Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[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

[Wee Bully]

18 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. 

 

Basically, we are throwing around accusations here, with not a shred of evidence.  “As far as I know…” is shorthand for “I know nothing, but I’m going to chuck shit against the wall to see if it sticks”

[coprolite]

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

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.  

 

10 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Basically, we are throwing around accusations here, with not a shred of evidence.  “As far as I know…” is shorthand for “I know nothing, but I’m going to chuck shit against the wall to see if it sticks”

Like i said it's possible they're just incompetent. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Everyone's talking about shady goings on but I haven't heard a theory of what they might be

Try picking up a copy or two of Private Eye then, it has been covered for about three years now. 

[welshbairn]

Given that I'm not going to buy the last 3 years of back issues of Private Eye I'm going to assume that the party spent too much on the 2021 election and as CEO he felt responsible, so he lent the money to cover a temporary shortfall in covering running costs, wages, rent etc.

Edited February 9, 2023 by welshbairn

[Aufc]

7 hours 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?

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

Aside from everything mentioned a few posts back, my thought is the fact they hid it. If they are hiding stuff like this then what else are they hiding. They can bullshit all they want about not realising but only naive people will believe them

[Aufc]

Also 100k is not a huge sum in the grand scheme of things, however, if they are needing loans of that amount to run a budget then it worries me for when they are trying to run the budget in an independent country. 

[ScotiaNostra]

8 hours ago, coprolite said:

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. 

Its a lack of transparency and accountability that a husband and wife in those roles gives the opportunity whether anything is dodgy or not to say it is. Which is the case in point of why was it even allowed to happen and continue for so long. Surely someone said to them, you know that this will be used against the party at some point. So lets remove that weak point. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

9 hours ago, Aufc said:

Also 100k is not a huge sum in the grand scheme of things, however, if they are needing loans of that amount to run a budget then it worries me for when they are trying to run the budget in an independent country. 

The irony is that some of those pointing the figure are in a party that siphoned off billions to their pals through PPE contracts etc.

That's not to exonerate Murrell - I personally think he is a political liability  - but have a sense of proportion about this.

Edited February 9, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Given that I'm not going to buy the last 3 years of back issues of Private Eye I'm going to assume that the party spent too much on the 2021 election and as CEO he felt responsible, so he lent the money to cover a temporary shortfall in covering running costs, wages, rent etc.

Your assumption would be wrong then. 

[Suspect Device]

11 hours ago, virginton said:

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.

 

Yet more baldism on this forum. Are we the last unprotected minority?

Bald lives matter.  Bald pride. Etc.

[PHM]

Wee Nippy and her fake husband are up to no good. I'm looking forward to it all falling apart.

 

PS. I heard free speech is banned on here unless you're a leftie SNP lapdog? 

[Salt n Vinegar]

24 minutes ago, PHM said:

Wee Nippy and her fake husband are up to no good. I'm looking forward to it all falling apart.

 

PS. I heard free speech is banned on here unless you're a leftie SNP lapdog? 

Missing you already.