they should best vote for as they didnt really have a ready favorite. That died down in the closing days of the campaign to silence. The actual result - unmentioned. it seemed no-one was either excited or disappointed by the outcome sufficiently to comment. Revelations about membership. Unmentioned. Today's arrest - unmentioned. Sat having lunch with a couple of dozen colllegeas - didnt come up in conversation at all.
Something really quite significant is going on but I'm really surprised how far from people's thoughts and conversations it all seems to be.
@Ernie I didn't claim that the national executive committee of the SNP was a back office.
I also said that the issue was less clear when individuals have a role in policy making or strategy.
For what it's worth I thought it was wrong for Murrell to be chief exec when NS was deputy leader nevermind leader.
Now we (SNP members) have this shitshow to deal with
Okay fairy nuff. I assumed that as you had described him as "someone who does back office work" that you were suggesting the national executive committee of the SNP was a back office.
I am not sure why the reference to 'back office work' in that case but never mind 👍
Would have expected better from you, Drac.
Congratulations, your wit is now on a par with Boris Johnson.
The chief executive of the SNP is just a clerk?
He's been released without charge btw
He’s been released without charge btw
....pending further investigations
Just saw the news.
Are the police digging for some skeletons or what?
I mean this is embarrassing with all the hypes surrounding her being longest serving 1st Minister etc, but now the police are there.
I wonder if there is something to do with her sudden resignation.
Never trust any politicians ...
Would have expected better from you, Drac.
Fun sponge.
Looking forward to your "I identify as an attack helicopter" routine.
longest serving 1st Minister
Tbf I don't think this was ever the #1 talking point of her supporters.
Rather undermines the argument for independance based on the narrative of how corrupt Westminster is, turns out Scottish leaders are also dodgy, who'd have thought it.
^ Added to what went on with the standards committee over the Ferrier situation
Would have expected better from Drac to be fair.
Really?
Fun sponge.
I don't think there much fun to be sucked out of your post tbh.
Wrong on more than one level imo.
Including "old and tired".
Rather undermines the argument for independance based on the narrative of how corrupt Westminster is, turns out Scottish leaders are also dodgy, who’d have thought it.
The actual evidential argument for independence hasn't even started yet, it's all hypothetical speeches from both sides so far.
What it does show for me, is something i say all the time, the worst thing for the SNP is to have to actually govern a nation, politicians are the same in most ways, no matter what party they follow, the departments they run have the same people working in them, you have the same chances of large scale failures, corruption, scandal and so on, so the loss in 2014 was probably the biggest nightmare for the SNP, i have no doubt there'll be IndyRef2 in the next decade, but that'll mean another 10 years of having to manage being a government.
p.s, yes i know, the government is a coalition, but with the greens its not exactly a power share!
The tent on their property contains a van.And they were ferrying 'evidence' from the house to the van, so its probably just a place for investigators to read/write/record.
I reckon the £600,000+ was supposed to be ringfenced for use in an independence setting, but they've frittered it away on other things. Maybe the 107,000 was a way of topping that sum up.
Del
Full Member
^ Added to what went on with the standards committee over the Ferrier situation
So far as I know the SNP took the only action they could suspended her party membership, withdrew the whip.
It's not in any political parties power to force an MP to resign their seat.
This ain’t true, hoss.
unless you are being pedantic about the exact words it 100% is true.
As for who he’s married to, that’s the most ridiculous argument yet.
Just out of interest, do you think it is credible that Sturgeon’s husband “loaned” the SNP £107,000 but didn’t mention it until after the fact, and that Sturgeon didn’t remember when she heard about it?
I don’t know - I don’t have £107k just kicking around to make loans with but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility to me. It’s not uncommon for company directors to loan the business money - I am sure many do that without consulting their wives. I think it was disclosed in the accounts though so presumably she didn’t read them either. Also not impossible.
I don’t know where his money came from in the first place which is potentially a more interesting question.
And if you do, do you think that a power couple that chucks £100,000s with such gay abandon can really be in touch with ordinary Scottish people?
I think it’s a strange question. Do I think the CEO of any organisation the size of the SNP is likely to be in touch with some arbitrary definition of ordinary Scottish people? Probably not. Do I think a lawyer who moved into politics is likely to be in touch with those arbitrary people either - probably not. But then I remind myself she comes from fairly working class parents in Ayrshire, living in a council house (bought through Maggies right to buy scheme) and went to a state school, and did some of her legal work at the Drumchapel Law Centre. So, she’s probably closer to a lot of the challenges “ordinary” Scottish people face than the new first minister or his opposite number from the Labour Party.
So far as I know the SNP took the only action they could suspended her party membership, withdrew the whip
The SNP member of the standards committee voted in favour of a conservative member's proposal to reduce her suspension to nine days, thereby sparing her the potential for a bye-election which would be opened in the case of a suspension of 10 days. This is the same committee studying the conduct of Boris Johnson. If the penalties for Ms. Ferries were lenient it would be straightforward to argue that the penalties for Boris Johnson should be at least as lenient if not more so given the nuances of his situation.
But of course the SNP never side with the conservatives.
but FTR no-one said the cops were digging inside the tent, did they?
Not in the heil but NickC did earlier "It’s been reported that under that blue tent, there are cops with spades…"
The SNP member of the standards committee voted in favour of a conservative member’s proposal to reduce her suspension
I stand corrected then
👍
Something really quite significant is going on but I’m really surprised how far from people’s thoughts and conversations it all seems to be.
Because it's not?
Rather undermines the argument for independence based on the narrative of how corrupt Westminster is, turns out Scottish leaders are also dodgy, who’d have thought it.
We're talking about semantics it feels, when I donated how they spent it is irrelevant (except for being stolen and the like), whether on legal fees for the court cases, expenses for folk pushing leaflets through a door or a thousand other things that needed doing to get us to independence.
If he's actually stolen it or equivalent then I'd expect to see him in court - I'm not a Tory, I EXPECT criminals to be punished. But if it's just been spent on other stuff, who GAS.
And no, independence is more than one person (or Party) - been outside of the Westminster corruption 'bubble' is just one of MANY reasons.
unless you are being pedantic about the exact words it 100% is true.
100% true? lol!
This is rubbish: "publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest". It's a silly attempt by you to stop people saying adverse things about Sturgeon's husband.
It would seem I misread the room. Sorry.
This is rubbish: “publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest”.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">PCA - what I wrote is not a direct quote from the Contempt of Court Act but if someone is going to write something which might have an impact on a future trial and thinks it’s a good idea I’d suggest they go read section 2 of the act for the exact wording. </span>
It’s a silly attempt by you to stop people saying adverse things about Sturgeon’s husband.
eh? I couldn’t care about Mr Murrell. I’ve never met the man, I’ve never been an SNP member and if he’s broken the law he should be prosecuted. If he’s done nothing wrong and this is a fishing exercise or witch-hunt I expect it’s going to end up with police Scotland getting pursued for damages. Only Mr Murrell will know for sure if he’s a greedy thief, an incompetent fool or the victim here. You can say adverse things about the man all you want, just make sure that you don’t write anything that might undermine a future trial meaning he might get off with something he did, and a STW poster might end up facing more punishment than he does. STW is a backwater of political discourse, is it likely that something someone writes here could influence a trial? In a world where stuff goes viral very quickly it’s certainly not impossible. It’s very easy to quote / link from here to mainstream social media.
It would seem I misread the room. Sorry
Well I found it funny.
The SNP member of the standards committee voted in favour of a conservative member’s proposal to reduce her suspension to nine days, thereby sparing her the potential for a bye-election which would be opened in the case of a suspension of 10 days.
Well the standards committee are supposed to leave the party politics at the door. Given Sturgeon publicly said she thought she should resign a long time ago I'm not sure this is as simple as the SNP protecting one of their (former) own.
This is the same committee studying the conduct of Boris Johnson. If the penalties for Ms. Ferries were lenient it would be straightforward to argue that the penalties for Boris Johnson should be at least as lenient if not more so given the nuances of his situation.
I don't understand who you can really compare the two. Ms Ferries was a back bench opposition MP who broke rules on safety and potentially exposed a lot of old duffers to covid. She also broke various laws which she was prosecuted for, convicted and punished quite severely. She's stupid. Others will presumably have learned that being an MP isn't a legal exemption from common sense and will think carefully in the future.
Boris (is accused of having) lied to commons, repeatedly whilst prime minister. Everyone knew he was lying and the lie (rather than the parties) caused little actual risk to other members of the commons or the public. Of course indirectly he's probably undermined any future lockdown type rules - but that was the parties not the lies which did that. He's paid a fixed penalty which is not a conviction and as it was for attending not organising is considerably smaller than Ms Ferries penalty. Prima facie his "offence" is much less serious than Ms Ferries. BUT he was the PM and he has undermined trust in the House of Commons and that PMs will tell the truth in the future. Thats incomparable to the "health and safety" offence of Ms Ferries. But it almost certainly need a very significant penalty to reassure the public that lying in parliament carries severe consequences. Comparing the penalties is like trying to weight up who needs the longer jail sentence - someone convicted of a big fraud against a large corporation, or a local plumber doing dodgy gas work.
Clearly there has been some highly dodgy goings on. Sturgeon and Murrell would not be the first to fall from hubris. I'd be surprised if there is any significant personal enrichment but it certainly looks like dodgy dealings with SNP funds. Criminal? We will find out
gordimhor - I realise that's the implication. Do you think the party asked for that or the SNP member did it themselves? Do you think there may be any other reason (like he's probably spent more time with her and so knows she's useless and incompetent rather than evil) or he's balancing out a "hate the (ex)SNP" MP view on the committee. FWIW I think 30 day suspension was sensible. Perception of losing a seat that technically you don't own anymore because you kicked the person out the party is to me a strange reason to be worried. I'd be more worried that if they seemed to be protecting her now, you'll definitely lose it at the next GE.
In the febrile atmosphere following the SNP leadership election and the possibility of Scottish Labour's polling improving (and now the party membership/finances investigations) I imagine that any Scottish by-election would be seized upon by the media and portrayed as a bellwether for the future of the SNP and hence independence.
If that by-election happened to be in a very swingy seat where the behaviour of the outgoing MP may harm the SNP's chances (irrespective of the fact the SNP kicked her out of the party for her behaviour), then the SNP might struggle to win the election. And despite the mitigating factors being largely local that would still be paraded by the media as a sign that the SNP's grip was slipping, and be extrapolated by those who wished to do so that support for independence was slipping too. And such coverage might itself actually end up influencing national opinion to an extent too.
So I can see why some people in the SNP might prefer to avoid a by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West at this time, even if that isn't the view of the party leadership.
On the other hand the people of Rutherglen appear generally quite keen to boot Ferrier out.
Poly I don't know who is the SNP member on the standards committee and therefore have no idea what their personal opinion on Ferrier is. I am sure that the party would have instructed them to avoid a by election at this time if at all possible.
Chris L has it right