Yo9u think the police gave her information this was going to happen many weeks before the information became public? that would be a huge issue if so
The cops, you mean from Op Branchform? Nah, I reckon that was probably the trigger internally though and once that investigation started it was only a matter of time before he's exposed.
Yo9u think the police gave her information this was going to happen many weeks before the information became public?
I'd imagine its probably quite difficult for the police to investigate fraud within an organisation - sufficiently to have grounds to make an arrest - without the people who deal with the organisation's finances being aware theres an investigation. Someone must have had suspicions of fraud sufficient enough to alert the police in the first instance.
I'd assume either someone within the SNP gave Sturgeon some warning there was something coming or Murrell himself knew the walls were closing in and fessed up
Her resignation came pretty much out of the blue - sufficiently so that the SNP weren't in any way ready for a change of leadership, so it did seem like an especially hurried exit.
May well also be her resignation signalled some insight into the investigation to the police and expedited the arrests
No! Convert may have made the comment I first replied to but any suggestion that the camper van had a superficially reasonable cover story you've jumped on to suggest that its totally incredulous and by implication that she must have known and turned a blind eye.
No. The implication of the cover story for the campervan being such obvious bollocks is that you'd have to be unbelievably credulous to believe it, and even more credulous to still give it any value today.
I didn't say anything about Sturgeon. It actually wouldn't surprise me that a spouse knew nothing about what was happening in their own home - esp if they didn't have a conventional marriage (which happens quite a lot in the real world).
Edit: btw my username is a reference to a cheap TV programme from the 2000s, not to any police experience.
If there wasn't even a glimour of truth behind the cover story for the camper why is it listed in their accounts? Clearly it doesn't represent the whole truth or he'd have not pled guilty to that charge, but it made it through the SNP accounts approval process and an audit without anyone saying "clearly total bollox" but his wife was supposed to know better?No! Convert may have made the comment I first replied to but any suggestion that the camper van had a superficially reasonable cover story you've jumped on to suggest that its totally incredulous and by implication that she must have known and turned a blind eye.
No. The implication of the cover story for the campervan being such obvious bollocks is that you'd have to be unbelievably credulous to believe it,
what anyone believes today is entirely irrelevant - the accusation being made was that "she must have known" thats a question of her state of mind at the time.and even more credulous to still give it any value today.
Well you were responding to a comment about why sturgeon may not have known what was going on, and then kept going when you laughed at the suggestion that its a lot easier to park a van in leafy suburban fife than central edinburgh.I didn't say anything about Sturgeon. It actually wouldn't surprise me that a spouse knew nothing about what was happening in their own home - esp if they didn't have a conventional marriage (which happens quite a lot in the real world)
You think the police gave her information this was going to happen many weeks before the information became public
Police stations are notoriously leaky when high profile figures are involved. The press usually have a running commentary from within the department as to how these things are progressing. This may come as a shock to you, but money has been known to change hands in return for said information.
And once the press have got hold of it, then I’m sure that a high profile politician who’s directly involved, one way or another, will soon get wind of it
she resigned weeks before any wispers in the press
The Long term auditors resigned in September 2022, the difficulty replacing them would have been a red flag, especially to anyone involved with the financial statements which would include Sturgeon who was one of the signatories. It is also an exaggeration to say she has been cleared, this implies innocence when there may simply not have been enough evidence to charge her,
she resigned weeks before any wispers in the press
Whispers? I really cant believe you’re that naive. I’ve just explained how this works (having worked in the offices of a few national newspapers of various flavours). Though this is basic and obvious stuff that shouldn’t even need explaining.
By the time they publish anything high profile like this, they’ll have been building and researching a story for weeks, in this case probably months, and making sure it’s legally watertight. They’ll have no doubt have had paid information from people on the inside of the investigation throughout.
So Nichola saying she didn’t know anything about this in advance and it has nothing to do with her resignation is about as credible as Piers Morgan still maintaining he knew nothing about phone hacking. Both claims are so equally preposterous as to be absolutely laughable.
She knew full well what was coming down the line
and even more credulous to still give it any value today.what anyone believes today is entirely irrelevant
It's not Sturgeon that still believes the nonsense about the campervan being for COVID campaigning, and then it being kept at Murrell's mother's house because it was cheaper than paying for parking lol
Seems Ms Sturgeon's lawyer has sent a letter to the media threatening them not to allow defamatory comments about her.
WINGSOVERSCOTLAND.COM
Seems Ms Sturgeon's lawyer really struggled to spell and punctuate "Murrell".
wings is written by a pure diddy.
I've been away from Scotland for a few years now but most of the people I knew were either pro SNP/indy or against it , not many were on the fence about it . Having said that I wonder if this had come out a few weeks ago if it would have had much effect on the elections ?
wings is written by a pure diddy.
Is this why you're struggling? People with who you disagree politically have pointed out the massive holes in your belief that Sturgeon knew nothing about all this?
At some point @tjagain, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that when a Treasurer resigns because of lack of clarity, The SNP can't appoint new auditors because no one will touch them with a barge-pole, and the cops are circling to investigate the chief-executive for possible financial crimes, that there might have been 'conversations' over the breakfast table and questions regarding the numbers of cars, games consoles, camper vans, and maybe even those ugly-ass salt and pepper shakers.
Having said that I wonder if this had come out a few weeks ago if it would have had much effect on the elections ?
Nicola Sturgeon resigned as FM in February 2023 and the tent went up in the garden in April 2023 . I think most people made their minds up at that time or possibly even before then.
There's a good argument to say that had Murrell s guilty plea come out before the recent election it could have driven some people away from the SNP but it could also have caused some disenchanted SNP supporters to return to the fold because of perceived institutional and particularly media bias against the SNP and the Independence cause.
nickc.
shame i haven't actually got those views you ascribe to me.
all i have done is given her the benefit of the doubt and provided an alternative viewpoint. None of us actually know what has happened . I find it weird you think the first minister should be using her time on internal party finances
wings is a complete fantasist. its not i disagee with him politically. Its that he is a proven conspiracy theorist and fantasist
all i have done is given her the benefit of the doubt and provided an alternative viewpoint. None of us actually know what has happened . I find it weird you think the first minister should be using her time on internal party finances
You don't think she would be briefed about a massive scandal in the party?
Do you apply the same level of "well how could they possibly have known" to Farage when [insert one of the hundreds of Reform scandals here]?
You think the police gave her information this was going to happen many weeks before the information became public
Police stations are notoriously leaky when high profile figures are involved. The press usually have a running commentary from within the department as to how these things are progressing. This may come as a shock to you, but money has been known to change hands in return for said information.
And once the press have got hold of it, then I’m sure that a high profile politician who’s directly involved, one way or another, will soon get wind of it
it’s quite impressive how little has leaked; and surprising that nobody in an official role gave the FM either an official or unofficial heads up. The thing is if your logic is right, she is actively saying nobody did, then there’s plenty of people who would love to throw her under the bus who would surely be able to find someone who contradicts her?
Branchform apparently flew people to Orkney to take a statement that any local Bobby could have done. If they went to that effort and cost it was presumably at least in part about keeping information contained.
The cartoon in Today’s Times probably sums up how the majority of people view the credibility of her defense
Having said that I wonder if this had come out a few weeks ago if it would have had much effect on the elections ?
I can’t see how. The most vocal critics of the SNP’s financial management / internal governance were never going to vote for them anyway and the most ardent supporter would would stick their cross beside SNP even if it emerged every penny of Scottish Income Tax was being paid into SNP politicians pockets! I don’t think many of the swing voters cared about the scandal, and probably care even less with a guilty verdict. Whilst he was of course innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of the voter who needed to justify not voting snp there is no smoke without fire…
you see the first half of that I completely get - “is the party in financial difficulty” and perhaps “is there some financial mismanagement” seem legitimate questions for everyone at the NEC to be asking. Of course that’s where the conflict of interest arrises because “no dear, it’s just the usual political factions causing unrest over nothing, let me take care of it” carries more weight than it should if the person saying it shares your bed. In fact if he says “no, there’s some cash flow difficulties but I’ve lent them £100k to sort that out, it probably settles your mind AND sends you a message that if he can afford to lend his employer £100k he’s comfortably enough off that he can afford the nice shit he keeps buying.At some point @tjagain, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that when a Treasurer resigns because of lack of clarity, The SNP can't appoint new auditors because no one will touch them with a barge-pole, and the cops are circling to investigate the chief-executive for possible financial crimes, that there might have been 'conversations' over the breakfast table and questions regarding the numbers of cars, games consoles, camper vans, and maybe even those ugly-ass salt and pepper shakers.
but this “well we have lots of nice stuff, have you been creaming off the party funds for fun” is quite a leap. Plenty of people in the party who would happily stab her in the back if they had said to her, “Nicola, your husbands expenses claims are a bit ridiculous” or “Nicola we are pishing money down the drain, can we get Peter to rain in the gifts”. Her position that he could afford this stuff without stealing it is plausible, in which case it will be interesting to see if the sentencing hearing reveals where it was actually going. My guess is he’ll have been pumping most of his salary into pension - it’s what the comfortably well off do, and then using the company card to fund his lifestyle which is obviously where it goes wrong.
wings is written by a pure diddy.
Perhaps but he has been more right about this saga than the rest of the mainstream media. None of whom seemed to think there was a story in the fact there was only £97k in the SNP accounts when there was supposed to be £700k ring fenced for an indyref 2 campaign.
for most of them financial ruin of the SNP would be good news and no money for Indyref2 a positive thing! I suspect that most people (myself included) assumed it was incompetence rather than illegality that had got them there.wings is written by a pure diddy.
Perhaps but he has been more right about this saga than the rest of the mainstream media. None of whom seemed to think there was a story in the fact there was only £97k in the SNP accounts when there was supposed to be £700k ring fenced for an indyref 2 campaign.
Perhaps but he has been more right about this saga than the rest of the mainstream media. None of whom seemed to think there was a story in the fact there was only £97k in the SNP accounts when there was supposed to be £700k ring fenced for an indyref 2 campaign.
I) this is not the basis of the case against Murrell
2) Its been all over mainstream media including the initial allegations of misused funds for independence campaigning and Murrells different misuse of funds
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day
My goodness I have to say its so bizzare the stuff he bought. I can think of no rationale behind much of it. Just weird. Like something wrong in his head?
I'm not sure that 'No Commenting' a police interview is a good look even if it is 'standard legal advice. (Not is having Anwar as your solicitor)
I'm not sure that 'No Commenting' a police interview is a good look even if it is 'standard legal advice. (Not is having Anwar as your solicitor)
she then gave the police a detailed written statement.all politicians do this.
Its the only thing you should say when being questioned
Really? The police are trying to find out the circumstances of a crime. As a law abiding citizen, do you do your best to prevent them doing that or do you try to help them? Especially if you are a First Minister who promises full co-operation with the police?
I thought everyone knew this, when being questioned don’t say anything without speaking to and under advice or having a solicitor present
Which she did by providing a full and complete written statement
Slag her off by all means but only for things she did wrong
Charm icheal ( loib dem) lying and only admitting it during a judici8al inquiry - cost £100000 to the public purse
Jpohnson - Lyin g in public about parties - cost gawd knows how many lives and money
Blair - lying about WMD
Just for 3 examples of polticians lying even under oath
She had a solicitor present. If I am a witness to a crime why would I not want to help the police. Unless there was a reason why I might somehow be involved. Her line is that she is a victim of her husband’s criminal activities. Why would she not to provide evidence.
Guess you’ve not been in court much or had dealings with the police, they are not your friends
The reason I haven’t been in court is because I haven’t committed a crime. She’s the ex First Minister, she’s hardly in the demographic likely to get framed by the plod. Or are we onto a snitches get stitches conversation.
Thats rather innocent to think that only criminals end up in court, and "no comment" has nothing at all to do with such a statement as "snitches get stitches" comment (amusing) .....you've been watching too many "The Bill" reruns
Which she did by providing a full and complete written statement
Slag her off by all means but only for things she did wrong
All I'm saying is that it isn't a good look & is only going to damage her reputation. I disagree with a lot that Sturgeon stands for, but she has always had my respect & gratitude for the inspiring and comforting leadership she showed during Covid. You could not have asked for a better performance from a British politician in the circumstances & I'm glad we had her leading us during that time. However, this is not her finest hour and she is coming across as disingenuous & evasive. I'm not saying that she was involved or attempted to actively cover up this crime, but I don't think she is coming out of this well.
Its the only thing you should say when being questioned
Well as everyone who’s ever watched 24 Hours in Police Custody knows, it’s the surest way to let everyone know that you’re as guilty as sin.
Its always the wrong’uns who take that route, normally advised by a lawyer in a shiny suit who you can’t help feeling you’ve seen somewhere before…
Fair enough mr notverygood
Its the only thing you should say when being questioned
Well as everyone who’s ever watched 24 Hours in Police Custody knows, it’s the surest way to let everyone know that you’re as guilty as sin.
Its always the wrong’uns who take that route, normally advised by a lawyer in a shiny suit who you can’t help feeling you’ve seen somewhere before…
Every layer/solicitor would advise a client to state "no comment" if they are being questioned, if a lawyer is in attendance with their client and advises "no comment" then it is up to the police to provide the procurator fiscal with a case based on evidence.
I've always stated "no comment" if I I did not have a solicitor to advise me.
The thing is that we all know that the only court that matters here is the court of public opinion and on the basis of what we know (her husband embezzling 400 grand apparently without her noticing) there’s only two things she can be here
1. stupid
2. complicit
I know that neither is good, at this point it was never going to be, but guess which giving a ‘no comment’ interview points to in most people’s eyes?
I can see your point, it's a fair assumption but it would be a rather foolish person to admit or speak out in such a situation.
And given the choice of "Court of public opinion" or "court of law"...........I know which one I would choose/not choose to judge me.
Fair point
Well as everyone who’s ever watched 24 Hours in Police Custody knows, it’s the surest way to let everyone know that you’re as guilty as sin.
Its always the wrong’uns who take that route, normally advised by a lawyer in a shiny suit who you can’t help feeling you’ve seen somewhere before…
Anyone who has watched 24HinPC (although set in England and not a direct translation to Scotland it’s close enough) surely realises that they only broadcast cases which lead to conviction, the “we interviewed him, he said no comment, it probably wasn’t him” stuff is shite TV and a privacy nightmare so gets dumped on the cutting room floor.
anyone who has watched a lot of 24HinPC also knows that 1. It’s common to go no comment then provide a prepared statement (that is what she apparently did - although I have huge concerns that this information is in the public domain at all); 2. Often the people who are “most guilty” don’t go no comment - they try to explain their way out of things.
3. It’s not always the best tactic, if there are going to be criminal proceedings against you adverse inferences can be made if you later try to make excuses you didn’t offer at the time.
the right not to incriminate yourself is a fundamental human right - beware that the parties shouting most about this being a sign of guilt and a tactic of organised crime gangs are also the parties rather keen that we leave the ECHR.
The underpaid guy or gal in the cheap suit in the corner is a key step in ensuring justice gets done and is seen to be done. Don’t think of them as there to get bad people off, but there to make sure the powers of the state don’t get wrongful convictions.
I'm not saying that she was involved or attempted to actively cover up this crime, but I don't think she is coming out of this well.
I’m quite surprised she’s enlisted Mr Amwar to represent her. What she needs is for the story to die down - but his style of representation always seems to be about him being in front of the camera as much as possible - for many of those he represents who’s stories need to be raised in profile that seems logical.
it is ironic though that Scottish politicians always yell at the SNP to “get on with the day job” and often criticising spending on pointless inquiries but have spent the last week demanding an inquiry into how someone who was never an elected politician was able to commit a crime, and what someone who is no longer an MSP and wasn’t even the last FM knew about it. £2M on a police investigation which has resulted in a criminal conviction but the politicians believe they can do a better job. IF they want to increase financial accountability and transparency in political parties I’m all for it - but I’ve not heard any of them say “we need to learn the lessons so this can’t happen in our own party”. Ironically if there is a culture of secrecy and coverups, it’s actually driven by political hysteria by opposition parties who imply that they would never make any mistakes and try to make political capital out of every error rather than doing what the majority of people is Scotland actually want - which is politicians to cooperate and solve problems rather than see who can draw blood first.
