Jump to content

Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.


Pearbuyerbell

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

On loans John Nicolsons grilling of Sharp over the Boris Johnson loan of £800,000 is worth a watch on You Tube.

Very revealing of Sharp at dinner at Chequers with Johnson and his cousin Blyth on the day Sharp got the BBC job.

Sharp not revealing to the BBC Chairman job interview panel that he had talks with Johnson prior to the interview.

Sharp chairing a BBC interview panel to appoint a head of news which is very unusual plus he has no journalistic experience, this led to major print protests by BBC journalists

Sharp is a tory donor as is his son in law.

Very murky and as Nicolson pointed it is more like a Banana Republic jobs for the boys.

The tories are totally corrupt and indefensible, no right minded person could make excuses for the tories.

Johnson is a proven liar. And I expect we don’t know the half of what is yet to come out. But what relevance has all of what you write to my post please?

Simply pointing at dem damn Toaries and saying they’re much much worse doesn’t really engage with the (I think anyway) rather odd situation of £100k being loaned, him not telling his wife about it and she, if she has been told, not recalling the detail. But maybe I’m in the minority of enquiring minds these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Johnson is a proven liar. And I expect we don’t know the half of what is yet to come out. But what relevance has all of what you write to my post please?

Simply pointing at dem damn Toaries and saying they’re much much worse doesn’t really engage with the (I think anyway) rather odd situation of £100k being loaned, him not telling his wife about it and she, if she has been told, not recalling the detail. But maybe I’m in the minority of enquiring minds these days. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 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.

"what is it to do with her"?

Quite a lot if she's head of the political party you're lending it to I should think 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

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. 

Err, yes they did, end of your second last sentence. Ends in a question mark.

But thanks to technology I've learnt to use bold now 🙂

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...