Was this comment for me? Congrats on your grasp of the art of selling etc...but I should point out that I care not if anyone thinks me illiterate or not understanding Sale of goods etc...my intentions towards the invading foreign english hordes are purely homicidal. Hope that clears any misunderstanding up.
1. "But it is a fact that John Swinney repeatedly claimed that the SNP’s finances were sound when we know that this was not the case. He lied."
To inject some rational thought into this financially illiterate hysteria, from a sample SNP accounts:
"INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
...
Conclusions relating to going concern
In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that The Group's use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate."
and specifically:
"Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the Party's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue."
Hence, as independently audited: "the SNP’s finances were sound" or similar, is absolutely correct.
In your unhealthy obsession with Swinney, you are totally conflating THREE separate things:
embezzlement of funds - £400,000 over several years, possible misappropriation of funds - £666,000 from a referendum fundraiser, with the actual ability of the SNP to continue as a "going concern".
The SNP is still going, as a "going concern", so the auditors, Swinney, and even Sturgeon, were totally and justifiably correct when they said the SNP's finances were sound.
And then there is the fact that the party's finances were shortly therafter exposed to be the opposite of 'sound'.
That assertion was proven demonstrably false by the fact that the partys cash flow crisis was so severe that Peter Murrel had to 'lend' around £100k of 'his' money so that the accounts could be written up and submitted and the party rescued from the risk of trading while insolvent.
If that is not more than enough already, there is also the matter of contingent liability.
Even if Nicola Sturgeon had no cause to suspect wrongdoing up until then, when Party Treasurer Douglas Chapman resigned the party rules dictate that she then officially held the role of treasurer until such time as a new party treasurer could be appointed.
What did she do then?
Members deserve to be told the truth.
Nicola Sturgeon was morally and legally responsible.
Did she engage an independent auditor? No. Why not?
Did she make any attempt to evaluate what was the potential contingent liability that she had inherited?
If not this has the outward appearance of dereliction of not performing her required duties and may indeed be presented as a prima facie appearance of negligence.
It certainly looks from the outside looking in like she failed to do all of these things that any responsible person in her position of trust was obligated to at least consider to do.
Will we get answers to these entirely obvious questions?
She is not FM any more, nor SNP leader, and plays no part in Independence.
"That assertion was proven demonstrably false by the fact that the partys cash flow crisis was so severe that Peter Murrel had to 'lend' around £100k of 'his' money so that the accounts could be written up and submitted and the party rescued from the risk of trading while insolvent."
OH FFS go and read the accounts the dates are all there.
The ASSERTION is of what can be read in the accounts.
go and read them.
If you understood them you would not be ignorantly saying these things.
The accounts were submitted in arrears.
The state of the finances was so bad that if that cash injection had not been recorded (whether it even happened as stated is highly questionable) then the accounts would show a substantial minus number.
This is all very suspicious activity.
This would also have been a red flag.
But you should know all this. You are supposed to run a business and thus ought to have an idea how accounting works.
Would you please stop being so bloody tiresome and go and do your own reading and thinking.
The facts that are public are known facts. Go and know them!
Sheesh. enough already.
I can only assume that you must have been not reading the long string of investigative work from Stuart Campbell.
There must be quite a lot for you to catch up on. I expect you can find a detailed explanation of the point that you don't want to investigate for yourself if you look there.
I seem to recall Colin Beattie being returned to the job he'd just been voted out of with some haste. It is likely that Sturgeon could claim that she wasn't treasurer pro tem long enough to do any of the things you refer to. The question then becomes one of why Beattie didn't do these things, given the circumstances in which his short-lived predecessor resigned.
I well remember his 'explanation' for the invisibility of the ring-fenced funds being that they were "woven through" the accounts. I have never had it explained to me how a relatively huge sum of money can be woven through the accounts in such a way as to make it disappear altogether. It sounds like something money launderers might be interested in.
Even that act of re appointing the person who oversaw accounts that it has been drawn to your attention may be suspect is in itself is a massive red flag.
If there had been a conspiracy, this would be the cover up.
No responsible CEO or CFO would ever do this.
Once concerns have been raised you have to be seen to act with probity.
I don't suppose people were queuing up to apply for the treasurer's job. Which bids us wonder why Beattie was prepared to return to that position. I am reluctant to speculate.
I found that text word for word in The Green Party (England & Wales) Reports and Financial Statements for year ended 31 December 2024. Either that's where you got it, or it's just some boilerplate that gets dropped into such documents as a matter of habit.
Again, you try to make out that Douglas Chapman and the three finance and audit committee members resigned for no reason at all. Those of us less mindlessly devoted to the SNP than you accept their own account of why they resigned and what ensued. Basically, they resigned because they could not access the information needed to testify as to the financial soundness of the party.
Whether the party was a going concern or not is not the issue. The issue is that we had four people whose job it was to ensure financial probity saying that they could not attest to the soundness of the party's finances because they were denied access to the information they would need in order to do so.
In such circumstances, the default assumption in any organisation where sanity prevails is that the party's finances are not sound. They cannot be assumed to be sound until and unless the treasurer and the finance and audit committee state that they are sound.
That was not the default assumption made by Sturgeon and Swinney. Their default assumption, much like your own, was that the party treasurer and the finance and audit committee were just being silly.
It was no part of Sturgeon's responsibility to declare the party's finances sound. Nor was it any part of Swinney's job to do so. Nonetheless, you take their word over the word of the party treasurer and four members of the finance and audit committee for no more reason than that they are who they are.
On what grounds did Sturgeon and Swinney base their assertion that the party's finances were sound? Had they been permitted access to information that was denied to the four people who resigned as a consequence? Did they undertake a rigorous examination of the financial records? If so, why did they not discover discrepancies such as those highlighted by Stu Campbell?
How could they attest to the soundness of the party's finances when neither the party treasurer nor the finance and audit committee could do so?
These are the kind of questions not asked by party loyalists. The kind of questions they don't want asked by anyone.
"Again, you try to make out that Douglas Chapman and the three finance and audit committee members resigned for no reason at all."
I said no such thing. Not only that I totally agree with them resigning. You are a victim of your furtive and nasty imagination. The rest of your "reply" is your usual demented invention where you see everybody as "cult SNP loyalist".
It would be helpful if you would have stated which year and which accountants that the extract was from and you must surely see that the use of the word 'Auditors' is directly and deliberately misleading.
Auditing function was not done because that is an extra expense that has to be authorised.
Full auditing was resisted when it should have been demanded and resourced.
It is the legal responsibility of directors/trustees to facilitate and oversee these vital functions.
This was not done.
You must well know that for an accountant to certify that a business is a going concern is a separate thing and entirely unrelated to whether there has been criminality, or whether or not they have been defrauded.
I cannot see why you would bring it up.
What you could have brought up is a fact that is far more telling.
The long standing Accountants were compelled to write to the SNP and tell them that they could no longer continue to certify the accounts.
This was a MASSIVE red flag because it happened at the point where the law was tightened up and the accountants would be liable for certifying that all invoicing was being done transparently and correctly.
They refused to take on that liablity because they had concerns that correct accountability was not in place and/or was/could be being circumvented.
They were vindicated by subsequent events.
Peter Murrell was 'cooking the books'.
This is all part of the long history of lack of oversight and multiple and repeated failures to 'do the right thing'.
It is all so effing tedious that people who should know better are misrepresenting what are very clear historical facts.
"It would be helpful if you would have stated which year and which accountants that the extract was from and you must surely see that the use of the word 'Auditors' is directly and deliberately misleading."
I found it on the electoral commission website, with judicious use of keywords. Clue: it occurs more than once.
If you were really interested in reality, you could do the same. I wonder why you don't?
Leaving aside that I have read all of the available published original material, and it looks like you have not, which may not be relevant, I was not the one making your post.
I don't particularly want to argue with you.
If you care to look again my posts mainly concern the facts and the participants, not you.
Feel free to comment upon any of the opinions (or facts if you don't like them either)
The SNP were the victims of a crime so must be punished. Never mind the damage it does to indy support, the main thing is people get to populate the moral high ground. If necessary (and it is) assert the victims must have been aware of the crime being perpetrated against them all along and deliberately turned a blind eye to it. This would make them as guilty as the criminal so the more you assert this "lie", the better the damage you do. Sprinkle your diatribe with a few more negative subjective opinions to enhance the black picture you wish to place in the minds of the Scottish electorate and voila! .... independence is all but won .... apparently.
What a load of pish! You are conflating two separate things – the crime committed by Peter Murrell and the atrocious ineptitude of the SNP leadership which allowed the crime to go undetected for so long. That ineptitude extends also to the matter of the 'ring-fenced' funds. It was the same attitude that allowed Murrell to continue and allowed the ring-fenced funds to be misspent. The attitude that problems couldn't be acknowledged because it would harm the careers of the people at the top. Refusing to admit there were issues meant the issues couldn't be addressed. People with this attitude kill organisations and campaigns. Evidently, you don't care.
There is no question of punishing the SNP for Murrell's crimes. That is one of the more ridiculous straw men deployed by those who want to shield the party leadership from the kind of scrutiny that should be standard practice. The SNP leadership, and more specifically Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, lied about the state of the party's finances and obstructed all efforts to address the problems.
You'd think SNP members would be eager to make these people answer for the damage they did or facilitated. But no! Evidently, they would rather the party rot from the head than admit there is a problem.
As to the matter of independence, the party faithful and much of the electorate have been conned yet again by the Sturgeonite clique running the SNP. Swinney lied to all of us. Not all of us were stupid enough to fall for the lies again. Swinney never had a plan for restoring independence. He never had any intention of pursuing the matter beyond a feeble and traitorous plea for a Section 30 order. The largest part of the independence movement ignored all warnings and voted for another five wasted years.
"The SNP leadership, and more specifically Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, lied about the state of the party's finances ...."
That can only be the case if they knew about Murrell's crimes and intentionally hid them from the party and, crucially, the authorities. If you have evidence of this, you should really hand it over to the police. If you don't, then you are as complicit in the crimes as you say Swinney and Sturgeon are.
What you claim would only be true if Murrell's crimes were the only thing wrong with the SNP's finances. Here in the real world so seldom visited by party loyalists, there were concerns raised about the finances that did not relate to Murrell's crimes. The concerns raised by the party treasurer and three members of the finance and audit committee. Concerns which ultimately led to all four resigning their positions. Concerns that the party leadership tried to conceal. Concerns that the party leadership dismissed as groundless not because they had been investigated and found to be groundless but to forestall any investigation.
You seem to want us to forget about this aspect of the affair. You appear to want us to think Murrell was the only fly in the ointment when we know it was more a case of a bit of ointment amongst all the flies.
What form do you think such evidence you ask Peter to produce could take - a signed confession by both of them or maybe a secretly filmed video of them say ing " wonder if Pete could spare us a few quid from aw that moolah he's robbed? probably not, tight c*** that he is ".
It's the nature of clandestine illegal/ legal-but-immoral behaviour that it remain as undetectable as possible. As Peter says, it's this kind of attempt to defend the indefensible that allowed Murrell's robbery to continue for so long. As Peter is also saying......no-one is accusing either Sturgeon or Swinney of DIRECT complicity in crimes - though this is what Sturgeon in particular is trying to say is happening, simply to deflect from the real accusation, ie that such was the * culture * of intimidating deference surround her, cultivated by her and her acolytes, that even those appointed to look into the party's finances were refused, repelled and ultimately bullied into resigning from their positions. That you still seek to use a type of sleight-of-hand sophistry to mitigate the truly disgraceful state the Sturgeon & Murrell Regime brought the SNP too is symptomatic of the malaise and an indication that no remedy will be forthcoming any time soon. So, in all likelihood, the SNP will continue to degenerate and almost certainly be out of power, I believe sooner than later.
So you admit there is no evidence what-so-ever that anyone in the SNP hierarchy knew what Murrell was up to. Though you still carry on with the victim blaming. You do you I suppose. As to "sophistry", lol. I remain in the world of proven facts. It is you that is utilising "the clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people" (Cambridge English Dictionary). Victim blaming is, ultimately, sophistry. You might as well argue the victims of burglary are as guilty as the burglar as their security measures were clearly inadequate. They obviously weren't to blame for the criminal's actions but, hey, "sophistry".
Can you show me where I said the SNP leadership knew about Murrell's crimes? If you try and fail, will you then desist from dishonestly implying that this is what I'm saying?
This is the modus operandi of the SNP loyalists. They pretend it is all about Murrell and nothing else because now that he has admitted his crimes and been sentenced, they can insist a line must be drawn. When anyone refers to other aspects of the mishandling of party funds, they pretend that this can only be referring to Murrell when it isn't referring to Murrell at all but to other aspects of the affair, such as those revealed by the testimonies of Allison Graham and Cynthia Guthrie. Let me remind you again that this testimony does not relate to Murrell's crimes or does so only tangentially.
When the statement was read at the NEC meeting, there was no mention of Peter Murrell's crimes. Those crimes were yet to be uncovered. What party loyalists are frantically trying to steer us away from is the behaviour of Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney and possibly others during the period that Allison Graham and Cynthia Guthrie are talking about.
There is ample evidence that Sturgeon and Swinney tried to prevent any investigation which we now know – although we didn't at the time – could have uncovered Murrell's thieving earlier.
I'm not convinced party loyalists are even capable of comprehending that there are 'issues' around the SNP's finances other than the embezzlement of funds by Murrell. Douglas Chapman was the party treasurer, and he resigned because of issues which had nothing to do with Murrell's crimes. Likewise, the three members of the finance and audit committee. They too resigned because of concerns that had nothing to do with Murrell's crimes.
It is a fact that those concerns were not addressed by the party leadership. It is a fact that, on the contrary, the party leadership – specifically, Sturgeon and Swinney – sought to prevent the concerns being addressed. They sought to conceal the fact that concerns had been raised. In any other organisation, heads would roll as a consequence of what we know Sturgeon and Swinney did and did not do at the time.
The fact that party loyalists want to airbrush from history everything about this affair pertaining to Sturgeon and Swinney is one of the reasons they are accused of behaving like members of a cult. It is not a good look.
See that thing that just flew over your head? that was what's called The Point. What Peter, myself and others are criticizing is THE CULTURE created by and for Sturgeon. A culture that not only allowed criminality to continue for so long, but created the perfect conditions for it to occur in the first place. But you just " keep doing you " and hastening the collapse of the SNP into complete irrelevance and electoral annihilation
Sophistry, sophistry, all is sophistry. 20-20 hindsight and all that. It still amounts to victim blaming in order to hasten "the collapse of the SNP into complete irrelevance and electoral annihilation" which is the main "point" of all this moral outrage.
How's this piece of illogical and unfounded nonsense of yours going?
"It's the nature of clandestine illegal/ legal-but-immoral behaviour that it remain as undetectable as possible. As Peter says, it's this kind of attempt to defend the indefensible that allowed Murrell's robbery to continue for so long."
You DO realise that your first sentence contradicts the second?
The SNP members were victims of the embezzlement crime committed by its former Chief Executive Officer whereby the latter looted the bank account of the party.
The SNP member and non-member donators to the referendum campaign ring-fenced funds were the victims of the fraudulent crime of raising money for a single identifiable purpose but used, as admitted to by the current party leader and First Minister of Scotland, for other general party activities.
".... the fraudulent crime of raising money for a single identifiable purpose but used, as admitted to by the current party leader and First Minister of Scotland, for other general party activities".
That is a "lie". By Mr Bell's standards at any rate. The authorites have not deemed it a crime. Perhaps you're more qualified than them. The money was raised in good faith. The bin fire that was Westminster politics in the post Brexit years meant multiple ubscheduled elections had to be fought that required money in order to keep independence at the centre of Scottish politics. So they had to "legally" use money donated to the party to finance the campaigns. Most reasonable people would understand that .... but here we are.
"The bin fire that was Westminster politics in the post Brexit years meant multiple ubscheduled elections had to be fought that required money in order to keep independence at the centre of Scottish politics."
That's a total irrelevance.
"So they had to "legally" use money donated to the party to finance the campaigns."
Your comment merely underscores that monies that were donated specifically for REFERENDUM campaigns were used for a purpose other than that, namely "unscheduled elections".
Funds raised for a single specific purpose and then used for another is not money "raised in good faith." It is the opposite of that.
That is a either an intentional deceit in the first place (fraud) or monies were looted from the supposedly ring-fenced funds (embezzlement).
Most "reasonable people" do not think that deception or theft is 'understandable'.
I feel it is appropriate to point out that as well as the 2 possibilities of fraud or embezzlement that some people might argue that there is a third possibility: Incompetence.
It would take lawyers and an inquiry, probably a trial to reach a verdict on that question, which is not looking like there is any interest to pursue.
What I can say with some degree of certainty is this:
In Fraud and embezzlement cases the prosecutor needs to feel that they have some likelyhood of proving intent.
It would be difficult to prove intent in a historical case where those involved have been in full control of the paper trail.
On the other hand company and accounting law is a different thing entirely.
The penalties facing those in these positions of responsibility who demonstrably fail to carry out their duties and obligations can be very harsh indeed.
Ignorance and or Incompetence are no shield whatsoever from Heavy fines, Prison sentences and lengthy periods of disbarment from any further positions of responsiblity as a person unfit to hold office.
"Ignorance and or Incompetence are no shield whatsoever from Heavy fines, Prison sentences and lengthy periods of disbarment from any further positions of responsiblity as a person unfit to hold office."
This behaviour could perhaps more accurately be described as criminal negligence.
Would it make any difference to your seemingly unshakeable faith that the SNP have done no wrong if you knew that one of our well respected public intellectuals warned them in advance, BEFORE all of this then unfolded that they were creating an impossible situation for themselves and ought to change course before the progress of events uncovered that their decision to call it a ringfenced fund would make it a major problem for them when they would need to spend the money on upcoming election expenses?
"Faith/belief" has nothing to do with it. Who ever it is you are talking about had an opinion that circumstances saw come to pass. Good for them. It doesn't change the fact the SNP accepted the money in good faith but real world issues took a hand and forced a "poor" party to use whatever funds were available to them to keep independence at the centre of Scottish politics. I'm sorry you find that unacceptable. The fact that hardly anyone asked for their money back after the SNP offered to reimburse them would tend to argue the vast majority of contributers did find it acceptable.
But what do you do with a party supposedly leading our quest for independence led by a quisling and a squad of the living dead?.....while Scots desperate for a solution ..freedom.....believe them...and hopefully leave the battle to the 'professionals' .....the gatekeepers who protect us and see that Scotland prospers.
Scots scrabble to survive ..pay mortgages ..feed their weans ...pay the bills that are higher than our parasitic foreign english neighbours ..STILL helping themselves to our resources . While the excrement that sit around the undead in Holyrood aspire to selling our country off to the neighbouring hostile foreign english and maybe get a gong or fur lined cloak in the future.
We don't seem to have a legal way of getting rid of a government that is either incompetent or corrupt....that only leaves another way...
I watch the Tartan Army..it's like watching infants that have escaped from the nursery. ..Skipping and dancing in their tartan skirts...drinking themselves legless..putting cones on the statues or memorials of other countries.( which they shouldn't)..singing about freedom ( As if they know what that is) and so happy cos everybody loves them...(except the foreign english fans cursing and swearing about the Scots..racist? not a peep from swiney)....
Wipe those dumb expressions of your faces folks...you are coming back to a country still a prisoner ..full of foreign english invaders ... still robbing you blind after 300 years and who think of you as pathetic jocks....
But there is a silent hard working underbelly in Scotland who know exactly what is going on and it's time they spoke out....and not necessarily with words.
My solution would be to take the future of Scotland into our own hands..other nations do it...
dissolve that bloody tartan army and create a new one that fights for our freedom...sober mean and resolute in ridding our country of ANYONE who stands in our way.
I just read Stu Campbell's piece on Wings Over Scotland. It is a brilliant bit of forensic journalism. If articles such as his and mine help provoke some kind of internal revolt within the SNP, I'll be well pleased.
2. "It is a brilliant bit of forensic journalism."
No, no it isn't. The basis of the article is some emails sent AFTER the donation was made. These were not the inducement to donate, and whatever the email says, it is not the slightest proof in itself that the donor was induced to donate to a ringfenced fund.
If for instance I offer on a website a gismo for £1,000 (cheap at half the price), and you buy the gismo for £1,000 - and I send you the gismo with the receipt saying:
"Dear Peter,
Thank you for your donation to the yesindyref2 slush fund, which I will ringfence for as much slush as my little heart desires. Please accept the gismo as a gift to show my heartfelt gratitude.
Yours
yesindyref2"
that does not exempt me from the Sale of Goods Act, nor indeed, Distance Selling Regulations. And if the gismo proves to be faultily manufactured you will be entitled to a refund long after any warranty has expired. It was a sale, not a gift.
You however, will not understand this, as you are legally and financially illiterate.
Have you seen the video where the person who is legaly responsible for ensuring that the party treasurer has fulfilled his duty to ensure that ringfenced funds are handled appropriately appeals to the public to give money for that "ringfenced" fund that she launched for a specific purpose?
I fail to see how you can imaging that she is not responsible.
Which attempt at deflection has absolutely nothing to do with my posting, and you're also making things up as you go along. Same as your "genial" host.
Sometimes I think that you have answered in haste without understanding what was written.
This is one of those times.
The post is entirely related to your point about "inducement to donate".
Obviously you can't have understood that or you would not have replied as you did.
We can all get it wrong.
Next time you find yourself thinking that one of my posts is in no way related to what you wrote, you should probably stop typing and think a bit harder. ;-)
You said: "I fail to see how you can imaging that she is not responsible."
I have never said anything about that either wa.y, it's you talk about "he" (presumably Sturgeon), so your non sequitur reply was indeed unrelated deflection.
Off to read it. Glad there are Scots whose brains are still functioning...and hopefully in a terrifying way to those who take us for mugs.Thank you for info re article...and yes your articles will add to the terror that those slumbering Scots are beginning to waken up....
I think Peter has at last realised that his obsessive articles about Swinney are becoming, indeed:
"Demented drivel."
and contribute absolutely nothing to the cause of Independence.
Was this comment for me? Congrats on your grasp of the art of selling etc...but I should point out that I care not if anyone thinks me illiterate or not understanding Sale of goods etc...my intentions towards the invading foreign english hordes are purely homicidal. Hope that clears any misunderstanding up.
For OUR Scotland and her weans
1. "But it is a fact that John Swinney repeatedly claimed that the SNP’s finances were sound when we know that this was not the case. He lied."
To inject some rational thought into this financially illiterate hysteria, from a sample SNP accounts:
"INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
...
Conclusions relating to going concern
In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that The Group's use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate."
and specifically:
"Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the Party's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue."
Hence, as independently audited: "the SNP’s finances were sound" or similar, is absolutely correct.
In your unhealthy obsession with Swinney, you are totally conflating THREE separate things:
embezzlement of funds - £400,000 over several years, possible misappropriation of funds - £666,000 from a referendum fundraiser, with the actual ability of the SNP to continue as a "going concern".
The SNP is still going, as a "going concern", so the auditors, Swinney, and even Sturgeon, were totally and justifiably correct when they said the SNP's finances were sound.
And then there is the fact that the party's finances were shortly therafter exposed to be the opposite of 'sound'.
That assertion was proven demonstrably false by the fact that the partys cash flow crisis was so severe that Peter Murrel had to 'lend' around £100k of 'his' money so that the accounts could be written up and submitted and the party rescued from the risk of trading while insolvent.
If that is not more than enough already, there is also the matter of contingent liability.
Even if Nicola Sturgeon had no cause to suspect wrongdoing up until then, when Party Treasurer Douglas Chapman resigned the party rules dictate that she then officially held the role of treasurer until such time as a new party treasurer could be appointed.
What did she do then?
Members deserve to be told the truth.
Nicola Sturgeon was morally and legally responsible.
Did she engage an independent auditor? No. Why not?
Did she make any attempt to evaluate what was the potential contingent liability that she had inherited?
If not this has the outward appearance of dereliction of not performing her required duties and may indeed be presented as a prima facie appearance of negligence.
It certainly looks from the outside looking in like she failed to do all of these things that any responsible person in her position of trust was obligated to at least consider to do.
Will we get answers to these entirely obvious questions?
I doubt it.
You seem to be obsessed by Sturgeon.
She is not FM any more, nor SNP leader, and plays no part in Independence.
"That assertion was proven demonstrably false by the fact that the partys cash flow crisis was so severe that Peter Murrel had to 'lend' around £100k of 'his' money so that the accounts could be written up and submitted and the party rescued from the risk of trading while insolvent."
Prove it.
You have read the published accounts, right?
[edit:] Given that you seem to have missed this significant part of the story here is the Nationals reporting.
"SNP respond to accusations of 'murky' £100k loan from Peter Murrell"
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23191346.snp-respond-accusations-murky-100k-loan-peter-murrell/
That's no proof of your assertion:
"so that the accounts could be written up and submitted and the party rescued from the risk of trading while insolvent."
It's a general question to me, and a newspaper article of all things!
So, no proof then, just an unsupported assertion.
OH FFS go and read the accounts the dates are all there.
The ASSERTION is of what can be read in the accounts.
go and read them.
If you understood them you would not be ignorantly saying these things.
The accounts were submitted in arrears.
The state of the finances was so bad that if that cash injection had not been recorded (whether it even happened as stated is highly questionable) then the accounts would show a substantial minus number.
This is all very suspicious activity.
This would also have been a red flag.
But you should know all this. You are supposed to run a business and thus ought to have an idea how accounting works.
Would you please stop being so bloody tiresome and go and do your own reading and thinking.
The facts that are public are known facts. Go and know them!
Sheesh. enough already.
I can only assume that you must have been not reading the long string of investigative work from Stuart Campbell.
There must be quite a lot for you to catch up on. I expect you can find a detailed explanation of the point that you don't want to investigate for yourself if you look there.
I seem to recall Colin Beattie being returned to the job he'd just been voted out of with some haste. It is likely that Sturgeon could claim that she wasn't treasurer pro tem long enough to do any of the things you refer to. The question then becomes one of why Beattie didn't do these things, given the circumstances in which his short-lived predecessor resigned.
I well remember his 'explanation' for the invisibility of the ring-fenced funds being that they were "woven through" the accounts. I have never had it explained to me how a relatively huge sum of money can be woven through the accounts in such a way as to make it disappear altogether. It sounds like something money launderers might be interested in.
Even that act of re appointing the person who oversaw accounts that it has been drawn to your attention may be suspect is in itself is a massive red flag.
If there had been a conspiracy, this would be the cover up.
No responsible CEO or CFO would ever do this.
Once concerns have been raised you have to be seen to act with probity.
I don't suppose people were queuing up to apply for the treasurer's job. Which bids us wonder why Beattie was prepared to return to that position. I am reluctant to speculate.
I found that text word for word in The Green Party (England & Wales) Reports and Financial Statements for year ended 31 December 2024. Either that's where you got it, or it's just some boilerplate that gets dropped into such documents as a matter of habit.
Again, you try to make out that Douglas Chapman and the three finance and audit committee members resigned for no reason at all. Those of us less mindlessly devoted to the SNP than you accept their own account of why they resigned and what ensued. Basically, they resigned because they could not access the information needed to testify as to the financial soundness of the party.
Whether the party was a going concern or not is not the issue. The issue is that we had four people whose job it was to ensure financial probity saying that they could not attest to the soundness of the party's finances because they were denied access to the information they would need in order to do so.
In such circumstances, the default assumption in any organisation where sanity prevails is that the party's finances are not sound. They cannot be assumed to be sound until and unless the treasurer and the finance and audit committee state that they are sound.
That was not the default assumption made by Sturgeon and Swinney. Their default assumption, much like your own, was that the party treasurer and the finance and audit committee were just being silly.
It was no part of Sturgeon's responsibility to declare the party's finances sound. Nor was it any part of Swinney's job to do so. Nonetheless, you take their word over the word of the party treasurer and four members of the finance and audit committee for no more reason than that they are who they are.
On what grounds did Sturgeon and Swinney base their assertion that the party's finances were sound? Had they been permitted access to information that was denied to the four people who resigned as a consequence? Did they undertake a rigorous examination of the financial records? If so, why did they not discover discrepancies such as those highlighted by Stu Campbell?
How could they attest to the soundness of the party's finances when neither the party treasurer nor the finance and audit committee could do so?
These are the kind of questions not asked by party loyalists. The kind of questions they don't want asked by anyone.
"Again, you try to make out that Douglas Chapman and the three finance and audit committee members resigned for no reason at all."
I said no such thing. Not only that I totally agree with them resigning. You are a victim of your furtive and nasty imagination. The rest of your "reply" is your usual demented invention where you see everybody as "cult SNP loyalist".
Even Tories.
It would be helpful if you would have stated which year and which accountants that the extract was from and you must surely see that the use of the word 'Auditors' is directly and deliberately misleading.
Auditing function was not done because that is an extra expense that has to be authorised.
Full auditing was resisted when it should have been demanded and resourced.
It is the legal responsibility of directors/trustees to facilitate and oversee these vital functions.
This was not done.
You must well know that for an accountant to certify that a business is a going concern is a separate thing and entirely unrelated to whether there has been criminality, or whether or not they have been defrauded.
I cannot see why you would bring it up.
What you could have brought up is a fact that is far more telling.
The long standing Accountants were compelled to write to the SNP and tell them that they could no longer continue to certify the accounts.
This was a MASSIVE red flag because it happened at the point where the law was tightened up and the accountants would be liable for certifying that all invoicing was being done transparently and correctly.
They refused to take on that liablity because they had concerns that correct accountability was not in place and/or was/could be being circumvented.
They were vindicated by subsequent events.
Peter Murrell was 'cooking the books'.
This is all part of the long history of lack of oversight and multiple and repeated failures to 'do the right thing'.
It is all so effing tedious that people who should know better are misrepresenting what are very clear historical facts.
"It would be helpful if you would have stated which year and which accountants that the extract was from and you must surely see that the use of the word 'Auditors' is directly and deliberately misleading."
I found it on the electoral commission website, with judicious use of keywords. Clue: it occurs more than once.
If you were really interested in reality, you could do the same. I wonder why you don't?
Leaving aside that I have read all of the available published original material, and it looks like you have not, which may not be relevant, I was not the one making your post.
I don't particularly want to argue with you.
If you care to look again my posts mainly concern the facts and the participants, not you.
Feel free to comment upon any of the opinions (or facts if you don't like them either)
GIGO
The SNP were the victims of a crime so must be punished. Never mind the damage it does to indy support, the main thing is people get to populate the moral high ground. If necessary (and it is) assert the victims must have been aware of the crime being perpetrated against them all along and deliberately turned a blind eye to it. This would make them as guilty as the criminal so the more you assert this "lie", the better the damage you do. Sprinkle your diatribe with a few more negative subjective opinions to enhance the black picture you wish to place in the minds of the Scottish electorate and voila! .... independence is all but won .... apparently.
What a load of pish! You are conflating two separate things – the crime committed by Peter Murrell and the atrocious ineptitude of the SNP leadership which allowed the crime to go undetected for so long. That ineptitude extends also to the matter of the 'ring-fenced' funds. It was the same attitude that allowed Murrell to continue and allowed the ring-fenced funds to be misspent. The attitude that problems couldn't be acknowledged because it would harm the careers of the people at the top. Refusing to admit there were issues meant the issues couldn't be addressed. People with this attitude kill organisations and campaigns. Evidently, you don't care.
There is no question of punishing the SNP for Murrell's crimes. That is one of the more ridiculous straw men deployed by those who want to shield the party leadership from the kind of scrutiny that should be standard practice. The SNP leadership, and more specifically Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, lied about the state of the party's finances and obstructed all efforts to address the problems.
You'd think SNP members would be eager to make these people answer for the damage they did or facilitated. But no! Evidently, they would rather the party rot from the head than admit there is a problem.
As to the matter of independence, the party faithful and much of the electorate have been conned yet again by the Sturgeonite clique running the SNP. Swinney lied to all of us. Not all of us were stupid enough to fall for the lies again. Swinney never had a plan for restoring independence. He never had any intention of pursuing the matter beyond a feeble and traitorous plea for a Section 30 order. The largest part of the independence movement ignored all warnings and voted for another five wasted years.
"The SNP leadership, and more specifically Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, lied about the state of the party's finances ...."
That can only be the case if they knew about Murrell's crimes and intentionally hid them from the party and, crucially, the authorities. If you have evidence of this, you should really hand it over to the police. If you don't, then you are as complicit in the crimes as you say Swinney and Sturgeon are.
What you claim would only be true if Murrell's crimes were the only thing wrong with the SNP's finances. Here in the real world so seldom visited by party loyalists, there were concerns raised about the finances that did not relate to Murrell's crimes. The concerns raised by the party treasurer and three members of the finance and audit committee. Concerns which ultimately led to all four resigning their positions. Concerns that the party leadership tried to conceal. Concerns that the party leadership dismissed as groundless not because they had been investigated and found to be groundless but to forestall any investigation.
You seem to want us to forget about this aspect of the affair. You appear to want us to think Murrell was the only fly in the ointment when we know it was more a case of a bit of ointment amongst all the flies.
What form do you think such evidence you ask Peter to produce could take - a signed confession by both of them or maybe a secretly filmed video of them say ing " wonder if Pete could spare us a few quid from aw that moolah he's robbed? probably not, tight c*** that he is ".
It's the nature of clandestine illegal/ legal-but-immoral behaviour that it remain as undetectable as possible. As Peter says, it's this kind of attempt to defend the indefensible that allowed Murrell's robbery to continue for so long. As Peter is also saying......no-one is accusing either Sturgeon or Swinney of DIRECT complicity in crimes - though this is what Sturgeon in particular is trying to say is happening, simply to deflect from the real accusation, ie that such was the * culture * of intimidating deference surround her, cultivated by her and her acolytes, that even those appointed to look into the party's finances were refused, repelled and ultimately bullied into resigning from their positions. That you still seek to use a type of sleight-of-hand sophistry to mitigate the truly disgraceful state the Sturgeon & Murrell Regime brought the SNP too is symptomatic of the malaise and an indication that no remedy will be forthcoming any time soon. So, in all likelihood, the SNP will continue to degenerate and almost certainly be out of power, I believe sooner than later.
So you admit there is no evidence what-so-ever that anyone in the SNP hierarchy knew what Murrell was up to. Though you still carry on with the victim blaming. You do you I suppose. As to "sophistry", lol. I remain in the world of proven facts. It is you that is utilising "the clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people" (Cambridge English Dictionary). Victim blaming is, ultimately, sophistry. You might as well argue the victims of burglary are as guilty as the burglar as their security measures were clearly inadequate. They obviously weren't to blame for the criminal's actions but, hey, "sophistry".
Can you show me where I said the SNP leadership knew about Murrell's crimes? If you try and fail, will you then desist from dishonestly implying that this is what I'm saying?
This is the modus operandi of the SNP loyalists. They pretend it is all about Murrell and nothing else because now that he has admitted his crimes and been sentenced, they can insist a line must be drawn. When anyone refers to other aspects of the mishandling of party funds, they pretend that this can only be referring to Murrell when it isn't referring to Murrell at all but to other aspects of the affair, such as those revealed by the testimonies of Allison Graham and Cynthia Guthrie. Let me remind you again that this testimony does not relate to Murrell's crimes or does so only tangentially.
When the statement was read at the NEC meeting, there was no mention of Peter Murrell's crimes. Those crimes were yet to be uncovered. What party loyalists are frantically trying to steer us away from is the behaviour of Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney and possibly others during the period that Allison Graham and Cynthia Guthrie are talking about.
There is ample evidence that Sturgeon and Swinney tried to prevent any investigation which we now know – although we didn't at the time – could have uncovered Murrell's thieving earlier.
I'm not convinced party loyalists are even capable of comprehending that there are 'issues' around the SNP's finances other than the embezzlement of funds by Murrell. Douglas Chapman was the party treasurer, and he resigned because of issues which had nothing to do with Murrell's crimes. Likewise, the three members of the finance and audit committee. They too resigned because of concerns that had nothing to do with Murrell's crimes.
It is a fact that those concerns were not addressed by the party leadership. It is a fact that, on the contrary, the party leadership – specifically, Sturgeon and Swinney – sought to prevent the concerns being addressed. They sought to conceal the fact that concerns had been raised. In any other organisation, heads would roll as a consequence of what we know Sturgeon and Swinney did and did not do at the time.
The fact that party loyalists want to airbrush from history everything about this affair pertaining to Sturgeon and Swinney is one of the reasons they are accused of behaving like members of a cult. It is not a good look.
"Can you show me where I said the SNP leadership knew about Murrell's crimes?"
Read your own article, and try to understand it.
"This is the modus operandi of the SNP loyalists."
Dear God, does this make sense in context, even to you? It's a pathetic non sequitur you use any time you've been called to account.
Kind of like the SNP, frankly.
See that thing that just flew over your head? that was what's called The Point. What Peter, myself and others are criticizing is THE CULTURE created by and for Sturgeon. A culture that not only allowed criminality to continue for so long, but created the perfect conditions for it to occur in the first place. But you just " keep doing you " and hastening the collapse of the SNP into complete irrelevance and electoral annihilation
Sophistry, sophistry, all is sophistry. 20-20 hindsight and all that. It still amounts to victim blaming in order to hasten "the collapse of the SNP into complete irrelevance and electoral annihilation" which is the main "point" of all this moral outrage.
Hang 'em, eh? Jist hang 'em. Never mind the trial, evidence, defence, jury or judge, you and Peter just say "Hang 'em, we say they're guilty".
You'd both be at home in a Lynch Mob.
Demented drivel.
At last you've actually read your own articles. Well done!
How's the pressure-on-Swinney going; any signs of productive response?
How's this piece of illogical and unfounded nonsense of yours going?
"It's the nature of clandestine illegal/ legal-but-immoral behaviour that it remain as undetectable as possible. As Peter says, it's this kind of attempt to defend the indefensible that allowed Murrell's robbery to continue for so long."
You DO realise that your first sentence contradicts the second?
No? Thought not! [1]
[1] as they say
Hold on there:
"That can only be the case if they knew about Murrell's crimes and intentionally hid them from the party and, crucially, the authorities."
That is a logical non sequitor.
Did you mean to type something else that makes logical sense?
Ah! Lose one argument .... pretend it was about something else and hope no one notices. Classic. Well done.
Forget it. You do not seem to be able to understand written english.
I know what a non sequitor is and it does not apply to what I wrote within the context of this discussion.
The SNP members were victims of the embezzlement crime committed by its former Chief Executive Officer whereby the latter looted the bank account of the party.
The SNP member and non-member donators to the referendum campaign ring-fenced funds were the victims of the fraudulent crime of raising money for a single identifiable purpose but used, as admitted to by the current party leader and First Minister of Scotland, for other general party activities.
".... the fraudulent crime of raising money for a single identifiable purpose but used, as admitted to by the current party leader and First Minister of Scotland, for other general party activities".
That is a "lie". By Mr Bell's standards at any rate. The authorites have not deemed it a crime. Perhaps you're more qualified than them. The money was raised in good faith. The bin fire that was Westminster politics in the post Brexit years meant multiple ubscheduled elections had to be fought that required money in order to keep independence at the centre of Scottish politics. So they had to "legally" use money donated to the party to finance the campaigns. Most reasonable people would understand that .... but here we are.
"The bin fire that was Westminster politics in the post Brexit years meant multiple ubscheduled elections had to be fought that required money in order to keep independence at the centre of Scottish politics."
That's a total irrelevance.
"So they had to "legally" use money donated to the party to finance the campaigns."
Your comment merely underscores that monies that were donated specifically for REFERENDUM campaigns were used for a purpose other than that, namely "unscheduled elections".
Funds raised for a single specific purpose and then used for another is not money "raised in good faith." It is the opposite of that.
That is a either an intentional deceit in the first place (fraud) or monies were looted from the supposedly ring-fenced funds (embezzlement).
Most "reasonable people" do not think that deception or theft is 'understandable'.
I feel it is appropriate to point out that as well as the 2 possibilities of fraud or embezzlement that some people might argue that there is a third possibility: Incompetence.
It would take lawyers and an inquiry, probably a trial to reach a verdict on that question, which is not looking like there is any interest to pursue.
What I can say with some degree of certainty is this:
In Fraud and embezzlement cases the prosecutor needs to feel that they have some likelyhood of proving intent.
It would be difficult to prove intent in a historical case where those involved have been in full control of the paper trail.
On the other hand company and accounting law is a different thing entirely.
The penalties facing those in these positions of responsibility who demonstrably fail to carry out their duties and obligations can be very harsh indeed.
Ignorance and or Incompetence are no shield whatsoever from Heavy fines, Prison sentences and lengthy periods of disbarment from any further positions of responsiblity as a person unfit to hold office.
That is the way the process is supposed to work.
I don't expect to see any action.
Agreed, especially this:
"Ignorance and or Incompetence are no shield whatsoever from Heavy fines, Prison sentences and lengthy periods of disbarment from any further positions of responsiblity as a person unfit to hold office."
This behaviour could perhaps more accurately be described as criminal negligence.
Would it make any difference to your seemingly unshakeable faith that the SNP have done no wrong if you knew that one of our well respected public intellectuals warned them in advance, BEFORE all of this then unfolded that they were creating an impossible situation for themselves and ought to change course before the progress of events uncovered that their decision to call it a ringfenced fund would make it a major problem for them when they would need to spend the money on upcoming election expenses?
His prediction of course came to pass.
Does that affect your faith/belief now?
"Faith/belief" has nothing to do with it. Who ever it is you are talking about had an opinion that circumstances saw come to pass. Good for them. It doesn't change the fact the SNP accepted the money in good faith but real world issues took a hand and forced a "poor" party to use whatever funds were available to them to keep independence at the centre of Scottish politics. I'm sorry you find that unacceptable. The fact that hardly anyone asked for their money back after the SNP offered to reimburse them would tend to argue the vast majority of contributers did find it acceptable.
Honest John is no more truthful than Nice Guy Eddie (in Reservoir Dogs) was a decent bloke.
The lies are woven through his utterances.
John Swinney is undoubtedly a liar and a very bad one at that!
But what do you do with a party supposedly leading our quest for independence led by a quisling and a squad of the living dead?.....while Scots desperate for a solution ..freedom.....believe them...and hopefully leave the battle to the 'professionals' .....the gatekeepers who protect us and see that Scotland prospers.
Scots scrabble to survive ..pay mortgages ..feed their weans ...pay the bills that are higher than our parasitic foreign english neighbours ..STILL helping themselves to our resources . While the excrement that sit around the undead in Holyrood aspire to selling our country off to the neighbouring hostile foreign english and maybe get a gong or fur lined cloak in the future.
We don't seem to have a legal way of getting rid of a government that is either incompetent or corrupt....that only leaves another way...
I watch the Tartan Army..it's like watching infants that have escaped from the nursery. ..Skipping and dancing in their tartan skirts...drinking themselves legless..putting cones on the statues or memorials of other countries.( which they shouldn't)..singing about freedom ( As if they know what that is) and so happy cos everybody loves them...(except the foreign english fans cursing and swearing about the Scots..racist? not a peep from swiney)....
Wipe those dumb expressions of your faces folks...you are coming back to a country still a prisoner ..full of foreign english invaders ... still robbing you blind after 300 years and who think of you as pathetic jocks....
But there is a silent hard working underbelly in Scotland who know exactly what is going on and it's time they spoke out....and not necessarily with words.
My solution would be to take the future of Scotland into our own hands..other nations do it...
dissolve that bloody tartan army and create a new one that fights for our freedom...sober mean and resolute in ridding our country of ANYONE who stands in our way.
For OUR Scotland and her silent weans...
I just read Stu Campbell's piece on Wings Over Scotland. It is a brilliant bit of forensic journalism. If articles such as his and mine help provoke some kind of internal revolt within the SNP, I'll be well pleased.
2. "It is a brilliant bit of forensic journalism."
No, no it isn't. The basis of the article is some emails sent AFTER the donation was made. These were not the inducement to donate, and whatever the email says, it is not the slightest proof in itself that the donor was induced to donate to a ringfenced fund.
If for instance I offer on a website a gismo for £1,000 (cheap at half the price), and you buy the gismo for £1,000 - and I send you the gismo with the receipt saying:
"Dear Peter,
Thank you for your donation to the yesindyref2 slush fund, which I will ringfence for as much slush as my little heart desires. Please accept the gismo as a gift to show my heartfelt gratitude.
Yours
yesindyref2"
that does not exempt me from the Sale of Goods Act, nor indeed, Distance Selling Regulations. And if the gismo proves to be faultily manufactured you will be entitled to a refund long after any warranty has expired. It was a sale, not a gift.
You however, will not understand this, as you are legally and financially illiterate.
yesindyref2
Have you seen the video where the person who is legaly responsible for ensuring that the party treasurer has fulfilled his duty to ensure that ringfenced funds are handled appropriately appeals to the public to give money for that "ringfenced" fund that she launched for a specific purpose?
I fail to see how you can imaging that she is not responsible.
Now is your chance to explain if you can.
No more shaggy dog story analogies please.
"she"
Which attempt at deflection has absolutely nothing to do with my posting, and you're also making things up as you go along. Same as your "genial" host.
Nice try, but no banana.
Sometimes I think that you have answered in haste without understanding what was written.
This is one of those times.
The post is entirely related to your point about "inducement to donate".
Obviously you can't have understood that or you would not have replied as you did.
We can all get it wrong.
Next time you find yourself thinking that one of my posts is in no way related to what you wrote, you should probably stop typing and think a bit harder. ;-)
You said: "I fail to see how you can imaging that she is not responsible."
I have never said anything about that either wa.y, it's you talk about "he" (presumably Sturgeon), so your non sequitur reply was indeed unrelated deflection.
next.
Off to read it. Glad there are Scots whose brains are still functioning...and hopefully in a terrifying way to those who take us for mugs.Thank you for info re article...and yes your articles will add to the terror that those slumbering Scots are beginning to waken up....
For OUR Scotland and her time to waken up weans.
Well said