You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I assume Sturgeon is still an MSP, has she indicated whether or not she intends to remain in post until next election and if she would stand again?
I assume Sturgeon is still an MSP, has she indicated whether or not she intends to remain in post until next election and if she would stand again?
My understanding was she was remaining until the next Holyrood election, and whilst I don't think she explicitly said so its assumed she'll leave then.
I seriously doubt Sturgeon or her husband have done anything criminal, i get the feeling whatever they've been doing may be to stabilise, which has brought trouble to their doorstep, literally. She's always been about a legacy, more so than Salmond was, personally i just think the party is tearing itself apart just now, there's so many divisions, the leadership contest showed that even more, and with the likes of Salmond and others outside throwing rocks it's just a complete mess.
For the Scottish Police to throw the amount of resources into the 'raid' on the Murrell's house and the the SNP HQ, there must be a suspicion of illegal activity. If the SNP had simply used the money 'ring fenced' for the independence campaign probably, then I suspect that the Police would have just reported that. Given the drop in number of paying SNP members and the fact most of £667,000 has gone, I suspect that the SNP might have been 'trading' illegally. Of course this is just my suspicion and I don't have any access to any records.
In view of the way in which contempt of court proceedings can apply to activities on social media, I think it's best to suggest politely to folks here that conjecture is a poor substitute for facts.
More and more cops at their home now. Sky news has reported "more" than 20!
Crowd control? Overkill/waste of Police time? searching for something. WMD perhaps? seems a lot for a financial investigation
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
...and then they'd see that what is there is radically different from “publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest”. Because it's not anything (it's anything "which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced" or anything with the intent of interfering with justice) it's not an offence (contempt is its own beast), and it's not from the moment of arrest (because at that point there are not necessarily any proceedings i.e. a matter before the court). But apart from that...
Recent developments in the world of Scottish politics lead me to issue the usual reminder: contempt of court protections are triggered, in Scotland, once an arrest is made. Please take care.
— Roddy Dunlop KC Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
contempt of court protections are triggered, in Scotland
Does that mean that anyone currently in Scotland should be careful of what they post on this thread?
It means think first. I'll leave it for others to sort out whether that applies only to those in Scotland or to everyone.
Well your post which says "in Scotland", why make that distinction if it isn't necessary?
Crowd control? Overkill/waste of Police time? searching for something. WMD perhaps? seems a lot for a financial investigation
They’re looking for the ‘Naughty Nicola’ painting - pervs! 🤣
I'm not sure what the Police are hoping to find given that Peter Murrell has known for so long that the investigation was ongoing. He has surely had more than sufficient time to destroy any evidence in his possession of possible financial irregularities.
Its all the bodies that "she knows where they are buried" Might be a few skeletons as well
Good point TJ. When's the last time anyone saw Liz Lloyd or Leslie Evans? 😉
He has surely had more than sufficient time to destroy any evidence in his possession of possible financial irregularities.
Reading this Sky News report there appears to be an astonishing level of commitment by the police to unearth any tiny piece of evidence:
Recent developments in the world of Scottish politics lead me to issue the usual reminder: contempt of court protections are triggered, in Scotland, once an arrest is made. Please take care.
— Roddy Dunlop KC Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
Ooh, well, I stand corrected on that one, and defer to Big Roddy.
gordimhor
Free Member@Poly I think the issue here is that the SNP member of the committee voted to reduce her suspension in order to avoid a by-election which they might not win.
Yep, but equally it was a conservative motion that they backed, are we going to also assume that the only reason that the tory could have tabled that motion was to protect the SNP, despite them having long since kicked her out? Or do we have to go off into byzantine plots about this somehow being a pre-emptive protection of Boris Johnson?
@Northwind I reckon the SNP were motivated at a base level by damage limitation. Can't see the Tories motivation being much different.
Damage limitation was definitely part of why they moved so fast and hard against her, shitcanned her immediately and publically called for her to step down etc. And of course it was also good politics since they could hold that up as the counterexample to the Tories. But at this point she's still hanging around like a bad smell, having her gone will be good for the party even if Labour take the seat. The unionist press always link everything she does to the SNP, that won't stop til she's gone.
It's a lose lose situation for the SNP unless they were to win any by election with an increased majority. I am an optimist but I can't see that happening.
Also a motor home seized from outside a relative's house.
I find it very hard to believe that Sturgeon was involved in personal enrichment / corruption. I think the police are just turning over every stone they can to appear thorough
On a related note - D.Ross calls for anti SNP tactical voting - as the Labour scottish branch did a few years ago. Two cheeks of the same arse?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65224008
In the grauniad have been a couple of articles stating what great opportunity this is for labour - so far so good. But then all they describe that labour should do is militant unionism ie fighting with the tories for the unionist vote - and a basic failure to realise that even bad loses at either holyrood or the GE in terms of losing a dozen or more seats will still leave the SNP as the biggest party. Indeed at Holyrood if labour make 20 gains from the SNP then SNP arestill the biggest party and labour cannot govern without a coalition with the tories.
I find it very hard to believe that Sturgeon was involved in personal enrichment / corruption.
Why?
I think the police are just turning over every stone they can to appear thorough
It is totally possible that Police Scotland are being wildly aggressive and abusing their statutory powers. Apparently Scotland is a place where police officers can asphyxiate a man on the street, and "dishonest" prison officers can be responsible for an "entirely preventable" death, but no-one is ever called to account. So who's to say the cops aren't running amok.
But the idea of a 92 year old owning a 100k motorhome is bloody fishy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-50365383
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-prison-officers-granted-lifelong-29433850
Why? Because that is not how I read her character.
I think the cops are bending over to make sure they are not seen as doing the SNP any favours
I assume there's a suspicion of money laundering?
Gawd only knows. One would assume the ownership of the camper is suspicious but it would be a really weird way to hide / launder money!
Is it true that seizure of assets requires a court order? If so then a judge must have thought it suspicious enough to grant one.
I have to say, this is in "car crash" land now. I really don't know what to expect next. Do we get further down the rabbit hole or will it all be a "big mistake"?
I don't think it always needs a court order to seize a vehicle as evidence.
its effing weird all this
My bet? It all comes out as various minor breaches of electoral law leading to a fine for the SNP and thats it. IIRC the tories had a similar one
this being the SNP of course the unionist press are all over it. 🙂
It would be a wild abuse of powers to seize a suspect's mother's property just because the police didn't want to be perceived as doing political favours. It's possible of course...
ownership of the camper is suspicious but it would be a really weird way to hide / launder money!
Registering property in the name of a relative is a common way of dealing with the proceeds of crime and obscuring its origin.
Aye - and a stupid one that does not work.
Do we know the camper was registered in the mum's name and not just parked there but registered in another name? Perhaps Mr or Mrs Murrel just didn't want a camper van they weren't using parked outside their house?
I haven't read the whole thread, so if I've misunderstood forgive me. But if a vehicle is on the curtlidge of a property in Scotland, then it can be searched under a warrant give to search that property. It becomes dodgy if the vehicle is half on the pavement, half on the property, etc...
That's a desperately unfunny cartoon.
If its not physically on the property then a separate warrant for the vehicle will be required.
Did drac draw that?
It’s not Jimmy Krankee so no.
I would expect that its primary purpose was to be insulting rather than funny.
To the average reader of guido fawkes I think it will be extremely funny.
I don't know much about scottish politics, but the camper van thing seems to be a bit sensational at best, from my laymans point of view.
I mean yes there could be some missapropriation of money, tax dodging... I suspect there must be if it's been seized by the police.
Not to make light of it but that's small fry compared to the conservatives cash for honours, dodgy PPE contracts and the list goes on.
Not that I'm making light of it, politcians should be squeaky clean, but they all seem to be at it, labour, cons and SNP.
Maybe vote Lib dem next time, at least they don't have a track record of ripping off the tax payer.
hat’s a desperately unfunny cartoon.
Its also clearly and deliberately racist. But anti scots racism is tolerated on here. dunno why
If its not physically on the property then a separate warrant for the vehicle will be required.
There is searching tbe vehicle and seizing it. It isn't clear if the seizure is just for the purposes of a search, or if it is being seized as potential proceeds of crime. AFAIK sarching vehicles tends to go hand in hand with searching properties. Seizing it as an asset would be a diffetent kettle of fish.
Its also clearly and deliberately racist.
Insulting, relevant, in poor taste, funny, stereotypical, probably depending on your view point. Racist, no not really, no more so than a cartoon lampooning someone from Yorkshire or Cornwall for example, based on perceived stereotypical traits and history of those areas.
Same as taking the piss out of Irish people. 'I've got an Irish granny so I'm allowed' Everyone's got a Scottish granny as well, it seems.
Don't think I've spent any significant amount of time anywhere in England without some **** deciding there's nothing funnier than repeatedly saying, 'Go on, Say Curly Wurly. There's literally nothing funnier than a Scottish person saying Curly Wurly, ha ha ha!' or, 'We don't have any heroin, is a lager ok?', or some other absolute gem of high wit.
Racism? No, don't think so.
Complete shower of ****s? Definitely.
Negative stereotyping based on supposed national characteristics are racist. That cartoon is clearly racist. Its been removed now tho so that is good.
Imagine if it had been Yousaf dressed in ****stani traditional dress? Or a black person in a loin cloth?
Negative stereotyping based on supposed national characteristics are racist.
Nations do not define race.
Bigotry and prejudice is not necessarily racism. Maybe not an important distinction but the term racism gets bandied about too much imo.
According to the equality and human rights commission predjudice based on nationality can be racism
Its clearly racist.
In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination
Hopefully those Scots clutching their pearls at the tedious Krankie jokes are equally upset at Scots' collective failure to admit to their part in the genocide of indigenous peoples around the world.
Or, you know, at the risk of being repetitive, the total failure of anyone to be held to account when an African man is asphyxiated by Scottish police officers in the street.
https://thescottishaustralian.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/scots-and-indigenous-australians/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sheku_Bayoh
In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality
I'm not talking about the Equality Act but if you want to talk about it the fact that it "can" mean your nationality, because certain nationalities are very racially homogeneous, is totally irrelevant in the context of Scots.
You yourself have completely undermined the claim that Scots are a race by giving the example of the Scottish nationalist leader wearing "****stani traditional dress", apparently that would be required for it to be racist.
The problem with using the term racism where it isn't appropriate is that most normal people dismiss it as nonsense. Which then actually makes it much harder to highlight real racism.
If you feel that there is bigotry and prejudice shown against Scots then just use those terms, there is absolutely no need to call it racism.
That definition contains a bewildering range of social constructions making it very difficult to employ with any accuracy unless we take the position that 'race' means anything you want it to mean.
If it is bigotry and prejudice based on nationality which this is then its racism by all common definitions.
Sorry dude - I understand your concern about folk calling racism where it isn't but you do not get to tell the people of Scotland that negative stereotyping based on being scottish is not racism.
I think Uncle Jezza doth protest too much. We all know that he favours riding without a helmet, but he's always been vague about his reasons why.
Well I feel its now my duty to reveal the truth. Its because that on his recent European tour he felt the need to proclaim his nationality in the way that he best saw fit... through his headwear!
He never went anywhere without it...
[img] 
[/img]
LOLz!
I see it was actually 6 months ago that the SNP auditors resigned and they haven't found anyone willing to take the job on yet.
That definition contains a bewildering range of social constructions making it very difficult to employ with any accuracy unless we take the position that ‘race’ means anything you want it to mean.
The Equality Act is worded in such a why as to stop idiots trying to get round its intentions.
For example calling someone a "****" is very clearly racist. The Equality Act doesn't allow people to get round that by letting them claim that ****stani is not a race therefore the term isn't racist.
Unfortunately some people have decided to take the provisions within the Act to completely bypass common sense and make ridiculous claims. See recent example.
Edit: Apologies I didn't realise that the P word wouldn't go through the swear filter.
If it is bigotry and prejudice based on nationality which this is then its racism by all common definitions.
Prejudice based on nationality can be racist but doesn't have to be. Which is why the Equality Act is worded the way it is.
I see it was actually 6 months ago that the SNP auditors resigned and they haven’t found anyone willing to take the job on yet.
FWIW you only need an Auditor when you need one from a legal/regulatory perspective AKA you don't need one 'on contract'.
you do not get to tell the people of Scotland that negative stereotyping based on being scottish is not racism
I don't think you get to decide who does and doesn't get to tell Scottish people things. There's millions of us, anyway, I think we can take it.
I'm Scottish as ****, and wasn't offended by that cartoon. In fact I found it quite funny.
Sorry.
I thought the cartoon was rubbish but this 'we don’t have any heroin, is a lager ok? made me chuckle. This is how it could/should have been done. Strap yourself in, TJ.
I reckon Mr Sturgeon's baws must be black'n'blue from the repeated kickings he's been getting from Nicola the last week.
I’m Scottish as ****, and wasn’t offended by that cartoon. In fact I found it quite funny.
I think the intention was to ridicule Scottish nationalists, rather than Scots, hence paraphrasing Wallace.
I have no idea if you are a Scottish nationalists but if you aren't that might explain to a degree your lack of offence.
I have no idea why you found it quite funny though, I guess humour is a very personal thing.
I thought it was a load of cringey shite, rolled my eyes and got on with my day. As per Bruce it's many things but racist isn't really one of them.
If it is bigotry and prejudice based on nationality which this is then its racism by all common definitions
Scottish isn't a nationality but it is an ethnicity, see 2022 census categories: ****stani, Scottish ****stani and British ****stani
Ethnicity can be considered separately to nationality and so can be racist under The Equality Act 2010
A Scottish person is British until independence.
Very much a nationalist (small 'n'), in fact my folks met at Edinburgh Nationalists club and my mother went on to work for the SNP in the late 60's so I've been brought up with it from a young age.
I'm just not a fan of the divisive anti-english, blame westminster for everything, rhetoric of the modern SNP.
I reckon Mr Sturgeon’s baws must be black’n’blue from the repeated kickings he’s been getting from Nicola the last week.
Depends if she was aware of her husband's alleged arrangements before or not.
Very much a nationalist (small ‘n’)
I don't really know what nationalist with a small n means but the other obvious reason that you might not have been offended was because you chose not to be.
As a general rule I choose not to be offended by what people say, especially when it is people for whom I have no respect, such as Guido Fawkes.
I still don't understand why you found it quite funny though. It struck me as remarkably childish, and not in a funny way.
I wasn't offended. Just tired of cringy racist tropes
Not seen any cartoon, but the words guido fawkes means i won't go hunting it, it's a weird ending for Nicola, even Salmond is showing his face now and giving the SNP a kicking, after the sh*tshow he left behind.
It's sad to see, i don't agree with all she said or says, i don't like the way the SNP push a message at times, with more jingoism, or negativity of other parties and politicians being used rather than positivity, but Sturgeon was a good politician, only seen a few over the last few years, the recent power play in the SNP showed that they don't have that many left either!
irc
Full MemberI see it was actually 6 months ago that the SNP auditors resigned and they haven’t found anyone willing to take the job on yet.
"Willing to" is a strange phrase. The auditors resigned, and haven't yet been replaced, yes. People have been implying that the auditors left under some suspicious circumstances, that the mere fact of them resigning is a sign of problems or a cause for concern but as far as I can see we have no idea why they resigned
(the term "resignation" is a legal one here, there's strict rules about auditors stepping down and they're required to formally "resign" and give reasons why, but it's not unusual to do so) Maybe there's something there but so far, I don't think there's been any evidence of it, just allusions and insinuations?
Incidentally, you can go and read Johnson Carmichael's comments on their last audit from June 2022, the main takeaway is:
"In our opinion the financial statements: • give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Scottish National Party as at 31 December 2021 and of its deficit for the year then ended; • have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice, and • have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000"
As for not being replaced... My understanding is their accounts need to be audited annually, but that there's no requirement to have auditors other than that- they don't do the accounts or oversee the accounting process, spending etc, that's the National Treasurer's job. They oversee the financial statements that the National Treasurer produces once a year. It's presumably sensible to have business continuity and to have the contracts in place, and a six month gap with a new report due in 3 months or so seems amateurish maybe, but again it just seems to be allusions and implications rather than actually being wrong. They have to submit their accounts by July, still 3 months away, I think they're basically 4 months into a 7 month window from end of accounting year to submission of accounts.
(I'm not sure about this; some people have said that their accounts must be audited before submission but the electoral commission say that they will appoint an auditor for any accounts that haven't been audited so that doesn't seem right. Perhaps it's just a case of "if you want to choose who does it, do it before you submit")
The "nobody is willing to do it" line, I've heard elsewhere as well as in that post but it's just totally made up isn't it? Nobody knew that there was a 6 month gap til just now and yet already people have reasons for it.
Basically, it seems like everyone's talking about audits and making lots of insinuations and assumptions, but there's next to no facts and nobody really seems to be talking about what the audits and auditors are for and what's actually legally required (and what's not legally required but is good practice- there's obviously ways an org can do things badly without breaking the legal rules). I don't know much about accounts and audits so I was sort of convinced that this was unusual and maybe suspicious by all the reporting, especially with Yousaf's comments. But after digging just a little it seems like it's just not that much of a thing?
It also makes me wonder if any other political party's auditors have resigned in the past few years, and if so, if we ever heard about it, or in fact if we ever heard anything about political party auditors til this story? It's definitely not something that's easy to find out, which probably tells its own story- I think you basically have to dig through their annual reports and compare names, unless you're the Electoral Commission. The nearest thing I found with googling is that there's been a 21% increase in auditor resignations in the last year due to regulatory changes.
To me, it's also kind of interesting that last week media, MPs and MSPs were talking about how significant it was that the auditors had apparently resigned amidst the police investigation, and now we're hearing about how significant it is that they didn't...Schrodinger's auditors.
Good christ. If someone else posted that, I wouldn't read it, but I got really fascinated by it when I was typing it and thinking about the subject. I'm such a dork 🙁
I used to work (briefly) for an accountants. I don’t think they just decide to resign as auditors because y’know they are a bit bored with the account. If you google ‘why do auditors resign?’ the answers all concern the auditors fearing something dodgy. In the context of the police investigation & the SNP Treasurer resigning a couple of years back due to a ‘lack of information’ you have to say that this looks to be forming a suspicious pattern. Time will tell.
The auditors resigned, and haven’t yet been replaced, yes. People have been implying that the auditors left under some suspicious circumstances
I think newspapers and media put out some bullshit (just read any story in a field you have some knowledge in if you need conformation) but auditors generally don't rid themselves of clients as well known as the SNP just 'because' Even if there's the merest whiff that something wasn't straight will have a reputationally aware organisation running for the hills, and that reaction will set the tone for their replacement. If you're an auditor and you knew that the auditors before you had dumped the SNP before any possible charges had been bought against anyone, would you be willing to take them on? I think I'd be chary
My guess - the auditors passed the books last year and now something dodgy has come to light in the books they are running away as fast as they can because they know questions will be asked about last years audit
I'll also guess that the outcome of this will be a fine for the SNP for dubious accounting under electoral law and a fine of tens of thousands. Similar to the (at least) two times the tories have been guilty of similar things
Depends if she was aware of her husband’s alleged arrangements before or not.
Of course she bloody knew. It'd be even more disappointing (in her as an operator) if she didn't know.
Not to make light of it but that’s small fry compared to the conservatives cash for honours, dodgy PPE contracts and the list goes on.
From one POV absolutely, but at least Boris got a generous buisnessman to pay for tarting up his flat, rather than pilfering from party funds.
Cartoon is a stereotypical trope. Dressing up as C U Jimmy is fine.
Well that makes sense.
My guess – the auditors passed the books last year and now something dodgy has come to light in the books they are running away as fast as they can because they know questions will be asked about last years audit
Another subject you know little/nothing about.
I made my comment as I've been working as an Auditor, both external & internal, since the early 90's.
Auditors resign and are replaced continually across private/public companies & organisations and I for one have no idea why they resigned, but I do know that when an auditor resigns (or the organisation decides to replace them), they'll put out an RFP/tender. Also depends on how much notice the auditor gave.
Is there an issue - again, no idea.
Correct.
I am sorry you do not understand the nature of anti scots racism
Would you like me to explain?
Auditors don't just quit for no reason; they're not very choosy. If they get fired, there's usually a hundred other firms waiting to get the work. If the SNP still haven't appointed auditors, that suggests either they haven't got around to it (which is pretty shambolic - but perhaps that is SNP MO) or no auditor will touch them (which is worrying).