Its a huge source of frustration for me as a former labour voter that Scottish labour are forbidden to develop any policies that work for scotland independently of London and thus are forced to compete with the tories for the unionist vote ie half the population
Amen to that.
Pushing the limits of my knowledge but organisiations can be fined. Certainly the Tories were fined twice for similar offenses but no individual got a criminal charge. labour as well
Edit: link to a differnt case!
Hmm, not sure I would say getting done for fraud for saying ‘donate for the 2nd IndyRef’ instead of ‘donate for the independence campaign’ really compares to the billions in fraud the Tories are responsible for.
it shows that they are equally untrustworthy
Although if we want to pedantic, have any Tories been arrested for billions of pounds worth of fraud yet?
Mone is probably the closest.
In Scotland its pretty much ” a plague on all their houses”
tories – led by a dim nonentity who everytime he tries to distinguish the scots tories from Westminster gets slapped down and rtrtacts. Not a single positive policy
Labour – another nonentity in charge who is not allowed to differentiate from london and whoes main policy is SNP baaaaaad
Lib Dems – hopeless compromised by the proven liar Charmicheal 5th place in the number of seats
Greens – spent all their political capital on the GRA and the deposit scheme – the former of which is hardly their core remit and the latter a fringe issue
SNP – hubris, secrecy and murky financial dealings.
Alba – run by yesterdays man and a self confessed groper only people with seats are all defectors tiny real support
You forgot the Scottish Family Party. Run by an ex UKIPer who wants to ban gay and trans people. Yeah they sound great!
I'm less concerned by the finances of the SNP and more concerned that half the membership wanted a leader who was a bigot or one who got her policies from God.
it shows that they are equally untrustworthy
So, just to double check this, you're saying the £600K is just as bad as the Tories' £69 billion?
I think equating the two takes some mental gymnastics I'm just not capable of at the moment.
To keep it simple the point of independence is that Scots are the best placed to govern Scotland. There is no claim that we're superior to any other people and no acceptance that we're inferior to any other people.
To keep it simple the point of independence is that Scots are the best placed to govern Scotland. There is no claim that we’re superior to any other people and no acceptance that we’re inferior to any other people.
this.
That does beg the question, who should that be and what is the right direction?
No idea to both of those I'm afraid...I mean I have an idea but I'm not sure it is enough of an idea to have any momentum.
So, just to double check this, you’re saying the £600K is just as bad as the Tories’ £69 billion?
It's not the size of the pig in the trough, it's the size of the trough in the pig.
I think equating the two takes some mental gymnastics I’m just not capable of at the moment.
2 sets of politicians up to no good. I don’t think it’s too hard to equate the 2 personally but if you are struggling then fair enough..
where there is a suspicion of fraud its normal to arrest someone so you can interview them under oath.
Ie the arrest does not mean criminal charges are going to occur. The arrest is to progress the investigation
A question for the legal experts out there - why did they not just interview him under caution?
Surely an arrest needs a bit more to justify than an interview under caution and the evidence is exactly the same to progress the investigation?
No idea to both of those I’m afraid…I mean I have an idea but I’m not sure it is enough of an idea to have any momentum.
I think if UKIP have taught us anything, it's that you shouldn't really vote for the party you want to govern. You should vote for the single-issue party that represents the change you want to see.
If the party gains any kind of traction the big parties will soon be falling over themselves to pander to your issue. Why keep the people who are already voting for you happy when the people you really need to appeal to are the ones who aren't voting for you and you just need to keep them happy on a single issue.
Yeah, politics is not in good shape in the UK at the moment.
Beyond my knowledge.
I don’t think it’s too hard to equate the 2 personally but if you are struggling then fair enough..
In the tories case its embezzling billions for personal gain. In the SNP case there appears to be no personal gain
In the tories case it cost many lives.
2 sets of politicians up to no good. I don’t think it’s too hard to equate the 2 personally but if you are struggling then fair enough..
Politicians are never up to any good which is why the scale of their nefariousness is important.
Are you saying that any wrongdoing whatsoever renders a politician just as bad as the Tories?
Yeah, right you are..I forgot the individuals arrested from the SNP were committing fraud (allegedly) for the greater good ..
Tories bad
SNP ok (ish)
I’ll remember that next time I come on one of these threads..😂
I think equating the two takes some mental gymnastics I’m just not capable of at the moment.
Just scale - think of it like this...
Tories - in charge of a country.
SNP - in charge of a county council.
😉
To be fair, Scotland is currently investigating whether £600,000 was raised under false pretenses
That's not really correct though is it, what's being investigated its what's happened to it, not whether it was raised under false pretences. The confusion over what it's for is a SNP politician trying to obfuscate about where it's gone.
Surely an arrest needs a bit more to justify than an interview under caution and the evidence is exactly the same to progress the investigation?
They will want these interviews conducted under controlled conditions. Including good quality audio or video recording. Best done in police interview suites.
The police will be being very careful to make sure there is no chance they can be called "soft" on the SNP and that everything is as thorough as it could possibly be to avoid any accusations of bias.
Given the nature of the allegations the arrest to conduct an interview under caution does not seem particularly unusual to me but as above my legal knowledge does not extend as to whether they could do an interview under caution without an arrest. I just do not know
If you had your tinfoil hat on you could link masons in the police force to militant unionism to anti SNP bias but actually I have reasonable faith in the scots police. I think they are just being careful to be thorough and to be seen to be so.
Remember also that the scottish press is overwhelmingly unionist. worse than the pro tory bias down south. anything that shows the SNP in a bad light is amplified hugely by this and even the "neutral" BBC will follow the unionist press as they take their "neutrality" as the mid point of the press
In some ways it shows the Scots establishment and political setup in a good light as the SNP are being investigated without fear or favour. Compare this to how the Met acted in investigating the tories.
They will want these interviews conducted under controlled conditions. Including good quality audio or video recording. Best done in police interview suites.
That doesn't require an arrest though?
You get arrested "on suspicion of ........" which then means you can be forced to attend an interview.
You can voluntarily attend the police station for an interview without being arrested.
[source: too much time spent in the back of transit vans at police stations, it's not what it sounds like]
Can you not also be arrested to "effect prompt investigation of " or similar?
Needs someone with a decent understanding of scots law on this. None of us seem to know enough
They will want these interviews conducted under controlled conditions. Including good quality audio or video recording. Best done in police interview suites.
But they don't need to arrest someone to do that. They can ask them to attend for an interview under caution. Of course, if you refuse they may then decide to arrest you to conduct it but they still need to have reasonable grounds.
Not sure why it could take this long for an investigation.
Submit accounts, balance sheet etc. (Takes moments to do this from any accounting package)
Bank statements, list of assets etc..
Critically, invoices and receipts.
Where is the money?
There will be transfers out if money has moved from SNP accounts to elsewhere. There should be records of everything spent. And a list of people who had access to party funds. What could take this long to investigate?
When you get a VAT inspection it takes the Revenue about 20 mins to do all that and come up with a list of things they want to look at in a bit more detail.
Companies House records shows the SNP had a sharp rise in their credit worthiness about the time of the £600k going in. They haven't submitted anything recently, so a bit out of date and they are not Limited so less detail due to that as well.
It used to be the case that a suspect attending a police station voluntarily had to sign a paper form to confirm they were there of their own free will. For example back in the day detention before charge was limited to 6 hours. I believe questions were sometimes asked about how genuinely voluntarily their attendance was. Arresting removes any doubts which is an advantage for the police. It is also a safeguard for the suspect as it starts a clock and limits the time a suspect can be interviewed.
I'm sure if a suspect wasn't arrested and his interview went beyond 13 hours the police would be criticized for not arresting and it would be suggested they were trying to avoid the 12 hour limit.
The establishment are terrified of the SNP, and are basically doing all they can to discredit, simply because of the SNP's strong voter base and its constant direction towards independence for Scotland.
If they can discredit thee party, they hope this will derail the independence thingamabob in the eyes of the possible swing voters. They know they arent going to change the minds of the 40% ish, but theres always a chance that the other 11% needed might just vote in such a referendum in favour of independence.
They saw what happened with brexit, and few actually believed that would happen. So they know that the Scottish people might just, possibly vote Yes. If they can discredit the SNP, they'll maybe turn those or enough voters away that an independence vote will fail.
Not sure why it could take this long for an investigation.
Because the police have to submit a request for a warrant, once they've gathered enough evidence for a proper investigation to take place (ie look for evidence at some-ones house) and the public body responsible for doing that took at at least four weeks to come to a decision. The person in charge of the body that issues warrants is part of the government and was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon.
I think they'd want to arrest him because they can interview under caution, keep him in the nick for a bit and check out what he says, and then re-question him (if they want to) and I'm reminded of Tyler Hamilton's response when the FBI "invited" him to answer questions about doping, casually allowing their jackets to gape open revealing their handguns. Tyler recalls his reaction that was to immediately take it very seriously indeed. This is the same I reckon, make a big show of an arrest, it's a whole process and is a bit scary and involves the thing that most law-abiding citizens never want to happen to them. I'd imagine he's being very co-operative (or at least that's the hope)
Someone has a crystal ball. This was posted yesterday.
Look out for Colin Beattie in the news in the next couple of days. 👍
https://twitter.com/FacundoSavala/status/1648061920761597965
The establishment are terrified of the SNP,
Which establishment would that be, in Scotland they are the establishment, as far as Westminster goes they are of not that important other than they've helped keep Labour out of power in the UK and they are a good whipping boy and dog whistle to get a lot of core Tory voters out barking. The SNP work well for the Tories, they are a controllable bogeyman, ultimately Westminster and therefore at the moment the Tories control the power. It's not really in Tory interests to destroy them.
An arrest is necessary to interview under caution as a suspect to compel truthful answers.
Not that a politician / party official is arrested – thats highly unusual but in a complex investigation where there is a suspicion of fraud its normal to arrest someone so you can interview them under oath.
TJ you are vaguely in the right direction with these two statements but both are fundamentally flawed. It is impossible to compel anyone to give a truthful answer or even to answer at all. Police interviews are not conducted under oath, but under caution which affords the suspect the right to silence. There is presumably a reason to suspect they may have committed a crime, otherwise the arrest would be improper, but either a cooperative interview may clear that up or a no-comment interview may fail to uncover the incrimination needed to turn a bad smell into a a basis for charging.
Also the “questionnaires” that Johnson and Sunak filled in after their illegal partying are equivalent to an interview under oath. Both were prosecuted and found guilty under criminal law
Neither were prosecuted or found guilty - a fixed penalty is an offer from the crown not to prosecute if you meet the terms of the notice. Paying the penalty notice does not result in a conviction and does not technically an admission of guilt.
My bet is the outcome of all this is a fine for the SNP under electoral law or accounting. No criminal charges to individuals.
You may be right. My bet would actually be that charges are levied on individuals rather than the party, with the party claiming to be the victims, but that ultimately it never results in a conviction because providing fraud charges is really hard.
But it absolutely does has a servile ‘Independent’ Crown Office, who have been dragging their feet in issuing warrants.
The Crown Office doesn't issue warrants. The police (with the approval of the procurator fiscal) apply to the independent judiciary for a warrant. Applications for warrants are not public so you have no idea of the police, pf, or sheriff was the barrier to be overcome. As a general rule, you want to live in a country where the barrier for the state to obtain a warrant is high to protect you from malicious actions.
The ICO is run by the Lord Advocate, who sits in Government...
Do you mean the ICO? The ICO is a UK independent body which is not run by the Lord Advocate. I'm guessing you mean the COPFS? The Lord Advocate has a bit of a weird half-in-half-out of government role - she is not an MSP, she doesn't automatically attend cabinet. There are lots of people within COPFS who are not SNP fans and would happily "out" her if it seemed she was taking a political position. Its much more likely that the investigation and prosecution of financial crime is just an incredibly slow process.
It used to be the case that a suspect attending a police station voluntarily had to sign a paper form to confirm they were there of their own free will. For example back in the day detention before charge was limited to 6 hours. I believe questions were sometimes asked about how genuinely voluntarily their attendance was. Arresting removes any doubts which is an advantage for the police. It is also a safeguard for the suspect as it starts a clock and limits the time a suspect can be interviewed.
I’m sure if a suspect wasn’t arrested and his interview went beyond 13 hours the police would be criticized for not arresting and it would be suggested they were trying to avoid the 12 hour limit.
To be fair it seems to be the old leaders of SNP that are trying to discredit SNP - not the establishment. It would appear it is not "Westminster and the English" making it up.
Ta Poly - I did of course mean " under caution"
I'm still seeing it all individually as not looking like a big deal, but enough together to look like a bigger deal. At the very least stuff like the battle bus looks like gross wastefulness of donor's money- I used to be a member, if I still was I'd be raging. And getting arrested is not a good look, even if it never leads to anything.
Too much of it just seems still up in the air- will the arrests lead to anything of substance, will the accounts be delivered in time, will they be signed off by a new auditor etc. I'm naturally a bit suspicious of when so much is made of the story before it settles, that often seems to be a tactic people choose when they think it'll come to nothing and they need to make the most of the uncertainty. But Sturgeon's timing goes a long way to cancel that out.
Like I said in the other thread that got locked, the auditor thing's became a bit symbolic of the whople thing to me- so many asparaguses and suggestions flying around about that, but there seems to be no real substance to it as yet. (and the fact that the same people condemned the timing when they thought it was recent, and then condemned the timing when they discovered it wasn't, is pretty funny. "Whevnever this happened, it's very significant and important that it happened at that moment, whenever it was") Overall it feels almost like someone's shot their load early as far as running the story since it only becomes an event if they don't sort it before the next accounts submissions- July, I think? And even then it's not that big of a deal, as the Electoral Commision just appoints their own. But again at the very best it looks amateurish, they didn't need to leave themselves open. And maybe it's suggestive of something more- again, we'll see.
I'm definitely reserving judgement but, I get why a lot of people won't. Ultimately they're kind of still my guys so if they've been doing wrong I want them to go down in flames... But I suspect it'll mostly fizzle into a few fairly minor things and a lot more asparagii and ends up not really doing much solid but being a millstone around their necks for ages.
(I don't get the motorhome thing at all- like, who gains from that? Was it just being kept quiet because it was embarassing? Or being left to see if it could be "forgotten" and then used? Usually you just look for who gained but nobody really seems to have... except the motorhome seller)
I don’t get the motorhome thing at all- like, who gains from that?
I suspect Murrell is actually a secret STWer. It hasn't been widely reported but during the searches they also found a wood burning stove and an AGA cooker.
so many asparaguses and suggestions flying around
Errmmmmm 🙂
Errmmmmm 🙂
as it was repeated later in the post I assumed it was a deliberate Malapropism
wonder who the whistle blower is / was
agree this has put a big smear on NS / SNP who as a southern I often said we could do with someone like that our side of the border....resigning suddenly claiming its the right time, and then the investigations start shows she is the same as Boris and Co. whether charges / fines are brought or not. no smoke without fire etc...
and as for independence, most seem to believe the financial cost of brexit has been huge and a disaster. scoexit is going to be to be any better? think of the logistics of it just for a minute and what will need to be done to make it possible to be a truly separate country. ideology aside the cost is going to be huge, its going to set us (all) back decades, and things aren't exactly great for the economy at the moment
(I don’t get the motorhome thing at all- like, who gains from that? Was it just being kept quiet because it was embarassing? Or being left to see if it could be “forgotten” and then used? Usually you just look for who gained but nobody really seems to have… except the motorhome seller)
My guess its the embarrassment. while its sitting there they can pretend its still got a use. Sell it and make a huge loss as would happen then you have to explain the loss. while you still own it you can pretend its an asset
But as you say its just weird.
scoexit is going to be to be any better?
Yes because there are two huge advantages to offset the disadvantages
1) Scotland can have full control of its budget, spending, borrowing etc as well as economic policies to suit the country
2) rejoining the EU will be a huge boost
wonder who the whistle blower is / was
I thought the whistleblower was just loads of people going, 'Hey, what did you do with that money I gave you?!'
Anyway, there's an Indy thread. As mentioned earlier in this one, this about the SNP and not the whole Yes movement/discussion (though it would be naïve to suggest the two are <span style="text-decoration: underline;">completely</span> discrete).
One of the criticisms aimed at the current SNP leadership is that they have been too controlling, appointments to the NEC, cronyism etc all playing a part. This issue around the finances seems to be a symptom of that, or perhaps it's the other way round and the money issues have caused the controlling behaviours?
tj similar ideological things were said about brexit. as you've seen politicians all seem to be cut from the same cloth irrespective of nationality.
rejoin eu is not a guarantee in fact post independence economic turmoil may in fact mean you can't
it'll be a massive massive cockup. just like brexit. it'll just make both countries shitter, for decades.
There are numerous groups / individuals who would have had the wish to see Sturgeon and / or the SNP in trouble.
1) disaffected SNP members/ ex members / ex senior people whose career has been ended
2) unionist politicians
3) media folk
My guess would have been multiple complaints from all directions but thats only a guess
DT - your opinion. Mine differs. rUK would be damaged by the loss of scotlands exports and subsidies. iScotland will be improved by not being dragged down an isolationist right wing road by remaining in the UK and being able to make policy suited to Scotland
anyway - this is not the thread for that
