When will it go all wrong for the SNP?

[Falcon1200]

Part of this report will inevitably attract some attention:

With statements like that, plus her general lack of curiosity into the wherewithall for all the lovely things coming into their home, especially for an intelligent person with legal training, Nicola Sturgeon has made herself a laughing stock.

But hopefully she is even now in the process of returning whatever ill-gotten gains she possesses, as a matter of honour.....

 

[SuspectUsual]

With statements like that, plus her general lack of curiosity into the wherewithall for all the lovely things coming into their home, especially for an intelligent person with legal training, Nicola Sturgeon has made herself a laughing stock.

But hopefully she is even now in the process of returning whatever ill-gotten gains she possesses, as a matter of honour.....

They had two large salaries coming into the home. They could afford this stuff! As I understand it, he stole because he could, not because he needed to.

I really can imagine quite easily how she - with an intensely busy life - could see something at home every now and then that she'd not seen before and either think "he must've bought it, fair enough, we can afford it" or "that could have been there ages"

Sometimes the unlikely sounding answer is the truth

 

[Falcon1200]

could see something at home every now and then that she'd not seen before

But she couldn't see a huge camper van parked right next to her in-laws house! That really is laughable.

 

[MotCO]

But she couldn't see a huge camper van parked right next to her in-laws house! That really is laughable.

I read somewhere that to go from Sturgeon's house to the in-laws house, you approach the house from the right hand side where you can see the campervan in all its glory!

 

[AlterEgo]

I read somewhere that to go from Sturgeon's house to the in-laws house, you approach the house from the right hand side where you can see the campervan in all its glory!

You read a big fat lie, then. It's in a cul de sac and you'd never need to pass it if you drove off the main road into the driveway; you approach from the left. I believe her when she says she never saw it; there is no reason for her to have ever been in a position to see it, especially as Murrell would have done most of the driving.

 

[MP33]

Peter Murrell will be sleeping considerably more soundly in his Prison bed. Than, Jeffrey Donaldson, will be. When he gets to his.

 

[GusB]

You read a big fat lie, then. It's in a cul de sac and you'd never need to pass it if you drove off the main road into the driveway; you approach from the left. I believe her when she says she never saw it; there is no reason for her to have ever been in a position to see it, especially as Murrell would have done most of the driving.

Not only that, the photograph posted in post #416 clearly shows a garage to the left of the house and an empty driveway in front of it. It wouldn't have occurred to me that both driveways actually belonged to that house.

But she couldn't see a huge camper van parked right next to her in-laws house! That really is laughable.

Have you never walked past something and not register it being there? I would probably notice a campervan in a neighbour's driveway because I have an interest in motor vehicles, but if they changed the colour of the flowers in their borders I would walk on by none the wiser!

 

[MotCO]

You read a big fat lie, then. It's in a cul de sac and you'd never need to pass it if you drove off the main road into the driveway; you approach from the left. I believe her when she says she never saw it; there is no reason for her to have ever been in a position to see it, especially as Murrell would have done most of the driving.

I think I read it in a paper, so it must be true

 

[oldman]

And obviously it would never have come up in conversation when she was visiting mum-in-law.

The good news for her is that the focus is on Murrell's criminality rather than the SNP's financial mismanagement - a national treasurer who saw nothing, a finance and audit committee which said nothing, until eventually they did say something and were ticked off by Sturgeon for troublemaking.

 

[Stathern Jc]

And obviously it would never have come up in conversation when she was visiting mum-in-law..

Nor had she ever been invited to have a look around the garden?

 

[Magrar]

She claimed the accounts were fully audited and nothing was amiss.

It doesn't seem like anyone pulled at that thread to determine whether she's lying, or it's yet another case of a prestigious auditor just phoning it in and pocketing a massive fee.

Credit where it's due though, it's no small thing to ensure a party survives a scandal like this. They surely could have done without her making it all about her, but she is what she is, and they must now ask themselves why they ignored what she is.

She literally cost them a second shot at independence as surely as her pilfering hubby did.

 

[Falcon1200]

I believe her when she says she never saw it; there is no reason for her to have ever been in a position to see it, especially as Murrell would have done most of the driving.

It wouldn't have occurred to me that both driveways actually belonged to that house.

Have you never walked past something and not register it being there?

The picture in Post #416 looks pretty clear to me.

I simply cannot accept that she;
a) never saw the camper van at all,
b) saw it but thought it was the neighbour's,
c) never thought to ask her husband, or his parents, about the lovely camper van parked there,
d) only ever approached the house from the opposite direction,
e) never walked past or near that side of the house and garden,
f) never drove to the house herself,
g) never parked on that driveway (before the camper van arrived),
h) only ever parked completely out of sight of that side of the house.

But clearly there are differing views on Ms Sturgeon's acuity and curiosity and we are not going to change our opinions.

 

[AlterEgo]

The picture in Post #416 looks pretty clear to me.

I simply cannot accept that she;
a) never saw the camper van at all,
b) saw it but thought it was the neighbour's,
c) never thought to ask her husband, or his parents, about the lovely camper van parked there,
d) only ever approached the house from the opposite direction,
e) never walked past or near that side of the house and garden,
f) never drove to the house herself,
g) never parked on that driveway (before the camper van arrived),
h) only ever parked completely out of sight of that side of the house.

But clearly there are differing views on Ms Sturgeon's acuity and curiosity and we are not going to change our opinions.

Of course you wouldn't accept that. Like most people in the thread determined to find fault with her, you have a political axe to grind with her. As far as f) is concerned, it's well known Sturgeon simply could not drive until after the motor home was seized! Of course Murrell drove there, and parked out of sight of it.

Now I dislike Sturgeon and am sceptical of the SNP, but I can also sniff a lot of hypocrisy and double standards. It is well known the leading rumour about Sturgeon before Operation Branchform is that she, or Murrell, or both, were gay and their marriage was distant and one of political convenience.

Now, that's all been forgotten. Sturgeon is criticised for not being a nosey wife. She should have asked questions. She should have asked why there was a new coffee machine in the house. She should have known he had some expensive watches he has never been seen wearing. She should have noticed a hidden motor home at her mother in law's house (none of us know how many times she visited, she says "less than a handful" in the time the vehicle was there). I think if I visited that house three times and parked on the main drive every time I don't think I would see that camper van. I think anyone who is sure they would notice it if they paid a visit, went inside for a cup of tea for an hour or two, and maybe sat on the patio, is kidding themselves.

That camper van cannot be seen when you drive off the main road and up to the main drive of the house to park there. Have you even looked at the house on Street View? You would see it only if you ever drove from the bottom of the cul de sac, or patrolled the house to the side (there is no reason anyone visiting their in laws would ever go there), or if you stood in a very particular spot in the garden and looked at the house (and even then, the orientation of that second driveway is such you might think it belonged to next door, especially if it would be frankly ridiculous that an old lady had a gigantic motor home).

I think the explanation that she simply did not ever see it is credible. And I don't like her!

Meanwhile, while a load of her political opponents are bleating "I WOULD HAVE SEEN THE BIG MOTOR HOME" ...that suits the SNP. It's all about her now. The SNP love that. It means that they don't get scrutinised for their double-whammy of putting liminal hero status on their leaders twice in a row. First, with Salmond, who was tainted by multiple allegations of sexual harassment (which Sturgeon misled parliament over!), and now with Sturgeon, who was able to delay and frustrate enquiries into the finances of the SNP for political expediency - and by the way, I do believe it was politically rather than personally motivated. That makes it worse, because it shows how the structure of the SNP and the elevation of the leader's role to be able to interfere in the finances of the party make it problematic, and that it could happen again if the SNP do not sort things out.

 

[styles]

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.

It's probably about right under the sentencing guidelines (had it been heard in England and Wales anyway). The maximum sentence is 10 years, he's in the highest culpability category from the abuse of position etc, but only category 2 out of 5 for the amount taken. That puts the starting point at 5 years before the aggravating/mitigating factors. He's then been given a 25% discount from 7 years to 5.25 years for the early guilty plea (would've been 33% if he'd pled guilty at the very beginning). While there's aggravating factors at play, he presumably had no relevant previous convictions and will have shown some sort of remorse, so I don't think there was much prospect of him getting a longer sentence.

Edit, for some comparisons - 2 years, 1 month, suspended for 2 years, for £3m fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...h-lifestyle-with-chauffeur-driven-rolls-royce

3 years, for £170k over 6 years, also in Scotland: https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2022/07/21/hma-v-gordon-couch

 

[d9009alycidon]

Highly unlikely that he will serve anything near that, given that the SNP have introduced early release schemes to reduce the prison population, I think he will serve around 18 more months.

 

[35B]

Of course you wouldn't accept that. Like most people in the thread determined to find fault with her, you have a political axe to grind with her. As far as f) is concerned, it's well known Sturgeon simply could not drive until after the motor home was seized! Of course Murrell drove there, and parked out of sight of it.

Now I dislike Sturgeon and am sceptical of the SNP, but I can also sniff a lot of hypocrisy and double standards. It is well known the leading rumour about Sturgeon before Operation Branchform is that she, or Murrell, or both, were gay and their marriage was distant and one of political convenience.

Now, that's all been forgotten. Sturgeon is criticised for not being a nosey wife. She should have asked questions. She should have asked why there was a new coffee machine in the house. She should have known he had some expensive watches he has never been seen wearing. She should have noticed a hidden motor home at her mother in law's house (none of us know how many times she visited, she says "less than a handful" in the time the vehicle was there). I think if I visited that house three times and parked on the main drive every time I don't think I would see that camper van. I think anyone who is sure they would notice it if they paid a visit, went inside for a cup of tea for an hour or two, and maybe sat on the patio, is kidding themselves.

That camper van cannot be seen when you drive off the main road and up to the main drive of the house to park there. Have you even looked at the house on Street View? You would see it only if you ever drove from the bottom of the cul de sac, or patrolled the house to the side (there is no reason anyone visiting their in laws would ever go there), or if you stood in a very particular spot in the garden and looked at the house (and even then, the orientation of that second driveway is such you might think it belonged to next door, especially if it would be frankly ridiculous that an old lady had a gigantic motor home).

I think the explanation that she simply did not ever see it is credible. And I don't like her!

Meanwhile, while a load of her political opponents are bleating "I WOULD HAVE SEEN THE BIG MOTOR HOME" ...that suits the SNP. It's all about her now. The SNP love that. It means that they don't get scrutinised for their double-whammy of putting liminal hero status on their leaders twice in a row. First, with Salmond, who was tainted by multiple allegations of sexual harassment (which Sturgeon misled parliament over!), and now with Sturgeon, who was able to delay and frustrate enquiries into the finances of the SNP for political expediency - and by the way, I do believe it was politically rather than personally motivated. That makes it worse, because it shows how the structure of the SNP and the elevation of the leader's role to be able to interfere in the finances of the party make it problematic, and that it could happen again if the SNP do not sort things out.

If we’re talking about the motorhome, I agree. But the wider pattern doesn’t feel right at all

 

[MotCO]

Of course you wouldn't accept that. Like most people in the thread determined to find fault with her, you have a political axe to grind with her. As far as f) is concerned, it's well known Sturgeon simply could not drive until after the motor home was seized! Of course Murrell drove there, and parked out of sight of it.

Now I dislike Sturgeon and am sceptical of the SNP, but I can also sniff a lot of hypocrisy and double standards. It is well known the leading rumour about Sturgeon before Operation Branchform is that she, or Murrell, or both, were gay and their marriage was distant and one of political convenience.

Now, that's all been forgotten. Sturgeon is criticised for not being a nosey wife. She should have asked questions. She should have asked why there was a new coffee machine in the house. She should have known he had some expensive watches he has never been seen wearing. She should have noticed a hidden motor home at her mother in law's house (none of us know how many times she visited, she says "less than a handful" in the time the vehicle was there). I think if I visited that house three times and parked on the main drive every time I don't think I would see that camper van. I think anyone who is sure they would notice it if they paid a visit, went inside for a cup of tea for an hour or two, and maybe sat on the patio, is kidding themselves.

That camper van cannot be seen when you drive off the main road and up to the main drive of the house to park there. Have you even looked at the house on Street View? You would see it only if you ever drove from the bottom of the cul de sac, or patrolled the house to the side (there is no reason anyone visiting their in laws would ever go there), or if you stood in a very particular spot in the garden and looked at the house (and even then, the orientation of that second driveway is such you might think it belonged to next door, especially if it would be frankly ridiculous that an old lady had a gigantic motor home).

I think the explanation that she simply did not ever see it is credible. And I don't like her!

Meanwhile, while a load of her political opponents are bleating "I WOULD HAVE SEEN THE BIG MOTOR HOME" ...that suits the SNP. It's all about her now. The SNP love that. It means that they don't get scrutinised for their double-whammy of putting liminal hero status on their leaders twice in a row. First, with Salmond, who was tainted by multiple allegations of sexual harassment (which Sturgeon misled parliament over!), and now with Sturgeon, who was able to delay and frustrate enquiries into the finances of the SNP for political expediency - and by the way, I do believe it was politically rather than personally motivated. That makes it worse, because it shows how the structure of the SNP and the elevation of the leader's role to be able to interfere in the finances of the party make it problematic, and that it could happen again if the SNP do not sort things out.

1. I have a relative who lives in a cul-de-sac. If I park outside, when I leave, I drive down to the end of the cul-de-sac, using the turning circle to turn. Does the in-laws' cul-de-sac not have such a turning circle?

2. If the motorhome was the only transgression, it might be excusable. But

1. Buying a new car is often an important family decision. What car do we buy? What size engine? How much can we afford to spend? What colour? etc etc . Did Nicola not ask Murrell why he had not discussed the purchase of not just one, but two cars, with her?
2. Surely at least one of the multitude of purchases must have provoked a response from Nicola - why do we need another coffee machine etc?
3. The fact that Sturgeon closed down any discussion on the SNP finances - 'they're all fine, nothing to see here'. If she didn't think there was anything dodgy with the finances, why not allow a discussion? The fact that she didn't want to discuss them suggests she had something to hide.

Individually, any of these items may not raise any suspicions. But with the whole catalogue of issues, surely the balance of probability is that she did know something. Unfortunately, this does not meet the bar for a criminal prosecution

 

[35B]

1. I have a relative who lives in a cul-de-sac. If I park outside, when I leave, I drive down to the end of the cul-de-sac, using the turning circle to turn. Does the in-laws' cul-de-sac not have such a turning circle?

2. If the motorhome was the only transgression, it might be excusable. But

1. Buying a new car is often an important family decision. What car do we buy? What size engine? How much can we afford to spend? What colour? etc etc . Did Nicola not ask Murrell why he had not discussed the purchase of not just one, but two cars, with her?
2. Surely at least one of the multitude of purchases must have provoked a response from Nicola - why do we need another coffee machine etc?
3. The fact that Sturgeon closed down any discussion on the SNP finances - 'they're all fine, nothing to see here'. If she didn't think there was anything dodgy with the finances, why not allow a discussion? The fact that she didn't want to discuss them suggests she had something to hide.

Individually, any of these items may not raise any suspicions. But with the whole catalogue of issues, surely the balance of probability is that she did know something. Unfortunately, this does not meet the bar for a criminal prosecution

Which takes us to the other key point - that by making the discussion about Sturgeon, it deflects from what it says about the SNP.

Whatever the finer detail, this was a party that said “nothing to see here”, and made it incredibly difficult for the truth to come out. Those charged with being institutionally curious weren’t, and they deliberately blocked those who were asking wholly justified questions.

The tell is that Swinney et al have not disowned Sturgeon, but are repeating the “one bad apple” lie to avoid the truth that the corruption was a deeply SNP problem, and that the SNP are blameworthy, not just Murrell

 

[styles]

1. I have a relative who lives in a cul-de-sac. If I park outside, when I leave, I drive down to the end of the cul-de-sac, using the turning circle to turn. Does the in-laws' cul-de-sac not have such a turning circle?

2. If the motorhome was the only transgression, it might be excusable. But

1. Buying a new car is often an important family decision. What car do we buy? What size engine? How much can we afford to spend? What colour? etc etc . Did Nicola not ask Murrell why he had not discussed the purchase of not just one, but two cars, with her?
2. Surely at least one of the multitude of purchases must have provoked a response from Nicola - why do we need another coffee machine etc?
3. The fact that Sturgeon closed down any discussion on the SNP finances - 'they're all fine, nothing to see here'. If she didn't think there was anything dodgy with the finances, why not allow a discussion? The fact that she didn't want to discuss them suggests she had something to hide.

Individually, any of these items may not raise any suspicions. But with the whole catalogue of issues, surely the balance of probability is that she did know something. Unfortunately, this does not meet the bar for a criminal prosecution

I agree somewhat that the car purchases should've raised questions. We have a decent combined income, but if my partner came home with an £18k Jag, I'd have questions about the financing etc. The Golf maybe less so, especially with lease deals, company car schemes, etc.

But things like the coffee machine I would barely even clock to be quite honest. I wouldn't know that a coffee machine had cost £1299 unless somebody told me. I'd just assume my partner fancied some nice coffee and eh, it's her money to spend on a coffee machine if she wants. Same with things like the watches - I know naff all about watches and while I might clock that a Tag watch isn't super cheap, I also wouldn't interrogate my partner if she decided to spend a few hundred on a watch, and I wouldn't recognise a £4k watch if I saw one.

It sounds like he hid a lot of these purchases. I doubt for example that he kept all 3 coffee machines at their family home. He hid the motorhome. The pens and watches like I say I wouldn't even realise were that expensive, and it sounds like he's kept a lot of these things hidden or at an office etc anyway.

I am far from a huge Sturgeon fan, but I don't think she'd have sat there knowing her husband was embezzling funds from her party and just let it slide. Naive maybe, but fully in-the-know, almost certainly not.

 

[43096]

And of course, wee innocent Nicola didn’t ever wonder where the ~£600k independence fighting fund had gone to?

 

[AlterEgo]

1. I have a relative who lives in a cul-de-sac. If I park outside, when I leave, I drive down to the end of the cul-de-sac, using the turning circle to turn. Does the in-laws' cul-de-sac not have such a turning circle?

With this house, you would just park on the (large) drive and reverse off it. No car was ever parked there, as Murrell's mum is in her 90s and doesn't drive. It is entirely plausible that you would not see the motor home, which is concealed from view around the back of the house in a second driveway. You would simply never see it if you parked up, went to the front door, and went inside.

2. If the motorhome was the only transgression, it might be excusable. But

1. Buying a new car is often an important family decision. What car do we buy? What size engine? How much can we afford to spend? What colour? etc etc . Did Nicola not ask Murrell why he had not discussed the purchase of not just one, but two cars, with her?

I think the evidence is very much that Murrell and Sturgeon's marriage was unconventional in some ways. Remember, those were *his* cars alone, and only *he* could drive, for a start.

If my wife wants to buy a new car and she trades in an old one at the same time, I'm not going through her bank account to see if £16,000 of the money was from stolen funds from work, to be quite honest. "It's on finance at £400 a month" would really be the end of the matter if my wife said that to me. That is because marriages are supposed to work on trust, and I find the idea that Sturgeon was supposed to endlessly nobble Murrell about his finances at best bizarre, most likely old fashioned and at worst just sexist. I do not expect that if the fraud had been the other way around and Sturgeon was the one stealing that Murrell would be under scrutiny for not nagging his wife or somehow investigating her.

Surely at least one of the multitude of purchases must have provoked a response from Nicola - why do we need another coffee machine etc?

I've discussed this previously, but we have a nice, expensive coffee machine at home which cost £1500. It's nice to have, though in truth I am not massively arsed about coffee. It's our third such machine in five years, having upgraded each time and sold the old ones. My wife likes coffee, and she bought it mostly for herself and to make fancy coffee for guests. She earns in the low three figures, just like Murrell. What sort of questions do you expect me to ask of my wife? Am I supposed to look at receipts?

"I'm going to buy this coffee machine"
"It's a bit expensive, Christ - you know I'm not that bothered"
"Yeah I know but it's nice, we can make nice coffee for your parents and when the garden is done we can sit out every nice morning with one, it's the same manufacturer as that nice Italian deli that's just opened in the village you like"
"OK then lol. When is it arriving then and do I need to set it up?"

I mean, this is just quite normal for a household of the Sturgeon/Murrell's incomes - they also don't have any kids.

He concealed the purchases of a number of expensive items as his police interview shows.

Yesterday I had five boxes arrive from a variety of places. How does my wife know what's inside them? Do you expect her to open them? Buying rail memorabilia, bits of camera gear, odds and ends for DIY in the house - that is entirely normal for me. If I had a £4,000 watch or a fancy fountain pen inside one of the boxes she'd never know.

As a reminder, Operation Branchform started because of the suspicion money was spent on something it shouldn't have been, given it was supposed to be ring fenced. It was not started because someone, anyone - thought Murrell was spending too much money; in fact, he loaned the SNP over £100,000 cash, clearly a comfortably well off man who had liquid assets. Nobody initially suspected him. The original basis of the investigation was the SNP spent ring fenced money on secret campaigning. In fact, it took two years for Murrell to be arrested.

He didn't need to steal any of these items, really - he did it as an abuse of power and probably because he saw himself as entitled, and got addicted to it. We see many such cases - a low level of fraud spirals into a long term abuse because people think they're invincible - until they aren't.

The fact that Sturgeon closed down any discussion on the SNP finances - 'they're all fine, nothing to see here'. If she didn't think there was anything dodgy with the finances, why not allow a discussion? The fact that she didn't want to discuss them suggests she had something to hide.

I think she probably knew the finances were poor and at the very very least, mismanaged. I think her biggest concern was that this would be scandalous and politically damaging, not that she was personally implicated in a long term fraud. People in marriages are frequently misled by their spouses and sometimes for a long time.

This notwithstanding, Sturgeon has to carry the can for the total lack of leadership and for contributing to the concealment of the SNP's financial difficulties. She cannot cut around London as some sort of new liberated person doing interviews and podcasts as she initially tried to do - no, you contributed to this Nicola, and it's because you lost a grip, were vain, desperate and running on fumes after Indyref2 didn't pan out as you hoped.

 

[Falcon1200]

Have you even looked at the house on Street View?

No, because I do not know the address, don't want to know, and don't actually think I should know. But I have seen the photos, and now have to admire Murrell for his cleverness in making sure his wife could not see a camper van parked at his parents' home.......

 

[JamesT]

Stuart Campbell of Wings over Scotland has been very tenacious on the point that this started with the potentially fraudulent use of funds from the “ringfenced” independence fund and that Peter Murrell’s embezzlement is a separate matter. He’s had several email exchanges with the procurators asking why it hasn’t been pursued.
He’s now applying for proceedings against the SNP in court to declare that the use of the funds was fraudulent and to have the money returned with interest to those who donated.

The Interests Of The Many

As we told you last week, we’ve now had counsel draft our application for a group proceedings action on behalf of donors to the “ringfenced” independence referendum campaign funds…

wingsoverscotland.com

As we told you last week, we’ve now had counsel draft our application for a group proceedings action on behalf of donors to the “ringfenced” independence referendum campaign funds which were stolen and spent by the SNP on party business.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Does the party have enough money if they lose?

 

[Stathern Jc]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Does the party have enough money if they lose?

And if so, how could anyone possibly identify who gave how much; and what proportion of that, any amount recovered, less the cost of administration, would represent as pence in the pound.
Even after the legalities, that would be a nightmare.

I think it's the second half of August that The Electoral Commission publish the financial accounts of political parties for 2025.
Those of the SNP will probably attract more interest than most again this year.

There looks to be plenty of intrigue and entertainment still to come.

 

[JamieL]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Does the party have enough money if they lose?

More to the point, does Wings of Scotland (noting that if they lose they will then incur the SNP costs)? It strikes me the SNP position is probably fairly secure here. first, both the SNP and affected membership were the victims of a fraudster. Second, the pathway to any second referendum relied upon SNP re-election and therefore use of those funds in that pursuit would seem to be legitimate.

 

[SargeNpton]

Second, the pathway to any second referendum relied upon SNP re-election and therefore use of those funds in that pursuit would seem to be legitimate.

Not if the donations were supposed to be ringfenced for a second referendum campaign. Using them for a Scottish parliament election would be outside of that remit.

 

[35B]

Not if the donations were supposed to be ringfenced for a second referendum campaign. Using them for a Scottish parliament election would be outside of that remit.

Quite. I think the SNP are very vulnerable here, regardless of whether they were separately the victim of a fraudster. They made an appeal for donations on a specific basis - and broke that promise at the most basic level. It's especially dangerous for them from Wings over Scotland, because any attempt to say SNP = pro-independence is refuted by the very existence of Wings.

 

[JamieL]

Not if the donations were supposed to be ringfenced for a second referendum campaign. Using them for a Scottish parliament election would be outside of that remit.

Do you have a copy of the specific T&Cs of the donations? I ask specifically because, in the general communications, the GE and Scottish election victories have always has been part of the indy strategy.

 

[JamesT]

Do you have a copy of the specific T&Cs of the donations? I ask specifically because, in the general communications, the GE and Scottish election victories have always has been part of the indy strategy.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-promise/ unfortunately the letters are images, but communications are very clear these donations are for a ring fenced fund, not for general party spending.

 

[JamieL]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-promise/ unfortunately the letters are images, but communications are very clear these donations are for a ring fenced fund, not for general party spending.

So read the whole thing...the time-frame was set as 18 months to 2 years during which the application to trigger Section 30 was made - an essential part of the Indy campaign. It was obviously rejected by the Westminster Government, but time and effort was put in by the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and SNP to make that application.