Nicola Sturgeon Arrested, Peter Murrell Charged

[Billy Jean King]

59 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

SNP could face investigation into loans from Peter Murrell - BBC News

The SNP could face another probe into its finances after taking five years to declare thousands of pounds in loans from its former chief executive.

The Electoral Commission said the party received two loans totalling £15,000 from Peter Murrell in 2018, but did not notify the watchdog until last year. It said it could consider enforcement action.

The Electoral Commission said the SNP reported to it in October that Mr Murrell - who resigned as chief executive in April last year following a row about membership figures - had made two loan payments to the party in 2018. The commission said these loans should have been reported the year they were made.

Prior to this year, when the thresholds were raised, parties were obliged to report donations higher than £7,500. Smaller donations from a single donor which exceed the reporting threshold when taken together also needed to be reported.

Each loan was for £7,500. One was paid back within two days, while the other was paid back within two weeks.

2 x 7500 = 15,000 so not sure what the story is there given it says...."

Prior to this year, when the thresholds were raised, parties were obliged to report donations higher than £7,500. Smaller donations from a single donor which exceed the reporting threshold when taken together also needed to be reported.

Each loan was for £7,500".

[Left Back]

1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said:

2 x 7500 = 15,000 so not sure what the story is there given it says...."

Prior to this year, when the thresholds were raised, parties were obliged to report donations higher than £7,500. Smaller donations from a single donor which exceed the reporting threshold when taken together also needed to be reported.

Each loan was for £7,500".

I would imagine it’s because £15k is greater than the £7.5k threshold that was in place at the time.  The multiple donations rules will be in place to stop someone sneaking under the threshold for a single donation but handing over multiple instances (which looks to be exactly what has happened here).  I’d imagine the SNP knew that as well or they wouldn’t have fessed up about it last year if there was no potential issue.

It really isn’t difficult to see what the problem/story is here.

[Trogdor]

It's not a donation so surely the rules on donations are irrelevant. A loan is paid back. The issue is the fact they disclosed it 5 years later, no?

[sophia]

14 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

It's not a donation so surely the rules on donations are irrelevant. A loan is paid back. The issue is the fact they disclosed it 5 years later, no?

Whatever, its small beer and only the weirdly invested would be interested. 

 

[Left Back]

1 hour ago, Trogdor said:

It's not a donation so surely the rules on donations are irrelevant. A loan is paid back. The issue is the fact they disclosed it 5 years later, no?

Think the rules on loans are the same as donations and have been for a while.  One of the issues in the big cash for honours scandal was parties using loans so they didn’t have to declare them as they would donations.

ETA these are the regs that would have been in place at the time.  Loans are the same as donations and the total covers a calendar year.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07137/SN07137.pdf

Edited January 5 by Left Back

[lichtgilphead]

13 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Think the rules on loans are the same as donations and have been for a while.  One of the issues in the big cash for honours scandal was parties using loans so they didn’t have to declare them as they would donations.

ETA these are the regs that would have been in place at the time.  Loans are the same as donations and the total covers a calendar year.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07137/SN07137.pdf

The legislation exists to prevent anonymous donations/loans from undisclosed sources.

Whilst I'm not disagreeing that it should have been reported in 2018, is it really headline news that Peter Murrell supports the SNP?

At most, it's a minor technical breach. I'll be surprised if the Electoral Commission levy a fine.

 

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

The legislation exists to prevent anonymous donations/loans from undisclosed sources.

Whilst I'm not disagreeing that it should have been reported in 2018, is it really headline news that Peter Murrell supports the SNP?

At most, it's a minor technical breach. I'll be surprised if the Electoral Commission levy a fine.

 

If it was any other party displaying financial shenanigans like this you’d be up in arms about it.  Be honest with yourself as we all know it’s true.

From the outside looking in it seems the SNP are skint, Murrell has been propping them up for years and doing his best to hide that fact.  It seems like he’s been breaching Electoral Commission rules whilst doing so and there’s still allegations about missing money and personal gain.

This, as you well know, is a lot more than Murrell supports the SNP.  It seems to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour.

[lichtgilphead]

12 minutes ago, Left Back said:

If it was any other party displaying financial shenanigans like this you’d be up in arms about it.  Be honest with yourself as we all know it’s true.

From the outside looking in it seems the SNP are skint, Murrell has been propping them up for years and doing his best to hide that fact.  It seems like he’s been breaching Electoral Commission rules whilst doing so and there’s still allegations about missing money and personal gain.

This, as you well know, is a lot more than Murrell supports the SNP.  It seems to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour.

^^^ Says the totally impartial & unbiased commentator ^^^

Would you like to make a charity bet that the Electoral Commission don't impose a fine?

Edited January 5 by lichtgilphead

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

^^^ Says the totally impartial ^ unbiased commentator ^^^

Would you like to make a charity bet that the Electoral Commission don't impose a fine?

Nope, because I couldn’t care less one way or another whether a fine is levied or not.  I’d suspect the SNP don’t care about any fine either but it’s another blow to their public image.
 

I would also think I’ve been quite clear in my posts since I joined this site that I have no love for any political party and off the top of my head I couldn’t name a single politician I currently have any respect for.  In case you’re in any doubt they’re all self serving fannies out for personal gain imo.

There’s only one poster in this conversation displaying bias (well 2 actually when you include @sophia).  

If this had been Labour, or the Conservatives or any other party I’d be pointing out the same rules and pattern of behaviour.  I suspect I probably wouldn’t have to though as there would be people queuing up in this forum to get there first.

[lichtgilphead]

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Nope, because I couldn’t care less one way or another whether a fine is levied or not.  I’d suspect the SNP don’t care about any fine either but it’s another blow to their public image.
 

I would also think I’ve been quite clear in my posts since I joined this site that I have no love for any political party and off the top of my head I couldn’t name a single politician I currently have any respect for.  In case you’re in any doubt they’re all self serving fannies out for personal gain imo.

There’s only one poster in this conversation displaying bias (well 2 actually when you include @sophia).  

If this had been Labour, or the Conservatives or any other party I’d be pointing out the same rules and pattern of behaviour.  I suspect I probably wouldn’t have to though as there would be people queuing up in this forum to get there first.

^^^ All mouth, no trousers^^^

To be honest, your "I would have pointed out Lab/Con breaches if other posters hadn't done it first" schtick isn't really going to convince anyone.

However, I'll give you a the benefit of the doubt & look forward to your condemnation of any Yoon party when they next breach Electotal Commission rules. Fair enough?

 

[Left Back]

8 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

^^^ All mouth, no trousers^^^

To be honest, your "I would have pointed out Lab/Con breaches if other posters hadn't done it first" schtick isn't really going to convince anyone.

However, I'll give you a the benefit of the doubt & look forward to your condemnation of any Yoon party when they next breach Electotal Commission rules. Fair enough?

 

Are you saying they’re rigging the counts now?

[lichtgilphead]

11 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Are you saying they’re rigging the counts now?

Yes.

You ate a roral cunr fot poinring ir our.

 

Edited January 6 by lichtgilphead
spelling misrakes

[orfc]

One was paid back within 2 days?

 

That's the interesting bit to me, the SNP so cash poor they needed the equivalent of a payday loan. They must have needed 7.5k to pay for something very urgently and then got enough income 48 hours later to pay it back? Did they stick a bet on? 

[Leith Green]

8 hours ago, Left Back said:

If it was any other party displaying financial shenanigans like this you’d be up in arms about it.  Be honest with yourself as we all know it’s true.

From the outside looking in it seems the SNP are skint, Murrell has been propping them up for years and doing his best to hide that fact.  It seems like he’s been breaching Electoral Commission rules whilst doing so and there’s still allegations about missing money and personal gain.

This, as you well know, is a lot more than Murrell supports the SNP.  It seems to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour.

Labour has had fines for not properly registering 15 or 20 donations, Lib Dems at least twice as many, Tories double figures.

The fines are in the region of £250 for each incident - its nothing.

The issue for me is that this has been turned into "a thing" by the BBC in a way they really didnt with those other parties.

Which, as you know, seems to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour.

Edited January 6 by Leith Green

[Billy Jean King]

Odd this was declared in October but never reported at the time. Presumably the media felt the whole issue needed a "bump" and were sitting on this for just such an occasion. Given both Labour and the Tories have been pulled up for this in the past with little recourse when the sums were up to 100 times more, this would appear to be a total non story.

As I said about the XL bully dog stuff, there are umpteen issues you can legitimately have a go at the current Scottish Govt about but it seems the media are heading (possibly even being lead) down ever more obscure rabbit holes.

 

Edited January 6 by Billy Jean King

[Trogdor]

47 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

Odd this was declared in October but never reported at the time. Presumably the media felt the whole issue needed a "bump" and were sitting on this for just such an occasion. Given both Labour and the Tories have been pulled up for this in the past with little recourse when the sums were up to 100 times more, this would appear to be a total non story.

Declared to the Electoral Commission in October. Published thereafter. The Electoral Commission don't publish disclosures instantly.

I'm not sure this has been held in reserve given its really a non-story even relative to the big loan that Murrell gave the party, of which a chunk is still outstanding.

However, it does speak to the cashflow issues the SNP has and the fact these were happening at least a couple of years before the £600k was spent. Which is interesting, I'm sure the good Reverend will be joining the dots on his detective board as we type.

[AyrExile]

10 hours ago, orfc said:

One was paid back within 2 days?

 

That's the interesting bit to me, the SNP so cash poor they needed the equivalent of a payday loan. They must have needed 7.5k to pay for something very urgently and then got enough income 48 hours later to pay it back? Did they stick a bet on? 

Probably a sloppy lawyer not having the next persons estate processed has hit cash flow 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The media consistently hold the SNP to a completely different standard to other political parties. 

I've no problem with them reporting the issue, but it's done in such a tabloidesque over-the-top way  one would think the copy had been provided by the Scottish Conservative Central Office.

I suspect there will be a fine but as others have pointed out, other political parties have done the same,  with larger sums, yet they were not reported on in any way like this has been.

Edited January 6 by DeeTillEhDeh

[sophia]

6 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The media consistently hold the SNP to a completely different standard to other political parties. 

I've no problem with them reporting the issue, but it's done in such a tabloidesque over-the-top way  one would think the copy had been provided by the Scottish Conservative Central Office.

I suspect there will be a fine but as others have pointed out, other political parties have done the same,  with larger sums, yet they were not reported on in any way like this has been.

I clicked on the link expecting to read something substantive and as you say it couldn't get more tabloid if the headline was See Sam Fox as you've never seen her before. 

It's weird journalism for weirdos and it's weird that it's accepted. 

Meanwhile... 

 

[btb]

On 06/01/2024 at 12:48, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The media consistently hold the SNP to a completely different standard to other political parties. 

I've no problem with them reporting the issue, but it's done in such a tabloidesque over-the-top way  one would think the copy had been provided by the Scottish Conservative Central Office.

I suspect there will be a fine but as others have pointed out, other political parties have done the same,  with larger sums, yet they were not reported on in any way like this has been.

Yeah but one of the main selling points in the last decade was that the SNP adhered to higher standards than Labour & the Tories so it's a bit depressing when SNP supporters are reduced to whataboutery.

I'll still vote SNP at the next GE because I think that being a peripheral part of Eng-ur-land just means ever greater economic marginalization but with less enthusiasm than before.