Solid fog
Stu Campbell is on a mission, and when he is on a mission, somebody is going to feel the heat. Few people do forensic investigative journalism to the same standard as the Wings Over Scotland blogger. This inevitably means he is detested by those who find themselves under his microscope. The more powerful and prominent the target of his investigation, the greater the resentment of Stu Campbell’s scrutiny. By reputation, he is not a likeable person. But it is, in my estimation, the personal characteristics and traits that make him unlikeable that also make him so good at what he does.
The more powerful and prominent the target of his investigation, the greater the resentment of Stu Campbell’s scrutiny.
What he does is, essentially, speak truth unto power. Whatever his faults, Stu Campbell very evidently has a profound and abiding regard for truth. He is not infallible, of course. None of us is. But he is meticulous in his research and forthright in his presentation of what he uncovers. His blog is always worth reading. At the moment, it is essential reading for anyone who believes that nobody is above the law.
When I wrote the article on the affair of the ring-fenced funds published a couple of days ago, I had not read Stu Campbell’s most recent posts on the matter. Frankly, if I had, I might not have bothered giving my take on the matter of the £667,000 donated for the specified purpose of funding a new referendum campaign. Reading a trio of recent posts, one gets the distinct feeling that he has said all there is to say on the matter as he seeks an answer to the question of why no prosecutions ensued from the police investigation into the fate of the donated money. Stu Campbell convincingly argues that a fraud was perpetrated and that there is a prima facie case for prosecution of Nicola Sturgeon and possibly others. In chronological order of publication, the three articles I refer to are the following:
I urge you to read all three. Keep the evidence presented in mind as you listen to the squeals of protest from Sturgeon’s cult-like following.
The most recent of these articles deals with the involvement of Police Scotland and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (the Crown Office or COPFS for short). Specifically, BBC Scotland interviews in which Glenn Campbell grills Police Scotland’s Deputy Chief Constable, Stuart Houston, and from COPFS, John Logue.
As Stu Campbell says:
You can watch them in their entirety above, although we don’t particularly recommend it – they’re both pretty dull, and largely concerned with the embezzlement case, about which they provide no dramatic new revelations.
But both also touch on (the lack of) prosecutions over the original complaint. So what happened when the BBC’s Glenn Campbell brought the subject up?
I have referred to John Swinney’s brand of sleekit dishonesty on numerous occasions. Stu Campbell picks on a prime example of his slipperiness.
Swinney’s response to questions about how the money supposedly reserved for a new referendum campaign was spent is to plausibly maintain that there is no difference between spending the money for the purpose stipulated when it was raised and spending that money on the “ongoing activities” of the SNP. It’s a reworking of the notion that what is good for the SNP is good for Scotland’s cause. And perhaps more importantly, the corollary that what harms the SNP also harms Scotland’s cause.
In a sense, Swinney’s response might be taken as quite honest. If he genuinely believes that there is no distinction between the interests of his party and the interests of the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence, then the above statement is from his perspective perfectly truthful. Objectively, however, the way the appeal for money was worded means it cannot be honest. Nobody imagines Swinney is stupid. He must be aware of the crucial difference between spending on a referendum campaign and spending on the “ongoing activities” of the SNP. So, why did he say what he said?
Nobody imagines Swinney is stupid. He must be aware of the crucial difference between spending on a referendum campaign and spending on the “ongoing activities” of the SNP.
I would suggest that what he was doing with this very carefully calculated answer was twofold. Firstly, he was admitting that the money had been spent in the hope of putting an end to questions about what had happened. It’s an admission without any suggestion of culpability.
Secondly, Swinney is supplying the party faithful with ammunition to use against those who persist with questions. They can plausibly claim that the whole thing has been comprehensively explained by Swinney. They might even quote him. The intention is to create a fog around the question of what happened with the money and whether what was done with it constituted criminal fraud and how much Nicola Sturgeon knew.
Stu Campbell is tuned to the dishonesty in Swinney’s statement:
Why, indeed, would anyone even attempt to hide that from [Nicola Sturgeon]? “SNP spends SNP money on legitimate SNP activities” isn’t any sort of crime.
The problem, of course, and the trigger for there having been an investigation in the first place, was that this money expressly and explicitly WASN’T supposed to be spent on the normal “ongoing activities” of the party.
Once again, I urge you to read all three articles. They will help you peer through the fog generated by John Swinney as well as DCC Houston and John Logue. Something stinks about this whole affair. The National is studiously ignoring it, as one would expect of the independence industry’s newsletter. But as Stu Campbell says, “…the questions are never going to stop.” Nor should they.
the target of his investigation, the greater the resentment of Stu Campbell’s scrutiny. By reputation, he is not a likeable person. But it is, in my estimation, the personal characteristics and traits that make him unlikeable that also make him so good at what he does.
The more powerful and prominent the target of his investigation, the greater the resentment of Stu Campbell’s scrutiny.
What he does is, essentially, speak truth unto power. Whatever his faults, Stu Campbell very evidently has a profound and abiding regard for truth. He is not infallible, of course. None of us is. But he is meticulous in his research and forthright in his presentation of what he uncovers. His blog is always worth reading. At the moment, it is essential reading for anyone who believes that nobody is above the law.
When I wrote the article on the affair of the ring-fenced funds published a couple of days ago, I had not read Stu Campbell’s most recent posts on the matter. Frankly, if I had, I might not have bothered giving my take on the matter of the £667,000 donated for the specified purpose of funding a new referendum campaign. Reading a trio of recent posts, one gets the distinct feeling that he has said all there is to say on the matter as he seeks an answer to the question of why no prosecutions ensued from the police investigation into the fate of the donated money. Stu Campbell convincingly argues that a fraud was perpetrated and that there is a prima facie case for prosecution of Nicola Sturgeon and possibly others. In chronological order of publication, the three articles I refer to are the following:
I urge you to read all three. Keep the evidence presented in mind as you listen to the squeals of protest from Sturgeon’s cult-like following.
The most recent of these articles deals with the involvement of Police Scotland and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (the Crown Office or COPFS for short). Specifically, BBC Scotland interviews in which Glenn Campbell grills Police Scotland’s Deputy Chief Constable, Stuart Houston, and from COPFS, John Logue.
As Stu Campbell says:
You can watch them in their entirety above, although we don’t particularly recommend it – they’re both pretty dull, and largely concerned with the embezzlement case, about which they provide no dramatic new revelations.
But both also touch on (the lack of) prosecutions over the original complaint. So what happened when the BBC’s Glenn Campbell brought the subject up?
I have referred to John Swinney’s brand of sleekit dishonesty on numerous occasions. Stu Campbell picks on a prime example of his slipperiness.
Swinney’s response to questions about how the money supposedly reserved for a new referendum campaign was spent is to plausibly maintain that there is no difference between spending the money for the purpose stipulated when it was raised and spending that money on the “ongoing activities” of the SNP. It’s a reworking of the notion that what is good for the SNP is good for Scotland’s cause. And perhaps more importantly, the corollary that what harms the SNP also harms Scotland’s cause.
In a sense, Swinney’s response might be taken as quite honest. If he genuinely believes that there is no distinction between the interests of his party and the interests of the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence, then the above statement is from his perspective perfectly truthful. Objectively, however, the way the appeal for money was worded means it cannot be honest. Nobody imagines Swinney is stupid. He must be aware of the crucial difference between spending on a referendum campaign and spending on the “ongoing activities” of the SNP. So, why did he say what he said?
Nobody imagines Swinney is stupid. He must be aware of the crucial difference between spending on a referendum campaign and spending on the “ongoing activities” of the SNP.
I would suggest that what he was doing with this very carefully calculated answer was twofold. Firstly, he was admitting that the money had been spent in the hope of putting an end to questions about what had happened. It’s an admission without any suggestion of culpability.
Secondly, Swinney is supplying the party faithful with ammunition to use against those who persist with questions. They can plausibly claim that the whole thing has been comprehensively explained by Swinney. They might even quote him. The intention is to create a fog around the question of what happened with the money and whether what was done with it constituted criminal fraud and how much Nicola Sturgeon knew.
Stu Campbell is tuned to the dishonesty in Swinney’s statement:
Why, indeed, would anyone even attempt to hide that from [Nicola Sturgeon]? “SNP spends SNP money on legitimate SNP activities” isn’t any sort of crime.
The problem, of course, and the trigger for there having been an investigation in the first place, was that this money expressly and explicitly WASN’T supposed to be spent on the normal “ongoing activities” of the party.
Once again, I urge you to read all three articles. They will help you peer through the fog generated by John Swinney as well as DCC Houston and John Logue. Something stinks about this whole affair. The National is studiously ignoring it, as one would expect of the independence industry’s newsletter. But as Stu Campbell says, “…the questions are never going to stop.” Nor should they.
Brilliant article Peter. I took your earlier advice and visited the WOS website. ( I thought it had closed down) ...Was there for hours reading and reading ...followed by another day of reading....
S. Campbell is like yourself..calls it out . I shall spend the rest of today reading more on the site...
One of the problems ( among many) that beset Scotland appears to be we have no real mechanism for ridding ourselves of these incompetent ..traitorous...criminal ..career politicians whose only aim is the aggrandizement of self..or maybe an aspiration to own a 'british ' gong or a fur lined cape ...or as Burns put it..'for a bag o' siller'
With a toxic mix of our traitorous SG... the embedded foreign english government aided and abetted by the malevolent foreign english media ...we have a population who do not know what the hell is going on.... and haven't for 300years...... except that which the devious foreign english media deem suitable for our infantile nation...
DM nailed it in his comment.
Ghandi said Scotland would never be free until she suffered. A cross on a bit of paper is not going to free us. Only a nation who are fed up with being downtrodden ...find their Bannockburn mindset ....rise up and use it... It worked last time...
We are a sick country and getting sicker....
For OUR Scotland and her sick weans.
Spot on Peter.
As are Stuart Campbell's articles:
Wings Over Scotland articles in the last 7 or 8 years have done a great job in revealing the fraudulent raising of 'ring-fenced'/pilfering of referendum campaign funds and embezzlement of monies from the SNP bank account as well as the scandalous hounding and attempted jailing of former FM Alex Salmond (about which there is an upcoming trial that will determine if criminality has been involved).
Meanwhile the lengths to which some of the SNP loyal and blind brigade will go to deny the facts are truly astonishing:
For example, it has even seen it suggested that funds specifically raised for the sole purpose of running a referendum campaign but used for other activities such as elections would be seen as being just dandy by "most reasonable people" because it kept Independence at the forefront of Scottish politics (... if only). Deception is only ever acceptable to the self-delusional.
I have always believed the schism within the movement for Scottish independence will not be resolved until the whole truth about these very murky activities and goings-on is in the public domain and that those responsible for any criminality are held to account.