Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Jedi 

[Trogdor]

14 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

It's perfectly legit to make a Directors loan when running your company, I did.

As long as the company is financially fluid.

It's common and useful.

Murrell isn't a director of a company though, he is the CEO of the SNP. He is an employee, the loan was more than his annual salary. He doesn't actually own the SNP! That's a distinction with the scenario you posited. It's not unusual for Directors (who own the company via shares) to put money in. Look at football clubs in Scotland for many illustrative examples.

In any case, I wasn't questioning the legitimacy of the transaction. 

[Wee Bully]

11 hours ago, orfc said:

Sorry, was that meant to make any kind of sense?

You responded to my post by putting something in inverted commas. I asked if that was supposed to be a direct quote, as the words quoted appeared nowhere in my post. 

[SandyCromarty]

2 hours ago, Trogdor said:

Murrell isn't a director of a company though, he is the CEO of the SNP. He is an employee, the loan was more than his annual salary. He doesn't actually own the SNP! That's a distinction with the scenario you posited. It's not unusual for Directors (who own the company via shares) to put money in. Look at football clubs in Scotland for many illustrative examples.

In any case, I wasn't questioning the legitimacy of the transaction. 

I was just illustrating one way of legitimising loans and I'm sure there many other routes to take.

I know for a fact that under this westminster government the SNP party and it's MP's and MSP'S are heavily monitored by the security services as they are viewed as a political threat to the union, any misdemeanour large or small which could provide political gain and discredit the SNP is thrown to the tory media.

The next general election will see the anti SNP westminster propaganda machine in full flow.

[ScotiaNostra]

People have been saying for years that having a husband and wife in those 2 roles was a bad idea for a variety of reasons. He should have left the role for something else when she became leader. Its a weak spot that was always going to be used against the SNP when needed.

[SandyCromarty]

36 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

People have been saying for years that having a husband and wife in those 2 roles was a bad idea for a variety of reasons. He should have left the role for something else when she became leader. Its a weak spot that was always going to be used against the SNP when needed.

In much the same way as Charles and Camilla.

[SandyCromarty]

10 minutes ago, orfc said:

The term The Royal Family would seem to indicate such relationships should not be a surprise no?

Getting back to Sturgeon one of her MSPs is begging for a stay at a re-education centre.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64566957

He's quite right to voice his opinion, there are bound to be differences in a party with a large membership such as the SNP.

The tory chaired BBC and the westminster right wing media love to churn these stories out.

I mean there are no differences in the BBC are there? ah hold on wasn't there a lot of written complaints by BBC journalists complaining about the BBC tory Chairman getting involved at an interview to choose head of news? 

[Aufc]

On 07/02/2023 at 18:38, Wee Bully said:

I’m really not getting where this is going:

1. Nothing illegal about the loan

2. How 2 working people discuss finances will vary from household to household.  I’ve loaned money (some chunky numbers) to friends before, and haven’t told my wife.  It came from my money in my savings account, so what is it to do with her?  If it was from the joint account, she would definitely know.

It’s hilarious how you will constantly defend the SNP and NS no matter what. The loan wasn’t declared for a year so it broke the reporting regulations. It’s also decidedly murky. To finish it off, she then came out with some bullshit line about not knowing about it. Even if he didn’t tell her (which I don’t believe) then she would definitely have found out about it via the party. 

[ICTJohnboy]

15 minutes ago, Aufc said:

It’s hilarious how you will constantly defend the SNP and NS no matter what. The loan wasn’t declared for a year so it broke the reporting regulations. It’s also decidedly murky. To finish it off, she then came out with some bullshit line about not knowing about it. Even if he didn’t tell her (which I don’t believe) then she would definitely have found out about it via the party. 

 

Never anything murky about Boris and his loans.

 

[vikingTON]

34 minutes ago, Aufc said:

It’s hilarious how you will constantly defend the SNP and NS no matter what. The loan wasn’t declared for a year so it broke the reporting regulations. It’s also decidedly murky. To finish it off, she then came out with some bullshit line about not knowing about it. Even if he didn’t tell her (which I don’t believe) then she would definitely have found out about it via the party. 

It's bewildering to see so many people choose a pointless baldy clown like Murrell as their hill to die on.

We've also had 'Unionist poll bias' trotted out in this wave of ludicrous denialism.

[welshbairn]

I honestly don't get the fuss, he lent money to his own party after they'd just finished an election campaign and presumably were short of cash. It's not like he was buying a Knighthood or a job running the BBC. 

[coprolite]

Failure to disclose the loan for so long looks pretty incompetent and careless about rules, which is a bad look for a governing party. 

The explanation given does look a bit shaky and worth digging into. There might well be nothing more to it but there could be all sorts of sinister explanations. There's enough red flags in their for a proper investigation. 

Amazing how some people lose all critical faculties when their side's on the defensive. 

The fact that the Tories and the leave campaign rip the utter piss doesn't excuse anything that doesn't match their decadent troughing. 

[vikingTON]

21 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I honestly don't get the fuss, he lent money to his own party after they'd just finished an election campaign and presumably were short of cash. It's not like he was buying a Knighthood or a job running the BBC. 

The SNP's accounts since the Yes campaign ended have been a total binfire. The husband of the fucking party leader secretly chucking his cash in and not disclosing it makes the party  accounts less, not more transparent and above board. 

Any right thinking person would have chucked the baldy clown overboard long ago and if NS is still not willing to do so then she's quite frankly not up to the task of achieving Scotland's independence. 

[welshbairn]

Everyone's talking about shady goings on but I haven't heard a theory of what they might be, other than the delay in declaring the loan. I'd be more suspicious if the loan had been the other way round, from the SNP to Murrell.

Edited February 8, 2023 by welshbairn

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Everyone's talking about shady goings on but I haven't heard a theory of what they might be, other than the delay in declaring the loan. I'd be more suspicious if the loan had been the other way round, from the SNP to Murrell.

The most likely possibility is surely a donation that they shouldn't have taken? 

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The most likely possibility is surely a donation that they shouldn't have taken? 

You mean for optics? Maybe I'm being naïve but I don't see anything shady about accepting a loan from a party member, even if he is party CEO and husband of the FM. Where's the evil?

P.S. I reread your post and I'm not sure what you mean. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by welshbairn

[git-intae-thum]

9 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You mean for optics? Maybe I'm being naïve but I don't see anything shady about accepting a loan from a party member, even if he is party CEO and husband of the FM. Where's the evil?

Cmon.... that's no what was meant n u know it

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Cmon.... that's no what was meant n u know it

I'm obviously being a bit thick here or haven't been paying attention, explain the alleged reason for the loan to me please.

Edited February 8, 2023 by welshbairn

[coprolite]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You mean for optics? Maybe I'm being naïve but I don't see anything shady about accepting a loan from a party member.

For party funding rules. 

Anyone making a payment for which they've no obvious means of funding should be an automatic money laundering referral and there should be questions asked. I'd say someone on less than £80k having that much liquid assets is highly dubious. 

There was no upfront disclosure when there should have been for funding rules. Suspicion level raised. 

The accounts disclosure could have been more transparent. Nothing there to allay suspicion. 

As far as i know, we only have Mr Murrell's word that it was his money and not say, someone who's not uk resident's or someone whose relationship with the government and contracts might look dodgy. 

Maybe he did have the money in a savings account and misunderstood "report all loans and donations over £7,500". I guess it's possible. 

 

[welshbairn]

13 minutes ago, coprolite said:

For party funding rules. 

Anyone making a payment for which they've no obvious means of funding should be an automatic money laundering referral and there should be questions asked. I'd say someone on less than £80k having that much liquid assets is highly dubious. 

There was no upfront disclosure when there should have been for funding rules. Suspicion level raised. 

The accounts disclosure could have been more transparent. Nothing there to allay suspicion. 

As far as i know, we only have Mr Murrell's word that it was his money and not say, someone who's not uk resident's or someone whose relationship with the government and contracts might look dodgy. 

Maybe he did have the money in a savings account and misunderstood "report all loans and donations over £7,500". I guess it's possible. 

 

I doubt it's that unusual for someone his age to have inherited that kind of money from his parents house being sold, that bit's not suspicious to me. A foreign donor would surely be able to find a more discrete way of funnelling the money than through the CEO of the party and husband of the FM, that bit doesn't sound believable. The money was declared, if a bit late. Maybe he was putting off doing it knowing his wife would find out what he'd done with his money.  

Edited February 8, 2023 by welshbairn