Okay fairy nuff. I assumed that as you had described him as "someone who does back office work" that you were suggesting the national executive committee of the SNP was a back office.
I am not sure why the reference to 'back office work' in that case but never mind 👍
Would have expected better from you, Drac.
Congratulations, your wit is now on a par with Boris Johnson.
The chief executive of the SNP is just a clerk?
He's been released without charge btw
He’s been released without charge btw
....pending further investigations
Just saw the news.
Are the police digging for some skeletons or what?
I mean this is embarrassing with all the hypes surrounding her being longest serving 1st Minister etc, but now the police are there.
I wonder if there is something to do with her sudden resignation.
Never trust any politicians ...
Would have expected better from you, Drac.
Fun sponge.
Looking forward to your "I identify as an attack helicopter" routine.
longest serving 1st Minister
Tbf I don't think this was ever the #1 talking point of her supporters.
Rather undermines the argument for independance based on the narrative of how corrupt Westminster is, turns out Scottish leaders are also dodgy, who'd have thought it.
^ Added to what went on with the standards committee over the Ferrier situation
Would have expected better from Drac to be fair.
Really?
Fun sponge.
I don't think there much fun to be sucked out of your post tbh.
Wrong on more than one level imo.
Including "old and tired".
Rather undermines the argument for independance based on the narrative of how corrupt Westminster is, turns out Scottish leaders are also dodgy, who’d have thought it.
The actual evidential argument for independence hasn't even started yet, it's all hypothetical speeches from both sides so far.
What it does show for me, is something i say all the time, the worst thing for the SNP is to have to actually govern a nation, politicians are the same in most ways, no matter what party they follow, the departments they run have the same people working in them, you have the same chances of large scale failures, corruption, scandal and so on, so the loss in 2014 was probably the biggest nightmare for the SNP, i have no doubt there'll be IndyRef2 in the next decade, but that'll mean another 10 years of having to manage being a government.
p.s, yes i know, the government is a coalition, but with the greens its not exactly a power share!
The tent on their property contains a van.And they were ferrying 'evidence' from the house to the van, so its probably just a place for investigators to read/write/record.
I reckon the £600,000+ was supposed to be ringfenced for use in an independence setting, but they've frittered it away on other things. Maybe the 107,000 was a way of topping that sum up.
Del
Full Member
^ Added to what went on with the standards committee over the Ferrier situation
So far as I know the SNP took the only action they could suspended her party membership, withdrew the whip.
It's not in any political parties power to force an MP to resign their seat.
This ain’t true, hoss.
unless you are being pedantic about the exact words it 100% is true.
As for who he’s married to, that’s the most ridiculous argument yet.
Just out of interest, do you think it is credible that Sturgeon’s husband “loaned” the SNP £107,000 but didn’t mention it until after the fact, and that Sturgeon didn’t remember when she heard about it?
I don’t know - I don’t have £107k just kicking around to make loans with but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility to me. It’s not uncommon for company directors to loan the business money - I am sure many do that without consulting their wives. I think it was disclosed in the accounts though so presumably she didn’t read them either. Also not impossible.
I don’t know where his money came from in the first place which is potentially a more interesting question.
And if you do, do you think that a power couple that chucks £100,000s with such gay abandon can really be in touch with ordinary Scottish people?
I think it’s a strange question. Do I think the CEO of any organisation the size of the SNP is likely to be in touch with some arbitrary definition of ordinary Scottish people? Probably not. Do I think a lawyer who moved into politics is likely to be in touch with those arbitrary people either - probably not. But then I remind myself she comes from fairly working class parents in Ayrshire, living in a council house (bought through Maggies right to buy scheme) and went to a state school, and did some of her legal work at the Drumchapel Law Centre. So, she’s probably closer to a lot of the challenges “ordinary” Scottish people face than the new first minister or his opposite number from the Labour Party.
So far as I know the SNP took the only action they could suspended her party membership, withdrew the whip
The SNP member of the standards committee voted in favour of a conservative member's proposal to reduce her suspension to nine days, thereby sparing her the potential for a bye-election which would be opened in the case of a suspension of 10 days. This is the same committee studying the conduct of Boris Johnson. If the penalties for Ms. Ferries were lenient it would be straightforward to argue that the penalties for Boris Johnson should be at least as lenient if not more so given the nuances of his situation.
But of course the SNP never side with the conservatives.
but FTR no-one said the cops were digging inside the tent, did they?
Not in the heil but NickC did earlier "It’s been reported that under that blue tent, there are cops with spades…"
The SNP member of the standards committee voted in favour of a conservative member’s proposal to reduce her suspension
I stand corrected then
👍
Something really quite significant is going on but I’m really surprised how far from people’s thoughts and conversations it all seems to be.
Because it's not?
Rather undermines the argument for independence based on the narrative of how corrupt Westminster is, turns out Scottish leaders are also dodgy, who’d have thought it.
We're talking about semantics it feels, when I donated how they spent it is irrelevant (except for being stolen and the like), whether on legal fees for the court cases, expenses for folk pushing leaflets through a door or a thousand other things that needed doing to get us to independence.
If he's actually stolen it or equivalent then I'd expect to see him in court - I'm not a Tory, I EXPECT criminals to be punished. But if it's just been spent on other stuff, who GAS.
And no, independence is more than one person (or Party) - been outside of the Westminster corruption 'bubble' is just one of MANY reasons.
unless you are being pedantic about the exact words it 100% is true.
100% true? lol!
This is rubbish: "publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest". It's a silly attempt by you to stop people saying adverse things about Sturgeon's husband.
It would seem I misread the room. Sorry.
This is rubbish: “publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest”.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">PCA - what I wrote is not a direct quote from the Contempt of Court Act but if someone is going to write something which might have an impact on a future trial and thinks it’s a good idea I’d suggest they go read section 2 of the act for the exact wording. </span>
It’s a silly attempt by you to stop people saying adverse things about Sturgeon’s husband.
eh? I couldn’t care about Mr Murrell. I’ve never met the man, I’ve never been an SNP member and if he’s broken the law he should be prosecuted. If he’s done nothing wrong and this is a fishing exercise or witch-hunt I expect it’s going to end up with police Scotland getting pursued for damages. Only Mr Murrell will know for sure if he’s a greedy thief, an incompetent fool or the victim here. You can say adverse things about the man all you want, just make sure that you don’t write anything that might undermine a future trial meaning he might get off with something he did, and a STW poster might end up facing more punishment than he does. STW is a backwater of political discourse, is it likely that something someone writes here could influence a trial? In a world where stuff goes viral very quickly it’s certainly not impossible. It’s very easy to quote / link from here to mainstream social media.
It would seem I misread the room. Sorry
Well I found it funny.
The SNP member of the standards committee voted in favour of a conservative member’s proposal to reduce her suspension to nine days, thereby sparing her the potential for a bye-election which would be opened in the case of a suspension of 10 days.
Well the standards committee are supposed to leave the party politics at the door. Given Sturgeon publicly said she thought she should resign a long time ago I'm not sure this is as simple as the SNP protecting one of their (former) own.
This is the same committee studying the conduct of Boris Johnson. If the penalties for Ms. Ferries were lenient it would be straightforward to argue that the penalties for Boris Johnson should be at least as lenient if not more so given the nuances of his situation.
I don't understand who you can really compare the two. Ms Ferries was a back bench opposition MP who broke rules on safety and potentially exposed a lot of old duffers to covid. She also broke various laws which she was prosecuted for, convicted and punished quite severely. She's stupid. Others will presumably have learned that being an MP isn't a legal exemption from common sense and will think carefully in the future.
Boris (is accused of having) lied to commons, repeatedly whilst prime minister. Everyone knew he was lying and the lie (rather than the parties) caused little actual risk to other members of the commons or the public. Of course indirectly he's probably undermined any future lockdown type rules - but that was the parties not the lies which did that. He's paid a fixed penalty which is not a conviction and as it was for attending not organising is considerably smaller than Ms Ferries penalty. Prima facie his "offence" is much less serious than Ms Ferries. BUT he was the PM and he has undermined trust in the House of Commons and that PMs will tell the truth in the future. Thats incomparable to the "health and safety" offence of Ms Ferries. But it almost certainly need a very significant penalty to reassure the public that lying in parliament carries severe consequences. Comparing the penalties is like trying to weight up who needs the longer jail sentence - someone convicted of a big fraud against a large corporation, or a local plumber doing dodgy gas work.
Clearly there has been some highly dodgy goings on. Sturgeon and Murrell would not be the first to fall from hubris. I'd be surprised if there is any significant personal enrichment but it certainly looks like dodgy dealings with SNP funds. Criminal? We will find out
gordimhor - I realise that's the implication. Do you think the party asked for that or the SNP member did it themselves? Do you think there may be any other reason (like he's probably spent more time with her and so knows she's useless and incompetent rather than evil) or he's balancing out a "hate the (ex)SNP" MP view on the committee. FWIW I think 30 day suspension was sensible. Perception of losing a seat that technically you don't own anymore because you kicked the person out the party is to me a strange reason to be worried. I'd be more worried that if they seemed to be protecting her now, you'll definitely lose it at the next GE.
In the febrile atmosphere following the SNP leadership election and the possibility of Scottish Labour's polling improving (and now the party membership/finances investigations) I imagine that any Scottish by-election would be seized upon by the media and portrayed as a bellwether for the future of the SNP and hence independence.
If that by-election happened to be in a very swingy seat where the behaviour of the outgoing MP may harm the SNP's chances (irrespective of the fact the SNP kicked her out of the party for her behaviour), then the SNP might struggle to win the election. And despite the mitigating factors being largely local that would still be paraded by the media as a sign that the SNP's grip was slipping, and be extrapolated by those who wished to do so that support for independence was slipping too. And such coverage might itself actually end up influencing national opinion to an extent too.
So I can see why some people in the SNP might prefer to avoid a by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West at this time, even if that isn't the view of the party leadership.
On the other hand the people of Rutherglen appear generally quite keen to boot Ferrier out.
Poly I don't know who is the SNP member on the standards committee and therefore have no idea what their personal opinion on Ferrier is. I am sure that the party would have instructed them to avoid a by election at this time if at all possible.
Chris L has it right
I assume Sturgeon is still an MSP, has she indicated whether or not she intends to remain in post until next election and if she would stand again?
I assume Sturgeon is still an MSP, has she indicated whether or not she intends to remain in post until next election and if she would stand again?
My understanding was she was remaining until the next Holyrood election, and whilst I don't think she explicitly said so its assumed she'll leave then.
I seriously doubt Sturgeon or her husband have done anything criminal, i get the feeling whatever they've been doing may be to stabilise, which has brought trouble to their doorstep, literally. She's always been about a legacy, more so than Salmond was, personally i just think the party is tearing itself apart just now, there's so many divisions, the leadership contest showed that even more, and with the likes of Salmond and others outside throwing rocks it's just a complete mess.
For the Scottish Police to throw the amount of resources into the 'raid' on the Murrell's house and the the SNP HQ, there must be a suspicion of illegal activity. If the SNP had simply used the money 'ring fenced' for the independence campaign probably, then I suspect that the Police would have just reported that. Given the drop in number of paying SNP members and the fact most of £667,000 has gone, I suspect that the SNP might have been 'trading' illegally. Of course this is just my suspicion and I don't have any access to any records.
In view of the way in which contempt of court proceedings can apply to activities on social media, I think it's best to suggest politely to folks here that conjecture is a poor substitute for facts.
More and more cops at their home now. Sky news has reported "more" than 20!
Crowd control? Overkill/waste of Police time? searching for something. WMD perhaps? seems a lot for a financial investigation
if someone is going to write something which might have an impact on a future trial and thinks it’s a good idea I’d suggest they go read section 2 of the act for the exact wording
...and then they'd see that what is there is radically different from “publication of anything that might impact a future trial is an offence in Scotland from the moment of arrest”. Because it's not anything (it's anything "which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced" or anything with the intent of interfering with justice) it's not an offence (contempt is its own beast), and it's not from the moment of arrest (because at that point there are not necessarily any proceedings i.e. a matter before the court). But apart from that...
Recent developments in the world of Scottish politics lead me to issue the usual reminder: contempt of court protections are triggered, in Scotland, once an arrest is made. Please take care.
— Roddy Dunlop KC Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
contempt of court protections are triggered, in Scotland
Does that mean that anyone currently in Scotland should be careful of what they post on this thread?
It means think first. I'll leave it for others to sort out whether that applies only to those in Scotland or to everyone.
