Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I struggle to understand why anyone would feel the need to use money which is not their own to spend to buy the low cost items such as £4 for staples and £2.50 for hand cream. I also do not understand why anyone would want to spend £2,618 on salt and pepper grinders.
The former SNP chief executive admitted to buying hundreds of other items using party funds, ranging from luxury goods to everyday items. They include:
Jura Giga 5 Cromo coffee machine - £3,232
Smythson dressing table and tea set - £3,192 (with a discount applied)
Husqvarna robotic lawn mower - £3,070 (including installation cost)
Feuilles salt and pepper grinders - £2618
Shetland Jewellery nine carat gold pendant - £425
Three Nintendo 3DS handheld consoles - £350
PlayStation 3 console - £247
Games including FIFA, Battlefield, the Sims, Grand Theft Auto and Pac Man
Caran d'Ache pencil sharpener - £110
Chopsticks set - £102
Timberland men's loafers - £100
Men's "slouch pouch" onesie - £76
Ideal Standard toilet seats - £67
Goldfish Chinese takeaway curry sauce paste - £12
Staples - £4
Neutrogena hand cream - £2.50
She said: “The party has never been in a stronger financial position than it is right now and that's a reflection of our strength and our membership. So, just a bit of context for us all to remember.” It’s hard to reconcile that statement with today’s claim that she knew nothing about the thefts or how little there was left in the bank.
Her claim she was busy upstairs collecting fares when it was all happening just doesn’t wash. Did she never visit her mother-in-law and wonder why the lady (who didn’t drive) had a £100,000 RV in her driveway?
The nub of the issue is whether it you would notice £33000 a year of extra money being spent in a household which earns £250,000 a year legitimately. I doubt I would.
However, Paul is quite right here. It wasn't 400k going in to a poor household all at once. It was over several years in an already high-earning household.
People also do things differently. It's quite possible the two of them kept two separate bank accounts and were quite independent of each other financially.
However, Paul is quite right here. It wasn't 400k going in to a poor household all at once. It was over several years in an already high-earning household.
People also do things differently. It's quite possible the two of them kept two separate bank accounts and were quite independent of each other financially.
However, Paul is quite right here. It wasn't 400k going in to a poor household all at once. It was over several years in an already high-earning household.
People also do things differently. It's quite possible the two of them kept two separate bank accounts and were quite independent of each other financially.
'We had separate bank accounts' - Sturgeon
A number of hours after the court hearing, Sturgeon issued a further statement through her solicitor Aamer Anwar.
In it she said she had "seen questions raised [in the media] about how I could not have known about this".
Sturgeon added: "In relation to many of the items in question, for example expensive watches and games consoles, I was not aware of them having been purchased at all.
"Indeed in relation to the item of largest value – a campervan – I was not aware of its existence until it featured in the police investigation in early 2023, nor was it parked in our driveway as has been claimed by some.
In respect of any items I was aware of Peter having purchased, I had no reason to doubt that he had used his own money.
"We were both earning high salaries and, due to the responsibilities of my job, rarely socialised or went on holidays. We had separate bank accounts and I had no access to his financial records."
However, Paul is quite right here. It wasn't 400k going in to a poor household all at once. It was over several years in an already high-earning household.
People also do things differently. It's quite possible the two of them kept two separate bank accounts and were quite independent of each other financially.
A number of hours after the court hearing, Sturgeon issued a further statement through her solicitor Aamer Anwar.
In it she said she had "seen questions raised [in the media] about how I could not have known about this".
Sturgeon added: "In relation to many of the items in question, for example expensive watches and games consoles, I was not aware of them having been purchased at all.
"Indeed in relation to the item of largest value – a campervan – I was not aware of its existence until it featured in the police investigation in early 2023, nor was it parked in our driveway as has been claimed by some.
In respect of any items I was aware of Peter having purchased, I had no reason to doubt that he had used his own money.
"We were both earning high salaries and, due to the responsibilities of my job, rarely socialised or went on holidays. We had separate bank accounts and I had no access to his financial records."
Items like watches and expensive pens are very easy to hide. Games consoles not so much, although I'd imagine that they're easy enough to overlook if you're not in the habit of noticing what gadgets people have. If I suddenly arrived home one day with an XBox or Playstation, it likely would be noticed because I don't have a huge amount of disposable cash, but if you're on a large salary such purchases wouldn't seem so significant.
The campervan is the obvious one that's difficult to hide but lots of people have them these days and, unless it was actually parked on the driveway, would she really notice?
I think the questions over Sturgeon spotting the proceeds of the embezzlement are probably going in the wrong direction. As party leader, she has some responsibility over party finances. It seems rather odd not noticing £600k going missing, the “ring-fenced” fund for a second independence referendum campaign. They may have led quite separate personal lives from the sounds of it, but surely party leader and CEO would be discussing matters regularly?
The nub of the issue is whether it you would notice £33000 a year of extra money being spent in a household which earns £250,000 a year legitimately. I doubt I would
Don't forget that the 250k would be taxable and a big slug of income goes on fixed stuff. 33k of marginal, after tax discretionary should be noticeable
The big ticket items are motor vehicles such as the Jag which have a multitude of payment options, so Sturgeon possibly wasn’t aware Murrell paid cash?
The biggest eye-opener here though is Murrell getting all of his fraudulent spending past the SNP for so long.
Don't forget that the 250k would be taxable and a big slug of income goes on fixed stuff. 33k of marginal, after tax discretionary should be noticeable
I live in such a household and disagree. Even so, when my wife buys something large I don't question it. Because she's my wife and I trust her. Even when she bought a £1500 coffee machine last year, which is (depressingly!) true btw.
Nobody thought Murrell was dodgy until they noticed missing money. It wasn't like he was one day down at heel and the next day he had a motor home and a coffee machine and rare fountain pens, which would arouse suspicion. It was only following that money that they got to Murrell and found out he was defrauding the party.
As @Harpo suggests, it's astonishing the SNP was blind to it for so long and it raises far bigger questions about party governance than anything else.
OTOH I find it hard to understand how she, not only Murrell's wife but with him one of the top two most senior SNP officials, could not have known or at least suspected anything, at all, and how she was able to make the statements above regarding the soundness of the party's finances - Which, as we all now know, was very, very far from the truth.
You're probably right and focusing on the goodies may be unfair to Sturgeon, but coffee machines are tangible (and fun) and governance less so.
One of the key figures was the long-serving elected National Treasurer (then and now an MSP), who was actually responsible for the accounts - was he asleep, incompetent, or under the thumb of NS? I suspect most people would guess the third of those, but there will never be any public scrutiny to find out.
The nub of the issue is whether it you would notice £33000 a year of extra money being spent in a household which earns £250,000 a year legitimately. I doubt I would.
I think if they had separate bank accounts, it's pretty plausible she'd not notice, agreed.
However if this was coming from fraudulent company expenses, it's possible that there wasn't any (or certainly not all!) income tax paid on this, so I guess I personally would have some questions if, assuming their normal income was split £125k each, 10% pension contributions, no student loans, Scotland tax rates, my partner's pay went from £5735/month to £8513/month, because their increased spending would become noticeable. I doubt I'd notice things like thousand pound fountain pens because if my partner bought a fancy pen I wouldn't think to ask. But if my partner came home with a motorhome, a Jag, and a Golf, in the space of 4 years, I'd at least be asking what type of finance agreement they're on or if they were paid for outright. I think that would be a normal discussion for most couples even at this income point. Especially given that the motorhome for example was presumably bought for them to use jointly.
Crucially though, that would depend on actually knowing about the purchases, and he appears to have hidden some of these purchases entirely from her. The motorhome for example wasn't even parked on their driveway because he was hiding it from her. I know nothing about luxury watches and if my partner bought a £9k watch I probably wouldn't even know it was an expensive watch.
Once you get down to the level of toilet seats and PS3 games, I wouldn't take the slightest bit of interest in my partner buying these.
Someone said to me the other day that he was unambitious. I actually think the opposite - he was mostly quite clever and then went too far with the motor vehicles. He got away with this from 2010, which is 16 years ago now. If he hadn't gone for the cars and motorhome, he probably could've gotten away with smurfing off £50 here and there without anybody noticing. The same reason Charles Ingram got caught on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - he was struggling in the early questions so it was clear he wasn't great at general knowledge, but he took the cheating all the way to £1m. If he'd stopped at, I don't know, £16k/£32k/£64k, there would probably be just enough reasonable doubt to let him off the hook. These people get way too greedy and it becomes their undoing.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I struggle to understand why anyone would feel the need to use money which is not their own to spend to buy the low cost items such as £4 for staples and £2.50 for hand cream. I also do not understand why anyone would want to spend £2,618 on salt and pepper grinders.
The same reason celebrity chef Antony Worrall Thompson stole cheese from Tesco - kleptomania and/or greed.
Also, expenses like staples or £2.50 hand cream will barely attract a glance from somebody working in an enterprise finance department and people get away with it all the time.
But you can't expect to spend just shy of £200k on motor vehicles and not expect it to to be checked, even in an organisation as large as the SNP. Their total annual revenue is around £4.5m and the motorhome was £125k - that's around 3% of their revenue gone on a single purchase in a typical year.
One of the key figures was the long-serving elected National Treasurer (then and now an MSP), who was actually responsible for the accounts - was he asleep, incompetent, or under the thumb of NS?
A good question; Was Peter Murrell the sole person with access to, and oversight of, the SNP's accounts, and if, (as it so appears as a huge sum went missing over several years) how could this be possible, or even legal; In any organisation, of any size, let alone a major political party responsible for governing a nation? It is, almost, unbelievable. And an interesting picture of the competence of the SNP.
Regardless of the truth, Nicola Sturgeon will forever be associated with and tainted by this affair. But, thankfully, her political career was already over.
It's interesting just how different people's relationships are
We have a pretty good household income. And my wife loves coffee... But althuough we have a very high level of trust, we tend to talk about what we buy and what it cost - particularly if it's something interesting or fun like a new coffee machine!
A good question; Was Peter Murrell the sole person with access to, and oversight of, the SNP's accounts, and if, (as it so appears as a huge sum went missing over several years) how could this be possible, or even legal; In any organisation, of any size, let alone a major political party responsible for governing a nation? It is, almost, unbelievable. And an interesting picture of the competence of the SNP.
Regardless of the truth, Nicola Sturgeon will forever be associated with and tainted by this affair. But, thankfully, her political career was already over.
The issue for me is that she used her position to block scrutiny of the party’s accounts. That was, at best, a gross conflict of interest and, even assuming she had been completely unaware of the frauds, it made her complicit in his fraud.
My feeling is that Sturgeon did not knowingly gain from Murrell’s fiddles, but she failed to display the diligence (and curiosity) required of her position in ensuring that someone that she was closely entwined with was acting lawfully. They may have had separate accounts, but there will still be a lot of things that one buys and the other uses.
The issue for me is that she used her position to block scrutiny of the party’s accounts. That was, at best, a gross conflict of interest and, even assuming she had been completely unaware of the frauds, it made her complicit in his fraud.
This is an important point. It was well known that then SNP had a £600,000 fighting fund in 2017 from party workers or supporters, so did Sturgeon not ask where it was when the 2020 accounts only showed £97,000? In 2021, she told the SNP National Executive Committee that the finances had never been in stronger shape (despite the fighting fund being depleted), and denied access to the accounts to the finance and audit committee. Why not allow these members to inspect the books if she thought nothing was wrong?
Did she also never speak with her mother-in-law? Surely at some time there would have been a conversation in which the mother-in-law would ask when are you going to move your camper van, or when are you going to holiday in it?
Also, apparently according to the Telegraph, when she was interviewed in 2023, she gave 'no comment' to some questions, while saying publicly that she had fully co-operated with the police.
Also, apparently according to the Telegraph, when she was interviewed in 2023, she gave 'no comment' to some questions, while saying publicly that she had fully co-operated with the police.
And as he's pled guilty, there won't be an opportunity for any of the details to be examined in open court.
One thing I find amusing is that the SNP have had cashflow issues and needed to have loans from Peter Murrell to tide them over. So he was bailing them out with their own money.
There's a criminal judgment, and then a political one. And, were I a voter in a Scottish constituency, I would be taking close note of the fact that a party was expecting me to vote for them when they have a track record of not managing internal conflicts of interest. That, to me, is a massive "tell" about how they would approach government. Others, closer to Scottish politics, can say whether that tell is borne out in reality - as an Englishman, of pro-union sympathies who tends to see pro-union news sources, I can't be sure whether my first impressions are correct.
When Swinney was asked directly at the press conference yesterday, it was interesting he said specifically that he believed what Sturgeon had said.
He did not carefully say that he was inclined to believe what she had said, he gave a very clear statement that he trusted what she had said.
I wonder if he has dug himself a hole and will find that coming back to bite him.
(Just think how those who endorsed Mandleson are viewed now.)
When Swinney was asked directly at the press conference yesterday, it was interesting he said specifically that he believed what Sturgeon had said.
He did not carefully say that he was inclined to believe what she had said, he gave a very clear statement that he trusted what she had said.
I wonder if he has dug himself a hole and will find that coming back to bite him.
(Just think how those who endorsed Mandleson are viewed now.)
He has little choice - he was part of the leadership of the SNP back then, and if he says anything else, he leaves himself and the party wide open. If it eventually proves that Sturgeon was not entirely accurate in what she said, it gives him and the SNP a layer of deniability so they can play the "bad apple" card.
As they've just won the Holyrood elections, the calculation will be that there's plenty of time for this to roll into the long grass. I suspect they're right.
My feeling is that Sturgeon did not knowingly gain from Murrell’s fiddles, but she failed to display the diligence (and curiosity) required of her position in ensuring that someone that she was closely entwined with was acting lawfully. They may have had separate accounts, but there will still be a lot of things that one buys and the other uses.
This is an important point. It was well known that then SNP had a £600,000 fighting fund in 2017 from party workers or supporters, so did Sturgeon not ask where it was when the 2020 accounts only showed £97,000? In 2021, she told the SNP National Executive Committee that the finances had never been in stronger shape (despite the fighting fund being depleted), and denied access to the accounts to the finance and audit committee. Why not allow these members to inspect the books if she thought nothing was wrong?
Did she also never speak with her mother-in-law? Surely at some time there would have been a conversation in which the mother-in-law would ask when are you going to move your camper van, or when are you going to holiday in it?
Also, apparently according to the Telegraph, when she was interviewed in 2023, she gave 'no comment' to some questions, while saying publicly that she had fully co-operated with the police.
The former SNP MP has called for an independent inquiry into how Peter Murrell was able to embezzle more than £400,000.
www.bbc.co.uk
A former SNP MP has called for an independent inquiry into how former chief executive Peter Murrell was able to embezzle more than £400,000.
Joanna Cherry also accused former first minister Nicola Sturgeon - Murrell's estranged wife - of having shown "a remarkable lack of curiosity" over concerns regarding party finances.
She told BBC Radio Scotland Breakfast that she wanted answers about why efforts to investigate allegations of financial mismanagement were "frustrated" by party chiefs.
Sturgeon – who was arrested as part of the police investigation into SNP finances but later told she would face no further action – said she had "no knowledge or suspicion whatsoever" about Murrell's crime.
She said: "I would like to see a properly independent inquiry into how this was allowed to happen and in particular into why the efforts of those of us who were elected to get to the bottom of the party's governance and financial mismanagement were frustrated from doing so, and frustrated from doing so in pretty unpleasant circumstances."
She told the BBC: "It wasn't just that we didn't get an answer to our questions - we were demonised for asking the questions and one by one we all resigned from the national executive committee.
"There just seemed to be a remarkable lack of curiosity on the part of Nicola Sturgeon and other members of the national executive committee at that time - some of whom are now members of the Scottish Parliament and I think they have questions to answer as well."
Some questions have been raised about the arrival of small, expensive and ostentatious items in the joint household without causing curiosity but maybe we're not thinking laterally; is it just possible they were quickly sold-on (web auction sites) to convert to ready cash? Of course, that would raise the question of what the money was then used for but it might explain why their arrivals at the house weren't noticed. For instance, seems strange to have both machines to make quality coffee from beans and a stock of average quality instant.
Some questions have been raised about the arrival of small, expensive and ostentatious items in the joint household without causing curiosity but maybe we're not thinking laterally; is it just possible they were quickly sold-on (web auction sites) to convert to ready cash? Of course, that would raise the question of what the money was then used for but it might explain why their arrivals at the house weren't noticed. For instance, seems strange to have both machines to make quality coffee from beans and a stock of average quality instant.
Sturgeon spoke today about the expensive Le Cruset diningware and multiple coffee machines. She "had not spent much time" in the kitchen was her response. At least that clears that up.
Sturgeon spoke today about the expensive Le Cruset diningware and multiple coffee machines. She "had not spent much time" in the kitchen was her response. At least that clears that up.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.bbc.co.uk
