Nicola Sturgeon Arrested, Peter Murrell Charged

[carpetmonster]

8 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Nope. But it won't stop the "experts" from claiming that they do, while they sharpen their 16 year old rusty knives.

That will never happen and anybody contemplating voting for Starmer's Labour Party on the premise that "they'll back independence someday" is a fucking idiot.

I could see it under a Monica Lennon leadership which is why she’ll never be allowed the leadership. 

[Savage Henry]

20 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The Tories should have an open goal but this happens.

BBC News - Tory MP Scott Benton filmed offering to lobby ministers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65193097

You couldn't make it up.

This is like Ross County vs Dundee United vs Kilmarnock vs Arbroath.  

[FalkirkBairn2021]

4 minutes ago, orfc said:

Ringfencing is a specific legal term that means assets are kept separately, it's not a throwaway term. If they can't be pointed out separately in accounts, they haven't been ringfenced. If further there doesn't seem to be enough cash/tangible assets in the accounts to cover what should have been ringfenced, then it's been spent. If it's been spent and not on what it was ringfenced for, then it's been obtained and spent under false pretences. All three are an increasing scale of no-no's. It's captain obvious stuff.

This is exactly what I thought. I never understood why there wasn't far more obviously an investigation much earlier. 

The NEC must all be extremely worried at this point I'd suggest.

I'm a bit surprised by the 'this wouldn't be enough on it's own' from some. It absolutely would.

Edited April 5, 2023 by FalkirkBairn2021

[Iain]

5 minutes ago, orfc said:

Ringfencing is a specific legal term that means assets are kept separately, it's not a throwaway term. If they can't be pointed out separately in accounts, they haven't been ringfenced. If further there doesn't seem to be enough cash/tangible assets in the accounts to cover what should have been ringfenced, then it's been spent. If it's been spent and not on what it was ringfenced for, then it's been obtained and spent under false pretences. All three are an increasing scale of no-no's. It's captain obvious stuff.

So are the SNP the victims of this crime or the perpetrators?

[Todd_is_God]

13 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

anybody contemplating voting for Starmer's Labour Party on the premise that "they'll back independence someday" is a fucking idiot

Replace "Starmer's Labour Party" with "the SNP" and "they'll back independence someday" with "they will hold a second independence referendum someday" and the result is the same.

[itzdrk]

4 minutes ago, Iain said:

So are the SNP the victims of this crime or the perpetrators?

Yes

[alta-pete]

4 minutes ago, Iain said:

So are the SNP the victims of this crime or the perpetrators?

I think the funding members are the victims, the executive the perpetrators and then there's the statutory Company Law stuff about Directors and their fiduciary duties.

[StellarHibee]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Replace "Starmer's Labour Party" with "the SNP" and "they'll back independence someday" with "they will hold a second independence referendum someday" and the result is the same.

Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall a court case that effectively made Scottish Democracy completely irrelevant.

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

7 minutes ago, Iain said:

So are the SNP the victims of this crime or the perpetrators?

 

[coprolite]

13 minutes ago, orfc said:

Ringfencing is a specific legal term that means assets are kept separately, it's not a throwaway term. If they can't be pointed out separately in accounts, they haven't been ringfenced. If further there doesn't seem to be enough cash/tangible assets in the accounts to cover what should have been ringfenced, then it's been spent. If it's been spent and not on what it was ringfenced for, then it's been obtained and spent under false pretences. All three are an increasing scale of no-no's. It's captain obvious stuff.

Ring-fencing isn't that specific a term, really. It might have specific meanings in specific contexts but it's no more than ear-marked. 

Did they say the cash was ring fenced or the funds? 

If they had budgets for the next few years allowing for an equivalent sum of expenditure on campaigning then that could be a "ring-fence" after a fashion. 

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

12 minutes ago, Iain said:

So are the SNP the victims of this crime or the perpetrators?

I wonder if this is the same police unit that handled the arrest of the administrators of rangers.

Going on previous there could be a substantial payout to Mr Murrell in the future

[DeeTillEhDeh]

23 minutes ago, orfc said:

Ringfencing is a specific legal term that means assets are kept separately, it's not a throwaway term. If they can't be pointed out separately in accounts, they haven't been ringfenced. If further there doesn't seem to be enough cash/tangible assets in the accounts to cover what should have been ringfenced, then it's been spent. If it's been spent and not on what it was ringfenced for, then it's been obtained and spent under false pretences. All three are an increasing scale of no-no's. It's captain obvious stuff.

In terms of charitable donations it is more complicated than that. Saying a donation will be ringfenced is not legally enough.  You actually have to have a procedure in place to say as a donor that you want it ringfenced for that purpose.

That's not to excuse what's happened - even it were legal it was morally the wrong thing to do. I think what's worse is that no responsibility has been taken at all - if they'd owned up to spending the money on other indirect campaigning etc I think there might have been a lot less fuss.

By going down the cloak and dagger route they've just made things worse.  It would be karma if Police Scotland did uncover something more serious because of that initial subterfuge.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Melanius Mullarkey]

You have to pray for Lex’s keyboard. It must be like a painters Radio by now.

[strichener]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

Ring-fencing isn't that specific a term, really. It might have specific meanings in specific contexts but it's no more than ear-marked. 

Did they say the cash was ring fenced or the funds? 

If they had budgets for the next few years allowing for an equivalent sum of expenditure on campaigning then that could be a "ring-fence" after a fashion. 

 

Ehm, no.  It was stated on the donation website that the money would be ringfenced for an Indy2 campaign.  You cannot spend ringfenced money on something else on the assumption that you can make good the funds later.  

When you lose 1/3 of your membership then it becomes unlikely that your budget will stretch to coving your ongoing costs, never mind putting back the spent ringfenced funds.

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

In terms of charitable donations it is more complicated than that. Saying a donation will be ringfenced is not legally enough.  You actually have to have a procedure in place to say as a donor that you want it ringfenced for that purpose.

That's not to excuse what's happened - even it were legal it was morally the wrong thing to do. I think what's worse is that no responsibility has been taken at all - if they'd owned up to spending the money on other indirect campaigning etc I think there might have been a lot less fuss.

By going down the cloak and dagger route they've just made things worse.  It would be karma if Police Scotland did uncover something more serious because of that initial subterfuge.

 

 

The SNP are not a charity so your point above is completely irrelevant.

The website that the donations were provided through didn't even have the SNP mentioned it was all about Indyref2.  You had to go past the donation page before you found out who was raising the money.  It's hard to then justify spending it on SNP running costs.

[Dan Steele]

Released without charge.

[itzdrk]

I see he's been released without charge. 

(For now I presume). 

[tamthebam]

13 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

I see he's been released without charge. 

(For now I presume). 

A Police Scotland spokesperson said "We believed him when he said that money was just resting in his account...'

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

13 minutes ago, strichener said:

The SNP are not a charity so your point above is completely irrelevant.

The website that the donations were provided through didn't even have the SNP mentioned it was all about Indyref2.  You had to go past the donation page before you found out who was raising the money.  It's hard to then justify spending it on SNP running costs.

What does IndyRef 2 mean here. The SNP Executive can argue spening on national elections is spending to get Indy Ref 2.

The other thing that strikes me is if the donators wanted this money specifically for indy Ref 2 official campaign spending, and not on the broader campaign to achieve indyref2, why give it to the SNP who did not run the official Yes Scotland campaign. A political party isn't really the place to park money. If they were smart they would have set up their own investment account and increased the pot in the intervening years.

 

[bennett]