Blue In The Face
Before we start, let’s note that this took 37 days.
As you’re about to read, it says almost nothing other than “Please go away now”.
It takes quite a long time to say it, but nevertheless those four words are pretty much the sum total of the actual content. It does not in any way whatsoever address the contents of our letter of 6 June, of which the below is an extract.
DCC Houston does say one intriguing thing, though.
Now, we can’t be certain of exactly what he means by “the comments made recently”, since he refers to “various individuals”. But the comments OUR letter referred to were those made by the First Minister of Scotland.
So we must reasonably assume that DCC Houston is talking about those. Which means he’s saying Police Scotland already KNEW that the SNP had misappropriated the fundraiser money and spent it on another purpose.
The Dean of the Faculty Of Advocates, one of Scotland’s most distinguished lawyers, and one who’s been employed by the Scottish Government itself, is unequivocally of the professional opinion that that constitutes the crime of embezzlement, as indeed almost any lay observer would be.
37 days of holding our breath later, we’re none the wiser as to why the Deputy Chief Constable of Police Scotland apparently disagrees with both the First Minister and the Dean Of Faculty that donors to the fund were the victims of criminal embezzlement.
We will now consider our next steps, and keep you updated.
Temporary Deputy Chief Constable
-and he’s been temporary since 2024
-and there are at least 3 of them ………
-maybe a whole floor in Tulliallan
I despair, maybe they all advise each other.
That’s the nicest Fuck Off I have ever read.
Don’t!
you are performing a great public service and being a good citizen.
It is a disgrace the way the police have responded.
The Investigation team need to reveal the date that they discovered that the “ring fenced” funds had been spent and why they believe it was not misappropriated, and who told them.
Of course they wont tell us or provide full disclosure in any FOI request, therefore a Judicial Review or Civil Case seems to be the only way the public will learn all the details of the missing money. It’s no wonder the public have lost faith in the Police and Judiciary, everywhere in the U.K. and the political establishment don’t help as they don’t want the truth revealed as it will show their bias, incompetence or corruption.
Please dont be ground down. Theyre counting on it.
Surely the next step has to be a fundraiser for a judicial review.
They are still trying to get the first fundraiser back. Don’t you think asking people for money right now is a tad creepy as hell.
Or is it just me?
I think it very much depends on who is running the fundraiser. If Rev Stu, for this purpose, I’d be happy to join in.
I wouldn’t p*&# on the SNP if it were on fire.
I think Ian means US holding a fundraiser to bring a judicial review, not the SNP doing one.
It just gets worse.
I’d rather think the important words were.
“All of the circimstances were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for advice and guidance.”
It seems that Stuart Houston, in his last paragraph has left it open for someone to ask what advice and guidance was recieved from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Possibly because he was rather dissapointed in what came back. That last paragraph seems on the face of it rather unnecessary.
Is what it is actually saying “You need to ask a different question”?
The tricky bit is of course working out the right question.
I have of course already drafted an FOI to that effect 🙂
It is now looking increasingly obvious that Police Scotland are as corrupt as the SNP. What do they have to hide?
What DCC Houston does say is that the police passed on the findings of their investigation to COPFS for ‘advice and guidance’.
He has not taken the opportunity to clarify that the police investigation found that there was only always one culprit, nor does he say that others in the investigation, who were suspects, were ultimately exonerated.
What he does confirm is, that it was COPFS who made the final decision as to how the police should bring their investigation to a conclusion, and had control over what was eventually passed by Police Scotland to COPFS.
There are so many unsatisfactory ‘loose ends’ and those who hold the answers appear to dwell within our COPFS.
While you’re no further forward, the ball is currently in the COPFS side of the court. Keep after Police Scotland and COPFS, don’t give them peace, let them know that this isn’t going to go away.
Could you let me know please why my comment was deleted.
I haven’t deleted any comments on this thread.
Apologies Stuart,, I was a bit impatient, sorry.
My reading of this is.. we knew this when we did the original investigation, which looked at it, and we referred it to COPFS for advice and guidance.
Stuart you are right there are two new pieces of information. One is Swinney’s statement funds were spent on something else. Two Roddy Dunlop’s legal assessment of the facts.
The question for Police Scotland surely is, in light of the new information, why don’t you immediately revert back to COPFS for revised advice and guidance?
Moreover Police Scotland in the request for more advice and guidance must pointedly ask COPFS, is there enough primary evidence of embezzlement to pursue an investigation.
That would be the smart move for Police Scotland. Bat it straight over to COPFS.
The stronger response from them would be to TELL COPFS they believe the new evidence is enough for them to reopen the investigation and ask COPFS for advice about any thresholds they have to meet to secure an embezzlement conviction.
What a bore…
I wish Alf Baird would post some interesting stuff about colonialism and how none of the corruption we see in the SNP, the Scottish Government, and all of Scotland’s public bodies would be so easy to perpetrate if Scotland were independent and free from colonial rule by Westminster… the ultimate facilitator of Scotland’s corrupt elite.
Why don’t you fuck off somewhere else, ya unionist twat?
Nobody is interested in anything you have to say.
I bet wee McGarry is as sick as a parrot.
She only nicked 25 thousand smackaroonies and got dragged in front of the gavel. It’s an injustice.
A short course on the true meaning of the Declaration of Arbroath should be required of all public servants, whether elected or appointed.
SNP 2025 Accounts now one week overdue
Are they overdue or just not published by the Electoral Commission? In the past they have tried to publish the major party accounts on the same day and, certainly, there is always a delay between submission and publication.
You sure? They’re usually out in August.
It would be worth establishing at what point police became aware the money was spent on general operations, and if this was agreed by the party. Because would that not mean continually asking for further donations while denying it was fraud?
If you thought you were donating to a financially healthy party with a war chest to let loose, it might actually achieve something, rather than just be used to keep the lights on and the payroll going.
It is becoming clearer by the day that Police Scotland and/or the COPFS have been told this far, (Murrell trial/conviction), and no further, with regard to the SNP’s financial misdoings, no doubt on the grounds of National Security of the UK type.
Westminster’s grubby paws are all over this and both they and the Security and Intelligence Service obviously want it buried at any cost in order to protect their people in the SNP who have obviously been promised immunity – immunity which would be put at risk if this ever gets to court.
Rev…if your Civil Case should ever get to court, (Not likely now that the SNP have publicly stated they’ll refund those who wish it), be prepared for all sorts of dirty tricks to be used.
Bastards, the lot of ’em.
Aye Robert, for a people who are out of the game, “all roads lead to Rome”.
The native seldom looks for justice in the colon**l framework.
Those Bloody English!
Light bulb moment, Inglis?
I agree, Houston leaves us hanging by ending the story with report to COPFS. One could conclude he is saying “Yes Stuart, we already knew the SNP had spent the money, Swinney admitting it tells us nothing new, and it wasn’t us who stopped prosecution, it was COPFS.
Good luck with FOI. Can’t imagine they will give out details of their report to COPFS however.
Best bet is still the class action suit, but even there you need to find a way to have the judge require the SNP to turn over all donor records so that 3rd party can try to contact every single one to offer refund, without requiring donor to show proof of donation. And for SNP to pay all management costs for the settlement. It needs to use up every penny of the money they stole. There will also be deceased donors, adding to costs (to SNP) to deal with fairly.
There seems to be more buck passing here. It states these “matters were … reported to the COPFS for guidance”. It says nothing about what the report recommended (if indeed it recommended anything) nor on the advice and guidance received. They are going to continue passing the buck between them and COPFS until somehow a definitive party for a definitive response can be found. What a wretchedly sad state of affairs that our once much admired legal system has been reduced to this. Please keep going for all our sakes and the future of this nation
Aye, indeed it is a rather self-induced wretched state of affairs, but I’m not sad, more frustrated and somewhat angry that we find ourselves in this predicament because it’s been obvious for years that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.
The legal system hasn’t seen particularly bothered to voice any concerns and call out the obvious corruption and injustice emanating from within its own community.
And we have some of the supposedly brightest and best Scots minds as individuals spending years of time, energy, and a muckle amount of monies attempting to beat the controlling State’s lawfare.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting miraculously different results is madness, even if it has been done with the best of intentions.
But consider how many electoral cycles have been pissed away, where if the time, energy, and monies that have been spent playing individual silly games, akin to moths banging their nappers against a light, had instead been utilised to unify and work to elect people into positions that could actually do something to change the organisations that are continuing to cause so much grief.
There’s more of the same going on with this.
link to craigmurray.org.uk
Even after the NuSNP created so much of a shitefest, we still had several Scots that masqueraded as being motivated to improve Scotland’s lot in positions of power to raise such matters about the actions of certain State arms.
Some were meant to be friends and some were members of Alex’s Alba Party, but they chose to keep their nappers doon and schtoom about the corruption, and instead it was left to David Davies to raise matters in Westminster.
Aye, so good luck getting the Quality Polis and Clown Office to fess up, when these same cretins managed to get a man up in court on an array of charges including attempted rape when there was evidence the accuser wasn’t in the same building at the time the alleged incident occurred…
£600k is a significant sum of money to have disappeared, but nothing in the larger scheme of things when things like a couple of shitey ferries are now costing the taxpayer more than half a billion quid instead of close to what they were meant to cost.
Who is writing up these contracts that continue to allow so much dosh to be spaffed away with nobody seemingly accountable for such maladministration in procurement processes?
Worth the follow-up Q’s, but I think that they are saying (1) they knew that the money had been spent for SNP purposes (2) they know what the elements of the crimes of fraud and embezzlement are (3) the decision not to prosecute was COPFS, not theirs. Perhaps the uncertainty was as to who decided to spend the money on the SNP and what they knew about the monies in the account – you’d like to think that would not be too complicated to prove. Let’s see what COPFS say about this now that the Polis seem to be putting the ball in their court.
I don’t know the details of the SNP’s Articles of Association or whatever, but I suspect that they are now very close to bankruptcy and would be soon trading whilst insolvent.
The Accountants re presumably currently doing a whole bunch of numbers to calculate whether they could reimburse any of the donators, what %age of them might seek their money back, what allowance might be made on the credit side for recovery of Mr Murrell’s proceeds -and if Mrs Murrell fights on behalf of his and her estate- whether they can expect to recover anything at all.
Keep an eye out on eBay for second-hand coffee percolators and pepper-pots.
If they are trading whilst insolvent, a number of their officers might be worried about their own necks.
Would be sweet karma if Nicola bust the SNP by self-obsessed accident.
“Would be sweet karma if Nicola bust the SNP by self-obsessed accident.”
I’d say by design rather than by accident.
When you look back at the last decade it’s all been just a bit too convenient for the British State to have hot the SNP and broader Indy movement to the state it’s in today… No threat whatsoever to the continuance of the British State.
Sorry… Should say “got” not “hot”.
Either way, it’s not in the interests of the British State to see the SNP declared bankrupt.
The SNP in it’s current form is the jam jar full of wasps which the British State finds easiest to keep a lid on.
Urgent and Important: Scotland’s independent legal status has just been directly denied by the UK government in the Court of Session. See Craig Murray’s blog for full detail.
The case for judicial review of the Palestine Action proscription in Scotland has already been paused because of the English court case.
Today, that pause was confirmed [though subject to appeal] on the grounds that the Court of Appeal in England has already decided the matter. This entirely wipes out what has existed for 300 years – two independent legal systems.
It is a blatant assertion of power that contradicts the Treaty of Union. The UK government argued that the Treaty is antiquarian. Oddly, they never say that about Habeus Corpus or the Bill of Rights.
To fight this case further, more funds are needed – the lawyers told Craig Murray today that the funds have run out. Craig says if the crowdfunder doesn’t start taking off [1800 people have donated so far] then he will have to throw in the towel. The crowdfunder is on link to crowdjustice.com
Within the second paragraph of PS response they apologise that reference was made that they had been advised HOW to respond,and state they were not advised in this regard, this is most likely correct, that is not to say that the original staements intent was incorrect,as the COPFS most likely did not sanction HOW advice was to be given, in this regard.
This is a long one… scroll on by if you can’t be bothered ;earning something interesting and informative.
I feel that perhaps a clearer picture of how independence referendums are generally structured might be helpful to folk in understanding how Scotland’s 2014 referendum voting franchise was arrived at.
The 2014 Scottish independence referendum used what’s called a Universal Adult Suffrage franchise and, whether folk agree or not, it’s widely cited as a textbook example of a modern, high-legitimacy independence vote – the kind favoured by several international bodies.
The Venice Commission (Council of Europe) is the key international body favouring universal suffrage for independence referendums.
The UN, EU, The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and the Commonwealth strongly support the same norm.
None legally require it, but all treat it as essential for legitimacy.
Granted it’s a small number of institutions… however, their opinions carry global weight.
This is why modern independence referendums — Scotland, South Sudan, East Timor, Eritrea — all used universal suffrage.
And it’s why restricted-franchise referendums (e.g., colonial-era votes) are viewed today as democratically suspect.
Now, I happen to disagree with The Venice Commission’s general, and overly generous, application of the universal suffrage ‘rule’, but my view requires a complex explanation that’s too involved for a single post, and too much of a digression from this post. Later, perhaps.
The takeaway is this: restricted-franchise independence referendums are not favoured by the influential bodies I mentioned above – they believe them to be undemocratic.
They are undoubtedly undemocratic, but generally for good reasons.
Now, this all looks very noble, but if we scratch the surface of these international bodies we discover that:
Most of the institutions that now enforce “neutral” democratic norms were originally founded, shaped, or dominated by former colonial powers.
That doesn’t mean they’re malicious or colonial today — but it does mean their standards emerged from a very particular historical context.
France, for instance, is a key founding member of most of these bodies – an exception being the Commonwealth founded by the British Empire.
The truth is that Universal suffrage became the preferred standard because it was the safest, least controversial, most “neutral-looking” rule for post-colonial transitions.
So, Universal Suffrage as the norm wasn’t created out of pure principle — it was created out of post-imperial pragmatism.
This is the contradiction at the heart of modern independence referendums:
Institutions shaped by former colonial powers now judge the legitimacy of decolonisation processes.
It should be noted, tho, that it’s a structural legacy, not a conspiracy and not sinister.
Even so… my advice is for the Scots to steer well clear of independence referendums, both the universal adult suffrage model AND the restricted-franchise model.
In fact, most countries that became independent from colonial rule did so without holding any referendum at all – independence by referendum is actually the exception, not the rule.
The vast majority of African states (eighteen or so) became independent through negotiation, legislation, or armed struggle, not referendums.
Asia — most gained independence without referendums… around eighteen countries.
Middle East — independence without referendums was gained by around seven Middle East countries.
Caribbean — almost all Caribbean countries gained independence without referendums… about a dozen or thereabouts.
Pacific — mostly negotiated independence.
Cyprus (1960) — negotiated.
Malta (1964) — negotiated.
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of former colonies gained independence without referendums.
We Scots gave it good go back in 2014 and played fairly (unlike Westminster ) by the rules laid down by former colonial powers – maybe we should try something different…
Not that it’s going to happen in my lifetime, but if Indyref2 was ever to be held, only those entitled to be citizens in an Independent Scotland should be entitled to vote, and they should register to vote separately from any existing electoral roll and in doing so simultaneously register/confirm entitlement to hold a Scottish Passport.
Birth, residence for 5+ years, parental or grand-parental rights, whatever… If you’re not going to be issued with a Scottish Passport in the event 50%+1 vote Yes, you don’t get a say as you clearly either don’t want or are not entitled to Scottish Citizenship.
Simples.
The alternative is for a political party, not the SNP obviously, to stand for election on a single issue, that is to enter into negotiations with Westminster to repeal the Act of Union, and if a majority of MPs from that party are returned then job done.
I should have said for clarity that although the 2014 Scottish independence referendum used the local-government franchise that franchise is a form of universal suffrage.
In Scotland, the local-government franchise is one of the most inclusive in Europe, because it is:
So if someone says:
“The Scottish referendum used the local-government franchise.” they are describing how universal suffrage was implemented, not contradicting it.
The 2014 referendum was universally recognised as legitimate precisely because it used this inclusive franchise.
The result being that the majority of Scottish voters were denied their right to an Independent Scotland by the non-Scots living in Scotland:
link to thetimes.com
52.7% of Scottish born voted Yes, 72.1% of rUK born voted No and 57.1% of non-UK born voted No, giving an overall No by 55.3% to 44.7%.
Same thing happened in Quebec in 1995. 60% Yes amongst the Francophile Quebecois, 90% No from the test, giving an overall No by 50.58% to 49.42%.
The Brexit referendum excluded non UK and Irish EU citizens from the vote, despite many having lived in the UK for decades and having made the UK their permanent home. Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules…
“…Scottish voters were denied their right to an Independent Scotland by the non-Scots living in Scotland.”
Indeed so, Robert. Which is one of the reasons I don’t agree with The Venice Commission’s blanket ‘rule’ about using a universal adult suffrage franchise (a form of which is Scotland’s wide-open local-government franchise) on independence referendums.
This is one of the main reasons that the majority of indigenous peoples around the world didn’t use a referendum to secure their independence from colonial rule.
But as I said… this is the preferred approach to independence referendums by those international bodies that now enforce “neutral” democratic norms originally founded, shaped, or dominated by former colonial powers.
Of course there’s no legal requirement to use a universal franchise, but the international community might find it more difficult to accept the result of a highly restricted franchise as legitimate.
That be the reality.
It’s all a bit hypothetical, though.
Westminster will never allow a restricted-franchise Scottish independence referendum, and if we were to be granted permission for a second referendum based on the same franchise as the first… well, take a guess at what the result of that one would likely be.
Another thing to consider is that Westminster would break ANY law (and probably has already) to hold Scotland tight in its grip.
Like I said earlier, I think the Scots should ditch the idea of using a referendum to secure their independence altogether and find another route.
“Westminster would break ANY law (and probably has already) to hold Scotland tight”
Yes Northcode, it disna tak a genius tae feegure oot oor colonial reality. Elkin’s ‘History of the British Empire’ explains liberal imperialism’s widespread application of ‘legalized lawlessness’ in the dubious ruling of its colonies, and the workings of a colonial justice system comprising police, prosecutors and courts.
Which brings us to Fanon’s conclusion, where the colonized eventually “realize the precious time that has been wasted in useless commentaries upon the colonial regime (and) finally come to understand… that political action… will always be powerless to modify or overthrow the colonial regime.”
The inevitable failure of dependence on the colonizer’s political processes logically brings us to your astute recommendation that “the Scots should ditch the idea of using a referendum to secure their independence altogether and find another route” to liberation.
Which helpfully leads us now to the absolute necessity for the peaceful Liberation Scotland initiative including petitioning of the United Nations and informing the global community of nations of Scotland’s ongoing unlawful colonial status: link to liberation.scot
Scottish voters were denied their right to an Independent Scotland because not enough Scottish voters turned out to vote for it.
There you go, fixed it for you.
I would have a referendum on Devolution then if the country voted for it too be kept then go for another vote on Independance
Thanks for your diligence in this fiasco, Rev… another financial bit of Sturgeonomics exposed by your site was the “IT spending”, where you challenged readers to outfit an office with several thousand pounds worth of iPads,desktops, and mobiles for each and every employee, but the sums involved were astronomical, and were certainly vastly in excess of what was required to equip our public servants with only the finest.
I would like to see some more light shed upon this blatant theft of OUR money.
It seems they think this can do better than the original ‘gold-plated’ reply.
All this navel gazing is no doubt therapeutic but 10 billion quid spent on useless medical equipment by an English politician, did naffin wrong guv, has a bit of an edge in the dodgy business stakes as does the US becoming the current holder of the neo colonialist crown for extortion, racketeering and international law breaking all in the name of world peace etc on four continents.
The latter is such a colossal problem that few in the globe’s political classes dare even squint at this American D.Rex stomping across the planet leaving its massive foetid calling cards everywhere.
“Scottish Sun: Campaigners claim SNP ‘Criminal cabal’ & believe Murrell had ‘close control’ of Yes Scotland funds”
link to youtube.com
« Claims Peter Murrell did not have control of the funds of pro-independence group Yes Scotland have been slammed as “weasel words” by those pushing for a police investigation.
« Lawyer Aamer Anwar released a statement on Tuesday on behalf of former Yes Scotland boss Blair Jenkins saying Murrell – who was recently jailed for five years for embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP – never had access to the campaign’s funds.
« The statement also claimed £1.5 million described by some as “missing” from the campaign’s accounts had been spent on running costs.
« Speaking to journalists outside Fettes police station in Edinburgh following a meeting with detectives, campaigners David Henry and Sean Clerkin rejected Mr Anwar’s claims.»