Forum menu
You yourself just said they (Murrell and Sturgeon…?) were “double stupid”.
Citation please, with username attached. ?
This is why we need a proper quote system.
That aside...
Just to be clear: do you genuinely believe that there was an intention for Sturgeon to drive around Scotland using the campervan as a “mobile campaign room” and not stay in hotels during election campaigns?
I don't see why that's such an outlandish idea. During lockdown it was a pain in the arse doing anything, why does a mobile office with self contained eating and sleeping arrangements sound so hard to believe? It can also be driven by anyone unlike a bus which would present it's own issues.
Don't get me wrong, I think it WAS a daft purchase in retrospect but I can see the reasoning. At least they were trying to keep to their own rules.
edit - didnae work
"At least they were trying to keep to their own rules."
Not very sucessfully.
Probably too busy deleting her whatsapp messages to concentrate on her own rules.
Citation please, with username attached. ?
Sorry - I do apologise.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it WAS a daft purchase in retrospect but I can see the reasoning.
Ach well, I'm sure that there will be plenty of internal emails with different people transparently discussing whether it was a good idea or not for the party to buy it or not, what the spec should be for party use, where to procure it from etc. That'll be easy enough to find on the email servers and this will all turn out to be a big misunderstanding...
Burden of proof runs the other way 🙂 You need to find proof of wrongdoing.
Like when it was proved Mathieson had falsified his expenses claim but Swinney still backed him?
Thats not quite what happened but yes that was stupid. As ever its the cover up thats the real issue. Mathieson was utterly stupid. Optics from Swinnney were poor. What Swinney was objecting was NOT the sanctioning or defending the action but that the disciplinary process was not valid. Stupid thing to do.
Burden of proof runs the other way 🙂 You need to find proof of wrongdoing.
Well, a prosecutor does - but those of us outside court can draw our own conclusions.
But in any case when, hypothetically, a senior officer of an organisation is proven by prosecutors to have spent that organisation's money on something that had never been bought by the organisation before, and was never used by the organisation, and was kept at the disposal of that officer, and that purchase was not transparently discussed inside the organisation, and was not properly documented, and there is no evidence to contradict any of this despite that kind of evidence being easily available in the normal course of things...then the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference from all of those circumstances. Or not, as it chooses!
And you know all that stuff? You should supply the info to police Scotland. they might find it handy 🙂 Not sure what crime you think has been committed in all that as well.
come on PCA - you are usually more accurate than that 🙂
Not sure what crime you think has been committed in all that as well.
That's your classic common law embezzlement offence - which is the offence that Murrell has been charged with. This is an absolutely unremarkable scenario that happens all the time in organisations all over the place constantly.
And you know all that stuff?
Oh, no, I don't know all of it - hence the word hypothetically. Of course, any sort of document (or even credible witness statement) that proved that the campervan had really been transparently purchased for the party would be immediately fatal to an allegation of embezzlement in relation to the campervan. COPFS would have to immediately abandon that allegation, it would be dead in the water. And you'd have thought that kind of thing would be pretty easy to dig up between emails, purchase orders, invoices, payments data, insurance policies, property inventories and all the rest. But we'll see.
Want to take a bet on any criminal sanctions ever appearing? Pastry based of course 🙂
COPFS and Police Scotland seem to have a pretty reasonable success rate in prosecuting politicians charged with offences in recent times:
-Natalie McGarry, convicted
-
. "And you’d have thought that kind of thing would be pretty easy to dig up between emails, purchase orders, invoices, payments data, insurance policies, property inventories and all the rest."
Not sure record keeping is an SNP strongpoint.
"The UK Covid inquiry is struggling to understand how Nicola Sturgeon took key decisions during the pandemic because her “gold command” meetings were not minuted, the inquiry has heard."
"Dawson said the inquiry had asked the Scottish government for the minuted records of gold command meetings and from its emergency resilience group meetings, only to be told no official records were made."
"Want to take a bet on any criminal sanctions ever appearing? Pastry based of course :-)"
How about cash based. Loser donates £20 to Singletrack.
COPFS will take proceedings against Murrell in the next year?
And you know that the embezzlement charge relates to the camper van? come on PCA - yuo usually are much more accurate than that. As far as I am aware we do not know what its in relation to
And I still bet there will be no criminal sanction over this Bet you a nice mutton pie
come on PCA – you are usually more accurate than that 🙂
When?
I never bet for money.
My offer is not being charged or proceedings being taken but that there will be no criminal sanction ie he will not be found guilty of a criminal offense
Want to take a bet on any criminal sanctions ever appearing? Pastry based of course 🙂
Couldn't get the list in before the edit guillotine fell, sorry.
COPFS and Police Scotland seem to have a pretty reasonable success rate in prosecuting politicians charged with offences in recent times:
- Natalie McGarry, convicted Aug 2022
- Humza Yousaf, convicted Feb 2017
- Margaret Ferrier, convicted Sep 2022
- Bill Walker, convicted Aug 2013
- Mike Watson, convicted Sep 2005
- Tommy Sheridan, convicted Dec 2010
Jim Devine, Eric Joyce etc were convicted in England.
Obviously the big exception to the above is the unsuccessful prosecution of Alex Salmond - but sexual assault cases are inherently much more difficult to prove than fraud, and an impartial observer of that trial wouldn't come to the conclusion that it was a baseless or spurious prosecution at all.
I'm happy to criticise Police Scotland and COPFS (see, for example, their total institutional failure in relation to Police Scotland officers choking a black man to death in the street and then using racist tropes to justify it), but it hardly seems to be the case that they're in the habit of bringing unwarranted prosecutions of politically influential people in Scotland.
what does that have to do with Murrell?
what does that have to do with Murrell?
Sorry - my ninja edit added a new last paragraph that elaborates a bit more.
still has nowt to do with Murrell that other folk in other circumstances have been prosecuted successfully.
"what does that have to do with Murrell?"
It suggests to me that the vast majority of politicians reported to the COPFS by Police Scotland get convicted.
Don't forget Mike Watson as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/sep/23/uk.lords
and?
Going by their track record Mr Murrell may need to pack pyjamas when he goes to court.
still has nowt to do with Murrell that other folk in other circumstances have been prosecuted successfully.
If Murrell is taken to trial, it's the facts that are relevant to him that matter, not the facts relevant to the last few politicians that were convicted, true. But the allegations aren't outlandish (this sort of stuff happens all the time), these types of cases are usually document-heavy (unlike eg sexual assault cases), and the people making the allegation of embezzlement seem generally competent and successful in this area.
But we'll see. It's a long way between today and a verdict.
If Murrell is taken to trial, it’s the facts that are relevant to him that matter, not the facts relevant to the last few politicians that were convicted, true. But the allegations aren’t outlandish (this sort of stuff happens all the time), these types of cases are usually document-heavy (unlike eg sexual assault cases), and the people making the allegation of embezzlement seem generally competent and successful in this area.
But we’ll see. It’s a long way between today and a verdict.
This, everything else for or against is just baseless speculation.
It seems very odd that the Scottish Government is spending millions of pounds pa on international development when international development assistance is a reserved matter per s7 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5
https://www.gov.scot/policies/international-development/development-assistance-programmes/
It seems even odder that while the development work in Malawi, Rwanda, ****stan and Zambia is quite carefully planned, Yousaf should have been making off-the-cuff decisions about how much and to whom to make emergency donations in support of Palestinians.
I'm not sure I buy the implication that the donation to UNRWA was a quid pro quo for Hamas getting his parents-in-law out of Gaza. I thought that the Rafa crossing was controlled by the Egyptians and Israelis at that point...?
Maybe they are just being humane? People are dying in huge numbers, starvation is rife, medical services have collapsed.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that there is dire need in Palestine.
International development assistance works best when it is carefully planned, coordinated and delivered over the long term - not subject to chopping and changing of short term politicians. The UK International development community has been buggered around enough by that already. That money that was sent to UNRWA can't be spent on the Scottish Government's existing commitments in Zambia, Malawi, ****stan and Rwanda - so what happens to them?
It's certainly A Good Thing to be humane. Should everyone government agency in the country pursue one-off cash donations to humanitarian causes at its chief executive's decision?
It's very weird for a politician to go against the advice of civil servants, particularly on an issue where they have deep personal and family interests. To be blunt: if a Jewish FM were intervening in how aid were sent to Israel at a time when their in-laws were trapped in Israeli territory, there would be a firestorm.
It all speaks to a very lax attitude inside the Scottish Government and the SNP about transparency and integrity when it comes to spending other people's money. Ferries, campervans, foreign donations, food banks...
I also just don't understand how the Scottish Government can spend money on an issue that is outside its legal authority. But maybe I am just missing something there, as it seems such an obvious breach of the Scotland Act 1998. Perhaps Westminster passed subsequent enabling legislation or something, I don't know.
Meanwhile, if (and to be fair it's a pretty big if, considering the Telegraph) this is true, then it's a bit of a LOL. The debate may not happen and the impact may be zero, but it's not a great look. It reminds me of the increasingly arcane discussions of the fringe Internet left, where it becomes a weird kind of virtual worldbuilding like Dungeons & Dragons.
The SNP is set to spend time debating what national anthem an independent Scotland should have despite its general election drubbing... Stewart McDonald, a former Glasgow MP, said the move to conduct a conference debate on a Scottish state’s official song was an example of how detached his party had become from the everyday concerns of voters...He warned the SNP would get “horsed” at the 2026 Holyrood elections unless it urgently changed, hitting out at an unhealthy internal culture in which dissent and debate were not tolerated.
PCA - is there anything that the Scottish government does, did or could do that you agree with?
Or is your position simply the Bain principle?
is there anything that the Scottish government does, did or could do that you agree with?
Removal of child benefit cap, free prescriptions and youth dental and uni at point of use (although I would have means tested), banning pavement parking, reopening railway lines in Birders and Fife and East Lothian, building new railway stations, free school meals in primary schools...
Many of these things have happened in other parts of the UK but it was the SNP in government that was responsible for rhem in Scotland.
What these successes all have in common is they are technocratic, build on existing capacity, and are legal and have been immediate positive impact on residents' lives. Where the SNP fails biggest is with poorly-considered, partisan, nation-building or plain unlawful initiatives: ferries, returnable bottles, gender recognition, Yousaf cosying up to Erdoğan...Not all of these were terrible ideas but beyond the capacity (legally or practically) of the SNP as the Scottish Government to deliver.
"I also just don’t understand how the Scottish Government can spend money on an issue that is outside its legal authority."
Because their spending is not audited by the UK govt. They get their budget and get on with it. I would expect the senior civil service to advise against spending outside the devolved areas but in this case it appears they did and got ignored.
In other cases senior civil servants seem to view themselves as part of the SNP team. For example they way they retrospectively changed the rules to allow historical grievances against Alex Salmond to be pursued.
Another questionable area is using civil servants to draft papers about how an independent Scotland would work. There is no indy Scotland. There is no prospect of indyref 2 in the short or medium term. That looks like party political work to me not govt work.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/independence-documents-spending-scottish-national-party/
Ta PCA
"Hans... Are we the baddies?"
Are you suggesting anyone but Cameron Downing is a "baddie"?
I think he was ejected/jumped from the SNP a few years back, and rightly so from what I can see. Seems like a right ****hole and deserves a conviction and jail sentence.
2022 article https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-equalities-officer-who-threatened-28249046
Not sure if anyone here can remember this happening and why it took a while for him to leave?
uni at point of use (although I would have means tested)
Means Tested who?
These folk attending Uni are adults, so presumably you mean them - I reckon 99% of them would fail the 'test' and their costs covered.
True - but student loans are already means tested in Scotland, so why can't fees be too? https://www.mygov.scot/apply-student-loan
I'm just a bit unenthusiastic about "universal" benefits that can end up benefiting higher earning families more than lower income families. But I do accept that sometimes it costs more money to administer the means testing than you save by withholding benefits/subsidies/whatever from people that don't need them as much.
I should have added the Baby Box to the list of Good Things the SNP has achieved in power.
True – but student loans are already means tested in Scotland, so why can’t fees be too?
Because it's not the policy by the Govt we elected - but don't worry, when we've lost the Parliament you can congratulate yourself for your part in increasing the cost of living for future generations.
OK, well, we are agreed that student fees could be means tested.
Obviously it's a policy decision not to do that, and the consequence is for the state to subsidise all students rather than target students with the greatest need, and as a result the state isn't able to spend that same value elsewhere in education or to reduce taxes. Some people will think that's worthwhile.
My assumption is that subsidising fees is seen to have a downstream benefit (higher trained workforce, increased future tax take etc) so I can see an argument for universal subsidies.
Neither should we discount the stigma element. Baby boxes would be a really good example of using a universal benefit to overcome any reluctance on the part of the more needy recipients.
"These folk attending Uni are adults, so presumably you mean them – I reckon 99% of them would fail the ‘test’ and their costs covered."
Nope. It is not the students that are means tested, it is the parents. The amount of loan available depends on parents income. There is no reason to suppose that means tested tuition fees would not work the same way. Poor parents - free tuition. Average or wealthy parents pay tuition fees.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-scotland/#tips-6
Nope. It is not the students that are means tested, it is the parents. The amount of loan available depends on parents income. There is no reason to suppose that means tested tuition fees would not work the same way. Poor parents – free tuition. Average or wealthy parents pay tuition fees.
I understand how it works now, but I was asking PCA for his definition - based on his post.
And since fees are paid by the student over their working life, what has their parents income got to do with it?
"And since fees are paid by the student over their working life, what has their parents income got to do with it?"
Bugger all. An unfair system which tries on the one hand to treat over 16 year olds as adults but on the other hand insists hat they are dependent on the good will of their parents.
David Davis uses parliamentary priviledge to allege possible perjury among other issues during the Salmond affair.
https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1813972948140921198
“And since fees are paid by the student over their working life, what has their parents income got to do with it?”
Kids born into wealthier families generally turn out wealthier themselves, and part of that it because their parents have more money to spend on their education. That's not a radical idea. There are very few middle class kids that don't end up going to uni/HE because they would pay some or all of their fees - we can see that from what's happening in places that do charge fees to some students.
David Davis uses parliamentary priviledge to allege possible perjury among other issues during the Salmond affair.
Not a thing on the BBC website about it.