Nicola Sturgeon arrested

I’m not sure why the police are involved to be honest – if SNP members have had their snouts in their own trough it’s up to them to sort out.

Do you think fraud only exists in the public sector and/or with taxpayers money?

Aye – there is clearly something very dodgy been happening with SNP finances.  a police investigation is completely appropriate.

NS was the obvious next person to be interviewed, but why do it on a Sunday?

NS was the obvious next person to be interviewed, but why do it on a Sunday?

O/T?

Or the right cops were on shift that day and also its a slack day for cops?

tj, what you describe is “common” but I don’t think “standard practice”.  It’s perfectly possible to have a voluntary interview under caution with a suspect so long as their status is clear to them, and they have been afforded all the legal protections that a suspect has.  However, if you do that they can stop the interview and walk out at any time.  It can get messy if they are arrested at the point they want to leave (if they haven’t said anything new why didn’t you arrest them in the first place and start the 24h clock).  Presumably if Mrs Sturgeon wished to make a voluntary statement as a witness she was quite capable of doing so long before today.  There is a presumption of liberation in Police Scotland and so arresting people to make their status as a suspect clear to them, rather than simply saying “you are a suspect” seems counter to that.  The police are stuck between a rock and a hard place – seem to be giving special treatment and there will be accusations of bias towards the government, seen to be on a wild fishing trip arresting everyone in the hope someone says something and they’ll be accused of over reacting/being a witch hunt against the nationalists.

TJ is probably right – no convictions, possibly no charges, not because everyone is squeaky clean but because firstly financial crime charges are really hard to prove, secondly simple mismanagement is not a crime, thirdly the organisation itself does not appear to have complained that money is missing.

the organisation itself does not appear to have complained that money is missing

I thought that donors had comnplained about the “missing” £600,000?

Poly – did you read the link I put in above?

My guess is there will be a “corporate”charge or however you put it and a fine under electoral laws like both the tories and labour have had

TJ – I did.  It doesn’t say what you think it does.  The final point “2” in the conclusions sums it up.  You are absolutely correct the courts have found evidence inadmissible when their was unfairness to the now accused because their status was unclear, but it is absolutely possible to make someone aware of their status as a suspect (and their rights as a result) without arresting them.  Police Scotland have standard paperwork for this, the Law Society advises its solicitors on the implications, and the Scottish Legal Aid Board provides (badly funded!) financial support for solicitors providing such advice.   I’ve never seen any suggestion (until yours) that voluntary interviews of suspects under caution and with legal representation was either unacceptable practice or to be strongly discouraged.

Fair enough – you clearly know more about the law than I but certainly this was my impression that the “voluntary interview under caution” was no longer used in Scotland commonly because of this reason

@scotroutes

Correct. Seven separate complaints about missing cash.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/police-scotland-launch-probe-snp-24523818

Where did the 600,000 earmarked for the independence referendum go ?. Probably spent on independence party expenses and day to day running costs.So used on the party, but maybe not on the actual vote.

Where did the tens of billions go during Tory rule.
Nobody will ever know or have to face a police inquiry.

I thought that donors had comnplained about the “missing” £600,000?

yes, but the SNP have not (to my knowledge) reported any suspicion on a crime.

in effect what we have here is similar to someone leaving a legacy to a charity for a specific but somewhat nebulous purpose and then the charity using those funds in a way which the donor (or their descendants) don’t think was consistent with instructions attached to the original donation.  Then when challenged it turns out the charity finances are a bit of a mess and the senior people have been putting a spin on it, but the charity itself doesn’t consider anything illegal happened so doesn’t call the cops but the original benefactor does.  In fact it’s even messier because it’s not one person’s donation but is lots of people’s aggregated donations – some are upset how it was spent, some are unhappy about the lack of transparency but don’t object to the actual use, and some are so SNP loyal that they wouldn’t complain even if Murrell had trebled his salary in the process!

If you ever see charity trustees feeling frustrated about “restricted funds” on their balance sheet this is why – you can be sitting on loads of cash you aren’t allowed to spend – or where the rules for spending it are wooly and so you tread a fine line of not spending money you should or being accused of overstepping the mark depending on how the other parties interpret some wording.

so I think its right that there should be a criminal investigation but in any sensible organisation it would probably have been avoided by suspending the CEO and Treasurer a year ago and appointing an external body to conduct a review.  If, with their auditors, they said “nothing dodgy” or “weaknesses in internal processes” or even “misunderstanding of the rules” then we might not have Humza as FM!

+1 poly

And as a ‘contributor’ to the fund I’m quite happy however they spent it, legally obviously with receipts 🙂

yes, but the SNP have not (to my knowledge) reported any suspicion on a crime.

Of course they haven’t, it was the leadership and management of that party that is accused of wrongdoing, and the (leaked) justification is that it was for the benefit of that party!

We will see whether there was any personal gain or not…the mysterious £100,000 campervan and the (suggested) inability of the party to repay a loan to Sturgeon’s husband if it didn’t help itself to referendum campaign funds apparently justified closer examination.

And as a ‘contributor’ to the fund I’m quite happy however they spent it, legally obviously with receipts 🙂

Im not massively clued up on the details of the charges, but as I understand it the money was meant to be spent on a future referendum campaign. Given the SNP have spent pretty much the past 5 years relentlessly pushing for this, ( imo to the detriment of them actually doing anything else) then surely any money donated to the SNP by default is being spent on the promotion of a 2nd referendum?

Unless the money can be proven to be spent for ‘personal gain’ what crime has actually been committed here?

Any reason why Sturgeon, Murrell, and Beattie haven’t been suspended from the SNP?  The precedents under Sturgeon were that it you were under investigation for a serious crime you either resigned or were suspended.

“When Alex Salmond was under police investigation, Sturgeon backed his decision to resign his membership:I understand why he has chosen to separate the current questions he is facing from the day-to-day business of the SNP and the ongoing campaign for independence.”

When Derek Mackay faced reports of a possible police investigation into inappropriate behaviour Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament:“…he has also been suspended from both the SNP and the Parliamentary Group pending further investigation.”

When Natalie McGarry was under police investigation, Nicola Sturgeon was clear that it was right that she left the party: “I would rather not be in a position where an MP has to stand aside temporarily in order to have an investigation, but I think that’s the right thing to have done.”

When Michelle Thomson was facing questions around a police investigation of which she was not personally the focus, Sturgeon was unequivocal:“Michelle Thomson is currently not a member of the SNP, because she decided, while the investigations are under way, to relinquish the party whip and, as a result of SNP rules, that means that her party membership is suspended. That was the right and responsible thing for her to do in the circumstances.”

https://www.notesonnationalism.com/p/nicola-sturgeon-arrested

the SNP have spent pretty much the past 5 years relentlessly pushing for this,

Show your workings.

Any reason why Sturgeon, Murrell, and Beattie haven’t been suspended from the SNP? The precedents under Sturgeon were that it you were under investigation for a serious crime you either resigned or were suspended.

Not that I can see.  Perhaps the rationale is “wait until charges”?  Or is this not seen as a “serious crime”

Im not massively clued up on the details of the charges,

there have been no charges

If all the spend has been receipted and evidence recorded, as it should be when you are dealing with large sums of money on other peoples behalf, then there wouldn’t be a case for the police to look into.

It clearly has more than a whiff of dodgy goings on, or the police wouldn’t be expending significant resources investigating.

Now whether any actual charges will be brought remains to be seen.  Even if its just incompetence, nothing criminal, significant reputational damage has been done to those involved, and the SNP

. Given the SNP have spent pretty much the past 5 years relentlessly pushing for this, ( imo to the detriment of them actually doing anything else)

this and Scotroutes response shows clearly the attacks from both sides.  A significant % of the independence supporters believe Sturgeon and co were reluctant on independence and preferred to be the leaders of the devolved administration rather than risk everything in the fight for independence while the unionist side try to claim that they were neglecting the day job in their all consuming push for independence.

they have of course achieved a great amount during their time in power but the overwhelmingly unionist press will never give them credit. .During the last Holyrood election campaign the unionist parties mentioned independence twice as much as the pro independence parties

I saw it was reported they were digging up her garden at one point, I can’t quite fathom why on earth they would be doing that for an investigation looking into financial irregularities….?  Receipts used as compost?!?  Probably of no relevance but did seem very weird

If all the spend has been receipted and evidence recorded, as it should be when you are dealing with large sums of money on other peoples behalf, then there wouldn’t be a case for the police to look into.

This is not the issue.  the issue is that money that should have been ringfenced for an independence campaign as it was raised specifically for that was infact spent on general day to day running of the party.

I saw it was reported they were digging up her garden at one point,

“reported”  I don’t think it actually happened did it?  Spurious speculation by a sector of the press due to the tent being put up to provide privacy

general day to day running of the party

Large expensive campervans are needed for the day to day running of the SNP?

Hmmmmm 🙂

And yes, reported, seems odd it would be reported if it was a complete lie

I saw it was reported they were digging up her garden at one point,

I think that was the Daily Mail or the Daily Express doing some investigative journalism which should tell you all you need to know.

If all the spend has been receipted and evidence recorded, as it should be when you are dealing with large sums of money on other peoples behalf, then there wouldn’t be a case for the police to look into.

Again, I think all the money has been accounted for.  The question is more, has it been spent for the purpose it was collected for.

But we won’t know for sure until after all the dust has settled, I would imagine.

And yes, reported, seems odd it would be reported if it was a complete lie

Have you read the UK press recently?  a large % of it just make stuff up

TJ do you just make stuff up, sorry you seem to have an answer for everything.

I have strong views and opinions.  I am sorry if its not obvious its opinions.  When shown to be wrong I accept that.

there have been no charges

potential charges.. you know what I meant.

Show your workings

It’s the impression I got, ever since brexit a second referendum has been front and centre of the SNP agenda. hence why I feel ‘running of the party’ and ‘getting a second referendum’ are intrinsically linked

As has been pointed out, if you donated and didn’t agree with Nicola’s approach I guess you could have misgivings. But ultimately the end goal is the same. If the SNP can’t operate on a day to day basis due to lack of funds it severely impacts the likelihood of another referendum

I suspect most funders don’t really care how they spent it, as illustrated by intheborders

I’m no fan of the SNP, but I’m genuinely struggling to see the problem here. Strikes me as a bit of a witch hunt. I’ll bet no one gets convicted over this in the long term

I can’t believe that she would have risked her political career for a £100k campervan.

And yes, reported, seems odd it would be reported if it was a complete lie

That’s actually how they get around just making shit up though isn’t it.  “A neighbour reported that they were digging in the garden”, perhaps a neighbour did (because some will have assumed thats what the tent was for, perhaps none of the neighbours would talk so it just gets made up, or perhaps they did actually dig it up – but then I’m surprised we’ve not seen any shots showing the extensive damage to the garden)…   I think I read somewhere that they had searched the compost bin – which seems a reasonably place to look for shredded files.

This is not the issue.  the issue is that money that should have been ringfenced for an independence campaign as it was raised specifically for that was infact spent on general day to day running of the party.

It is unlikely the police enquiry will result in any changes to stop similar issues in the future.  Even if there are successful prosecutions it won’t really stop another organisation from pushing the boundary of their funding rules.  What would have been more useful would have been a decent inquiry with conclusions on:

– crowdfunding and how the proceeds of crowdfunding can be used and what safeguards are needed around those setting up and using crowdfunding for political or campaigning causes

– auditing/auditors and the expectation on them (and consequences if they are complicit in burying fund use)

– governance of political parties, campaigning organisations etc.

I am intrigued that none of the opposition parties seem to have called for this – obviously preferring the idea of someone going to jail than that they might need to be more transparent themselves in the future?

Large expensive campervans are needed for the day to day running of the SNP?

I thought the justification was this was purchased as a ‘future battle bus’ in the independence campaign.  So potentially a legitimate use of money ringfenced for an independence campaign

Well, once you have Owen Jones’s support, that’s the kiss of death…

@poly: there is no complicated legal or practical question to solve here. If the SNP wanted to spend the money on itself, it could simply have asked for general donations in the normal way. But it promised to put these particular donations to a particular use. If is proven that the party spent ring fenced money on itself, then the lesson for other parties in the future is simple: don’t lie about where you’re going to spend donations and stick to your promises.

The “fingers in the till” allegations are separate, not very complicated, and also may have (if proven) very simple lessons for other parties in the future.

Large expensive campervans are needed for the day to day running of the SNP?

At first glance it seems odd, but even a quick read of the press would reveal that the justification was as accom/battle bus for an election campaign during covid if accom was closed.  In some regards that seems like prudent planning.  Did it need to be so expensive?  Could it have been leased rather than purchased? should it now have been sold? would all be legit questions, but I can’t see how there is any suggestion that buying the van was automatically fundamentally misuse of party funds.  The illegality would presumably arise either if it had been used for person travel / holidays without declaring it and it seems very unlikely that this has been the case as there’s enough people hate them, to have reported if the van was off the driveway for long periods or if they had seen them on the road/pitched up with it.  Presumably the odometer supports that its been sitting laid up waiting to be called into use.

The other angle would be if it was purchased without following the correct financial processes / signoffs by the party officials, ie. internal procedures were not followed – even then without an element of personal gain I’m not sure there’s criminality.  Many people would like a crime here – it sells papers, distracts from other stuff, and undermines the SNP trust.  Fraud investigations always take a long time, but this one seems like its determined to publically show that no stone is being left unturned, as much to ensure there is no suggestion of SNP favouritism at Police Scotland or COPFS as to actually solve the crime.

he “fingers in the till” allegations are separate, not very complicated,

What are the fingers in the till allegations against Sturgeon?

Many people would like a crime here – it sells papers, distracts from other stuff, and undermines the SNP trust.

It just seems stupid to me, if I was staunchly anti-SNP, to be trying to draw so much attention to this.  All the indications so far are that nothing is going to come of it.  People will be sick of hearing about it if this particular arrest and release turns out to be the ‘high point’ of the whole saga.

If I were anti-SNP I would have made sure I kept my powder dry for the investigation into the ferries.

I see lots of ‘presumably’ ‘unlikely’ etc…. hence why the police are involved.  To establish the facts.

I await to see the outcome, as my opinion is it all seems very fishy, just like others opinions are it looks fine and its some sort of persecution