When will it go all wrong for the SNP?

[Buzby]

given the different tax rates in Scotland.

I would find that interesting, but not from the reason you infer. What would make a lifetime supporter of ‘the cause’ abandon their ideals.. to avoid a 2% tax increase is stretching it to incredulity!

 

[35B]

I would find that interesting, but not from the reason you infer. What would make a lifetime supporter of ‘the cause’ abandon their ideals.. to avoid a 2% tax increase is stretching it to incredulity!

I'd agree in practice - but she's not just a supporter of the cause, but one of it's leading policy makers

 

[SargeNpton]

Wondering why no one high up in the SNP listened to Douglas Chapman back in 2021...

SNP finance boss Douglas Chapman quits over 'lack of information'

MP Douglas Chapman resigns after claiming he was not given enough information to do the job.

www.bbc.co.uk

An MP in charge of the SNP's finances has quit - claiming he was not given enough information to do the job.

Douglas Chapman, the MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, announced he had resigned as national treasurer of the party on Saturday evening.

Mr Chapman took over in the role last year.

It comes as the deputy first minister denied claims that police were investigating the whereabouts of £600,000 raised by SNP activists.

The SNP's John Swinney told the BBC's Sunday Show that he did not understand what had prompted Douglas Chapman's actions.

When asked if police were investigating the £600,000 of party funds, Mr Swinney responded: "Not to my knowledge, no".

The deputy first minister told the programme: "Obviously our national executive committee (NEC) has responsibility for scrutinising the party's finances and I saw that point was confirmed on social media last night.

"And in addition to that, the accounts of the party are independently audited by external auditors and are submitted to the electoral commission for scrutiny so there's a huge amount of scrutiny of party finances that go on. That happens day and daily within the SNP."

'Extraordinary resignation'
Douglas Chapman took to Twitter on Saturday to criticise a lack of support or information despite a "resounding mandate" to introduce more transparency into the party's finances.

It is understood his decision to stand down is linked to a continuing row about the use of funds ringfenced for a second independence referendum

He wrote: "Despite having a resounding mandate from members to introduce more transparency into the party's finances, I have not received the support or financial information to carry out the fiduciary duties of National Treasurer.

"Regretfully I have resigned with immediate effect."

 

[Stathern Jc]

Wondering why no one high up in the SNP listened to Douglas Chapman back in 2021...

SNP finance boss Douglas Chapman quits over 'lack of information'

MP Douglas Chapman resigns after claiming he was not given enough information to do the job.

www.bbc.co.uk

I remember this causing shockwaves, but hadn't realised that it was as long as 5 years ago.
Also, an interesting response from Swinney when asked if the police were investigating the £600k. Can anyone remember when he is on record as first acknowledging that he was aware that they were investigating it?

One thing that has definitely gone right for the SNP, is succession planning.
Stephen Flynn is now in place as an MSP, after having established himself as the SNP candidate ahead of the MSP who had been representing that part of Aberdeen.
The Labour party, or parts of it, may be envious as they prepare for the Makerfield by election.

 

[Gloster]

Two Westminster by-elections are taking place on 18 June, the same day as Makerfield, as their MPs have chosen to move to the fleshpots of Holyrood: Aberdeen South, and Arbroath and Broughty Ferry. As the SNP did not have a particularly large majority over Labour in 2024 in both, particularly Arbroath (only 1.9%), it will be interesting to see what happens. Will the Conservatives, who came third in both (a close third in Aberdeen), be the beneficiaries or will Reform, a distant fourth, ride high on the discontent?

 

[najaB]

Probably important to clarify that higher tax rates in Scotland should not be confused with the "Higher Rate" of Income Tax.

To an extent it's both. Scotland has, IIRC, two more tax bands than England so there are salaries for which a higher rate of tax is applicable in Scotland than in England. But yes, the band a which the top rate applies is the same.

 

[Falcon1200]

I truly doubt she would avoid having her Indy vote counted simply because she rents a flat in the smoke.

So.... she could live in England but if she retained a home in Scotland could vote in Indyref2? Not sure how that would work - IIRC the actor Alan Cumming, living in the USA, thought that by buying a home in Scotland he could vote in Indyref1. He was quickly disabused of that notion.

but they could just as easily be replaced with a vote to be allowed if you were born in Scotland, so ex-pats worldwide would get a voice.

Which would be outrageous - Only those living here should have a vote.

 

[Buzby]

Not sure how that would work

Easy - it is based on your declared domicile. Alternatively it would those who pay their taxes with the Scottish tax code - hardly revolutionary stuff. Cumming, as artistic director of Pitlochry Festival Theatre and no doubt paying Scottish taxes, so anyone disabusing him of his birthright is helping getting the rules changed.

Which would be outrageous - Only those living here should have a vote.

Why? If you’re born here you have just as much ‘right’ - why should you be disenfranchised because you had the temerity to move? As for the ‘those living here’ argument, we tried that. Politicians are adept at redrawing boundaries, even historically and that really worked well (not!). Only a fool would play the same game and expect a different result! Look at all the incomers who publicly stated they voted ‘No’ because they didn’t want to live in a ‘foreign country’

 

[35B]

So.... she could live in England but if she retained a home in Scotland could vote in Indyref2? Not sure how that would work - IIRC the actor Alan Cumming, living in the USA, thought that by buying a home in Scotland he could vote in Indyref1. He was quickly disabused of that notion.

I’m not clear on the finer details, but people are entitled to vote at their primary residence. If she has two homes, then she needs to declare her primary residence. That will have voting and tax implications.

Which would be outrageous - Only those living here should have a vote.

There is an argument that voters in the U.K. as a whole should have the ability to vote on an independence settlement, if not the principle of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2026 ==

Easy - it is based on your declared domicile. Alternatively it would those who pay their taxes with the Scottish tax code - hardly revolutionary stuff. Cumming, as artistic director of Pitlochry Festival Theatre and no doubt paying Scottish taxes, so anyone disabusing him of his birthright is helping getting the rules changed.

Why? If you’re born here you have just as much ‘right’ - why should you be disenfranchised because you had the temerity to move? As for the ‘those living here’ argument, we tried that. Politicians are adept at redrawing boundaries, even historically and that really worked well (not!). Only a fool would play the same game and expect a different result! Look at all the incomers who publicly stated they voted ‘No’ because they didn’t want to live in a ‘foreign country’

I agree on domicile. The question of “who is Scottish” is much more vexed - if you apply that birthright principle, then you create a whole different electorate for that one vote which also needs to be defined. As a vote primarily affects those who live in that place, I think eligibility to vote in other elections there is a reasonable test.

 

[JamesT]

I’m not clear on the finer details, but people are entitled to vote at their primary residence. If she has two homes, then she needs to declare her primary residence. That will have voting and tax implications.

There is an argument that voters in the U.K. as a whole should have the ability to vote on an independence settlement, if not the principle of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2026 ==


I agree on domicile. The question of “who is Scottish” is much more vexed - if you apply that birthright principle, then you create a whole different electorate for that one vote which also needs to be defined. As a vote primarily affects those who live in that place, I think eligibility to vote in other elections there is a reasonable test.

We have two recent examples to draw from. The Brexit referendum used the general election franchise, all UK and commonwealth citizens resident in the UK (including those who had moved abroad less than 15 years before).
IndyRef1 chose all those resident in Scotland, regardless of citizenship.

 

[35B]

We have two recent examples to draw from. The Brexit referendum used the general election franchise, all UK and commonwealth citizens resident in the UK (including those who had moved abroad less than 15 years before).
IndyRef1 chose all those resident in Scotland, regardless of citizenship.

Neither of which involves considering the nature of someone’s identification with the place of referendum.

The general election franchise is clear, and overseas voters are linked to their last U.K. constituency. All resident is straightforward, though @Buzby demonstrates the concerns of some over the possible influence on outcomes.

I’ve a smattering of Scot’s blood in me, though I was born in England and have never lived in Scotland. Following a Nuremberg Law type analysis, I might classify as Scottish depending on quite where the line is drawn. I’m not convinced that is necessary or desirable.

 

[HighlandStorm]

One of the substantive differences between the 2014 and 2016 referendum franchises were that EU citizens ordinarily resident in Scotland could vote in the indyRef, but could not vote in the Brexit referendum.

The EU referendum was thus the equivalent of banning rUK citizens not natively born in Scotland from the IndyRef franchise, which to this 2014 Yes voter would be completely unacceptable. Being ordinarily resident and thus living/working here should be the criteria and IMO the exclusion of EU citizens from the EU referendum was a disgrace. Incidentally, had the IndyRef franchise been done in a similar vain as the EU referendum, Yes would have won.

 

[JamesT]

One of the substantive differences between the 2014 and 2016 referendum franchises were that EU citizens ordinarily resident in Scotland could vote in the indyRef, but could not vote in the Brexit referendum.

The EU referendum was thus the equivalent of banning rUK citizens not natively born in Scotland from the IndyRef franchise, which to this 2014 Yes voter would be completely unacceptable. Being ordinarily resident and thus living/working here should be the criteria and IMO the exclusion of EU citizens from the EU referendum was a disgrace. Incidentally, had the IndyRef franchise been done in a similar vain as the EU referendum, Yes would have won.

Why is excluding those who aren’t citizens of a country from making constitutional change a disgrace? I’m not aware of any other country that would allow such a thing.
Do you have a source for Yes would have won on the general election franchise? You’d lose the youth vote which is generally considered pro-Indy (if they can be bothered to vote). Though the interesting question would be the tendencies of Scottish expats (apart from those in rUK) as they weren’t included in the 2014 franchise.
Both referendums had calls for the franchise to be widened to those affected by a potential change. But that leads back to defining what a Scot is if not on residency.

 

[HighlandStorm]

Why is excluding those who aren’t citizens of a country from making constitutional change a disgrace? I’m not aware of any other country that would allow such a thing.
Do you have a source for Yes would have won on the general election franchise? You’d lose the youth vote which is generally considered pro-Indy (if they can be bothered to vote). Though the interesting question would be the tendencies of Scottish expats (apart from those in rUK) as they weren’t included in the 2014 franchise.
Both referendums had calls for the franchise to be widened to those affected by a potential change. But that leads back to defining what a Scot is if not on residency.

Just to clarify - I didn't say on the basis of a general election franchise - I was making a comparison between non British EU citizens living in the UK having been barred from voting in the EU referendum vs non Scottish UK citizens living in Scotland being within the franchise for the Indy Ref.

Native born Scots voted 52.7% Yes in 2014.

See the following links with the breakdown of the figures:

IndyRef results: Majority of Scots voted YES but voters from rest of UK said NO

NEARLY three quarters of people from elsewhere in the UK voted for the country to stick together despite over half of native Scots wanting a break up. Check the detailed statistics here.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

Majority of Scottish born voters said ‘yes’

Most Scottish-born voters backed leaving the UK in last year’s referendum. The findings from the Scottish Referendum Survey show that Scotland only remained in the Union because of the views of

www.thetimes.com

Had the EU referendum been conducted on the same franchise basis as the IndyRef, Remain would have won. The people living and working in the UK most impacted by referendum result in favour of Brexit were barred from voting.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why? If you’re born here you have just as much ‘right’ - why should you be disenfranchised because you had the temerity to move?

Because, to take the example of Indyref (but IMHO the principle applies to all elections and referendums) people would be able to vote on an issue without having to live with/suffer (depending on one's viewpoint) the consequences, while inflicting those consequences on others.

I agree on domicile. The question of “who is Scottish” is much more vexed - if you apply that birthright principle, then you create a whole different electorate for that one vote which also needs to be defined.

Indeed, and IMHO again the only criteria should be residence in the area to which the election or referendum applies. If you choose not to reside here you have no right to vote here, but do of course have that right wherever you do live.

 

[Buzby]

Indeed, and IMHO again the only criteria should be residence in the area to which the election or referendum applies. If you choose not to reside here you have no right to vote here, but do of course have that right wherever you do live.

During my working life I was based in two countries for more years than I care to remember. In both those countries as an incomer, I had no vote in local elections (despite my strenuous efforts to do so). Should I have been there during the referenda I would have been denied a vote here also. I assume you are in a similar situation that I was, but you have the ability to vote, so this clouds your judgement. Rather than make sweeping generalisations to justify your view (‘wherever I lay my hat, I can vote’} remember that you don’t have to live here to care about your country and its future.

 

[35B]

During my working life I was based in two countries for more years than I care to remember. In both those countries as an incomer, I had no vote in local elections (despite my strenuous efforts to do so). Should I have been there during the referenda I would have been denied a vote here also. I assume you are in a similar situation that I was, but you have the ability to vote, so this clouds your judgement. Rather than make sweeping generalisations to justify your view (‘wherever I lay my hat, I can vote’} remember that you don’t have to live here to care about your country and its future.

Indeed. That’s a point that can stretch in all sorts of ways, though. For example, I grew up in SW London, very close to a borough boundary. My parents and I never had a vote the other side of the boundary, despite being educated there, while there have since been issues I care about deeply that I’ve had no say on because I’m not of the electorate there.

While I appreciate the feeling of disenfranchisement, I’m not sure that there is any electoral problem that would be made better by adding a historical attachment component to the franchise.

 

[Falcon1200]

I assume you are in a similar situation that I was, but you have the ability to vote, so this clouds your judgement.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. I am English but live (only) in Scotland and so vote in Scotland, including in Indyref, but do not, and would never expect to, vote in any election outwith Scotland.

Rather than make sweeping generalisations to justify your view (‘wherever I lay my hat, I can vote’} remember that you don’t have to live here to care about your country and its future.

What other system could there be? I spend a lot of time in Oxford at my Mum's house, and have many issues with the way the city is run, particularly regarding traffic management. Despite caring very much about both the country of my birth, and the city in which I grew up, I have no say whatsoever in the matter And nor should I. I do not pay my income tax or Council Tax in Oxford.

 

[Harpo]

* - if you remember, this cartoonish and largely politically forgotten figure best known for his unruly hair served as Prime Minister for a few years from 2019.

The hair was trying to distance itself from the really unruly bits.

 

[oldman]

to care about your country and its future

This is a problem with nationalism (in general, not specially Scottish). What makes it 'your' country - residence, birthplace, parents' birthplace (one/both), granny, language/dialect, history, Norman Tebbit's cricket test (come on you Haitians!), religion, ethnicity have all been criteria in different nationalisms through the ages.

Only residence can be the deciding factor in who votes in a given territory, but it seems a bit wrong that for something constitutional and very hard to reverse, people with only very brief residence should be eligible.

Though there has to be some way of dividing up territories for government purposes, political nationalism is all too often a bad thing exploited by bad people.

 

[35B]

Only residence can be the deciding factor in who votes in a given territory, but it seems a bit wrong that for something constitutional and very hard to reverse, people with only very brief residence should be eligible.

That is more fundamentally about the weaknesses of direct democracy, and ensuring the franchise maps the issue. It will always be an imperfect match.

Though there has to be some way of dividing up territories for government purposes, political nationalism is all too often a bad thing exploited by bad people.

Including, in the context of the discussion about Peter Murrell, the SNP.

I think @Buzby is sincere in his concerns over a mismatch, but his arguments are the same as have then been deployed to exclude people from the franchise because they have the wrong views. And, in the sense of trying to identify “true” Scots, those arguments have been used to take some very dark roads indeed.

 

[Buzby]

What other system could there be?

Already discussed!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2026 ==

Though there has to be some way of dividing up territories for government purposes, political nationalism is all too often a bad thing exploited by bad people.

Perhaps so - but as the Govt found out, manipulation has a policy of backfiring. I spent many years in NI where ‘Brits Out’ was a common complaint, yet Scots weren’t an issue. The Plantation effect came back to haunt TPTB. Still, there was an earlier referendum in 1979 but Westminster interfered adding conditions that made it impossible to achieve, so trying alternative methods makes sense.

 

[Stathern Jc]

While there are varied thoughts on the eligibility to vote in the different types of elections, it is drifting well away from the subject of this thread and would warrant a specific thread to avoid obscuring the main issue here. (I appreciate that the Moderators here have much to cover).

But just a brief thought.
16 year olds are eligible to vote in elections within Scotland.
It's worth remembering when that was introduced.
Just in time for the 2014 Scottish Referendum.
It has been mentioned above how the younger population were thought most likely to have voted then.
The ifs and buts of the effect of votes from those "Scots abroad" who wanted to vote will be insignificant in comparison with that manoeuvre.

 

[IlkleyRunner]

But just a brief thought.
16 year olds are eligible to vote in elections within Scotland.
It's worth remembering when that was introduced.
Just in time for the 2014 Scottish Referendum.
It has been mentioned above how the younger population were thought most likely to have voted then.
The ifs and buts of the effect of votes from those "Scots abroad" who wanted to vote will be insignificant in comparison with that manoeuvre.

Actually the 16 year old change was after the referendum in 2015. (It was passed in June of that year).

 

[JamesT]

Actually the 16 year old change was after the referendum in 2015. (It was passed in June of that year).

For elections in general that may have been the case, but they were explicitly added for the referendum: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23074572 (dated 27 June 2013)

A bill to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the Scottish independence referendum was passed by MSPs on the last day of their term.

The legislation had the backing of the SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrats.

It gives those born on or before 18 September 1998 the right to vote in the referendum.

 

[Stathern Jc]

Peter Murrell has this morning been sentenced to 5 Years and 3 months.

This is a link to a "Live" page on the BBC News website, so will keep updating this morning, a more "permanent page will probably appear later.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c78ymmpyxjzt

"Peter Murrell jailed for five years and three months published at 09:50​

09:50Breaking​

Former SNP chief executive Petter Murrell is sentenced to five years and three months in prison for embezzling £400,000 from the party."


Part of this report will inevitably attract some attention:



I'm no expert, but this sentence is about what I'd anticipated (considering the Guilty plea).

What I have found strange is that a person of his means and income was entitled to Legal Aid, something most of us would associate with assistance for those of limited means and unable to afford their own defence.

And while on the subject of Courts.
There is a hearing at Wick this morning on one of the Altnabreac cases. Will need to have a look for any news on that.

 

[JamesT]

Peter Murrell has this morning been sentenced to 5 Years and 3 months.

This is a link to a "Live" page on the BBC News website, so will keep updating this morning, a more "permanent page will probably appear later.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c78ymmpyxjzt

"Peter Murrell jailed for five years and three months published at 09:50​

09:50Breaking​

Former SNP chief executive Petter Murrell is sentenced to five years and three months in prison for embezzling £400,000 from the party."


Part of this report will inevitably attract some attention:

View attachment 206529

I'm no expert, but this sentence is about what I'd anticipated.

What I have found strange is that a person of his means and income was entitled to Legal Aid, something most of us would associate with assistance for those of limited means and unable to afford their own defence.

And while on the subject of Courts.
There is a hearing at Wick this morning on one of the Altnabreac cases. Will need to have a look for any news on that.

My understanding is that all his assets were frozen due to the court case. So as he has nothing liquid to pay the lawyers with, he was entitled to legal aid.
What might be worthwhile in cases like this if after sentencing the legal aid costs could then be reclaimed from the convicted's assets. I believe this is possible in England but not in Scotland.

 

[Stathern Jc]

My understanding is that all his assets were frozen due to the court case. So as he has nothing liquid to pay the lawyers with, he was entitled to legal aid.
What might be worthwhile in cases like this if after sentencing the legal aid costs could then be reclaimed from the convicted's assets. I believe this is possible in England but not in Scotland.

Sounds like he could have done the taxpayers in Scotland for more than he did his "friends"?

 

[Broucek]

Sounds like he could have done the taxpayers in Scotland for more than he did his "friends"?

Crooks gonna crook....

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm surprised the sentence wasn't longer. He was clearly addicted to theft and fraud often for the sake of it (the motor home was never used!) - but the abuse of position and the length of offending were very serious factors for me.