The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul

Posted on December 13, 2022 by

The SNP love to indignantly tell everyone how healthy the party’s finances are these days, especially in response to impertinent queries about the infamous “ring-fenced” £600,000 for a second indyref that everyone now knows isn’t going to happen.

(We still await an update from Police Scotland on what has now been an 18-month formal investigation into the matter, on top of the 18 months that had already elapsed since Wings first broke the story. We imagine they’re very busy investigating the runaway epidemic of misgenderings and feminists putting ribbons on stuff.)

It rakes in £2.5m a year from membership fees as well as millions from the UK government, and only has to pay for about 20 staff and a modest office in Edinburgh. So why is it having to borrow almost £108,000 from its own chief executive?

(Click pic to enlarge.)

The oddly specific amount – £107,620 – was loaned interest-free by Peter Murrell to the party six weeks after last year’s Scottish Parliament election, at which the SNP spent just under £1.5m. It doesn’t tally with any particular item of election expenditure.

(To be honest it’s hard to fathom why the party spent so much on an election whose outcome was never in doubt. It’s been in power 15 years and has a captive audience of Yes supporters for as long as it doesn’t achieve independence – how many people don’t know what the SNP stands for, or wouldn’t have voted for it unless it had spammed their letterbox with £830,000’s worth of crappy leaflets? But we digress.)

The loan, noted by an alert Wings reader, came three years after Alyn Smith’s libel misadventure against the Brexit Party, and we know from experience that it can take that amount of time before legal bills are settled, but that’s purely idle speculation on our part. The party’s legal fees were only £60,000 for the year, substantially down on 2020 and way down on the £156,000 from 2019.

The party’s 2021 accounts show a cash balance of £144,975 at the end of the year, by which time it had paid back almost £48,000 of the money (in August and October of that year), so it wasn’t about to go into the red.

There’s no reference to either the loan or the two repayments in the relevant section of the accounts, which seems a little peculiar.

There’s simply no obvious explanation why the chief executive was having to dip into his own – clearly very full – pockets to prop up the party’s finances, and no detectable paper trail to the money coming in or going out or what it was for.

Nor can members expect any internal scrutiny. The loan was made three months after half of the SNP’s Finance Committee resigned because Murrell was refusing to let them see the party’s books, and one month after its treasurer Douglas Chapman resigned for the same reason, being replaced without an election by his tame and compliant predecessor Colin Beattie. (Nicola Sturgeon announced at the time that she was “not concerned” by the resignations. We’ll bet.)

If anyone has any clues as to who Paul is, you know where to reach us.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 11 06 23 19:52

    What to find out about Scottish Nationwide Social gathering police probe after Nicola Sturgeon questioned – POLITICO - Worldwide News

  2. 11 06 23 20:04

    Cosa sapere sull'indagine della polizia del Partito Nazionale Scozzese dopo l'interrogatorio di Nicola Sturgeon - Notizie Dal Web

  3. 11 06 23 20:08

    What to know about Scottish National Party police probe after Nicola Sturgeon questioned – POLITICO - The Madras Tribune

70 to “Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul”

  1. Shauny Boy says:

    You’d think a story like this would be front page news. Yet all I can hear is the chirping of crickets.

  2. Ross says:

    Given we’re supposedly about to fire the cannon on am independence campaign in January does the party actually have enough money to kick start this? What does the indy fund look like right now

    Doesn’t look like there’s much to show given the large membership.

    Trying to recall the finances in 2012/13 and how it looked prior to yes Scotland being created.

    We’re surely going to need equivalent money to succeed.

    Where has all the money gone?

  3. James Carroll says:

    Some might say it looks like money laundering.

  4. Mike says:

    £107620 – £26905 – £20715 = approx £61992
    The net movement in the financial year?

    The rounding must have “woven through”?

  5. Mike says:

    P.S. Small family companies often see the family members not actually drawing all their allocated salary/dividend/bonus in a year and the undrawn balance is accounted for as a director’s loan. It can help with “managing tax liability”, although its usually over a tax year end to punt the beneficiary’s income into another year and delay payments to HMRC.

  6. Dave Llewellyn says:

    It looks like someone has a cash flow problem. With tao main income streams one which is Westminster short money, its seriously looking like membership money is hemorrhaging either through reduced subs or reduced members. Or both.

  7. Republicofscotland says:

    Eighteen months of Police Scotland investigating the missing 600k and still nada, mind you when you have Livingstone and Bain in your back pocket, you kinda know the investigation is going nowhere.

    As for the loan, that lot are so sleazy it could have been for just about anything.

  8. Anonymoose says:

    Interesting as per their accounts for 2020, submitted to the Electoral Commission on 26/06/2021 – submitted 6 days after the start date of the loan on 20/06/2021failed to include the loan:

    While that may appear very odd, its probably just a coincidence of timing for the accounting period concerned (2020) vs. the date the loan commenced (20/06/2021).

    Thier latest published accounts for 2021, do include a loans outstanding figure of £71,335.00, this figure does not correlate with either of the two repayments made on the loan.

    Loan amount: £107,620
    18/08/2021 -£26,905.00 = £80,715 remaining
    25/10/2021 -£20,715.00 = £60,000 remaining

    Even if you flip those repayments around you will not end up with a figure of £71,335.00

    They would need to have repaid only £36,285, which as this article and the EC loan record show did not happen – evidenced by the two repayment figures noted above.

    According to the EC, the SNP have no other outstanding loans, the last loan they had – which was from Colin Weir for £50,000 – was repaid and ended on 01/03/2018.

    It doesn’t take a mathematical genuis to spot that there is something amisss with their accounting figures for 2021 which they submitted to the Electoral Comimssion on 07/07/2022 – more than enough time for even the worst accountant in the world to factor a loan correctly into an organisations accounts, unless that is you’re an SNP accountant with fiduciary responsibilities for the organisation.

  9. Suz says:

    Looking on the bright side, maybe it’s him starting to pay back what’s been “resting in his account” with a view to covering his tracks in preparation for him and his hideous “wife” fecking off out of it.
    We can but hope.

  10. ross says:

    maybe it’s his salary and he receives the income as a repayment? no idea what the point of that would be other than tax related. I am not an accountant and have no idea.

    the idea they should be on more than 100k is absurd. although given to believe they are.

  11. Skip_NC says:

    I’m on my phone so it’s difficult for me to check but wasn’t there also a loan in 2020 from the Chief Executive? GBP80,000 sticks in my mind.

  12. 100%Yes says:

    No i’m paul!

  13. Mac says:

    The deferred salary / employee loan is I think the correct answer.

    The peculiar amount of 107,620 therefore probably represents a number of monthly salaries…

    The only plausible round number that divides into 107,620 cleanly is 8. (107,620 / 8 = 13,452.5)

    Meaning 8 months of salary which also works with the loan being in October…

    Giving a gross salary for Mr Murrell of 13,452.50 per month or 161,430 pound per annum… (107,620 / 8) X 12 = 161,430

    Speculative? Undoubtedly yes but the first repayment was 26,905 which is precisely two months salary! 2 X 13452.5 = 26,905.

    The second payment seems to me to have been to make the outstanding balance of unpaid wages a neat round 60,000 number… which I believe was to obscure exactly what I just worked out! lol.

    i.e. That Peter Murrell is coining in 161,430 in salary and the SNP had a problem paying him it is so much.

    He’s has really screwed up here. Very funny and total amateur hour stuff.

    This would also explain why they may have treated it as ‘a loan but not really a loan’ in the notes.

    Dearie me. What a clown.

  14. robertkknight says:

    Looks like a balance sheet prepared by that renowned firm of chartered accountants Messrs Smoak & Myrors?

  15. Chas says:

    At the end of the day, in every way, it ALWAYS comes down to money. Creative accounting and patriotism only takes you so far.

    The Murrell’s jaiket’s are on a shoogly peg. Patience is required.

  16. Willie says:

    I’d they are paying back a loan as you describe Mac it appears that the SNP and Murrell are indulging in tax avoidance.

    What employees get their wages without tax deduction. But this appears to be what is happening here. Defer your wages, call it a loan, then get it back without tax.

    Nice one eh – another fraud for Political Plod Scotland to ding.

    Great when you can flaut the law under police protection.

  17. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    How much does a super injunction cost these days?

  18. ross says:

    the idea someone should be on 100oddK as CEO of a political party seems wrong. especially one purported to be centre left and caring.

    I can’t see how it’s an equivalent demand to managing an NHS trust or a medium sized company with daily business processes. It’s a political party with a leader and a remit within the parliaments. It’s basically an accounting unit for fundraising with a little bit of HR and graphic design.

    Really gets my goat that salary. Really poor.

  19. Robert Hughes says:

    Well , we’ll recall how , originally , Peter robbed Tom , Dick & Harry n told Jock Public is was being ring-fleeced to to ensure * just-in-time * Carrot delivery .

    Then , some Doubting Thomas hired a Private Dick ( SHAFT ! ) to investigate what has subsequently become known as The Strange Case of the Embroidered £600,000 . The unfortunate sleuth’s body was later discovered on the shore of a remote Highland hill loch, two knitting needles protruding from his heart . The fugitive 600k still unaccounted for .

    This latest – uncharacteristically generous – move by Worshipful Master Murrell – putting money IN to SNP coffers , rather than the habitual extraction , raises more questions as to the true state of Murrell & Sturgeon Inc ( trading as Independence Ltd ) finances , the opaque nature of it’s book-keeping and perhaps most importantly … a fat , shady cunt like him came to have such power and influence despite doing fuck-all to progress the cause , as he’s handsomely paid to do .

    Investigations are ongoing

    ( ps ” the Walrus is Paul ” )

  20. Skip_NC says:

    Willie, if that happened, the SNP have no business running the country, because it would be outright fraud. What may have happened is that PM deferred his salary and the loan balance was reduced by the gross amount of wages but the taxes were still paid over (late, but that’s another matter) with PM getting the net amount.

    What I think is happening is either PM is deferring salary or lending money he has already been paid in salary to help the S,NP through a cash flow blip. The problem comes when the blip gets bigger and bigger. Then you get to see a car crash in slow motion.

  21. Frank Waring says:

    Mac & Willie seem to have hit it: of course, HMRC usually try to proceed aagainst ‘small’ tax dodgers by private arm-twisting rather than prosecution, so it may well be that ‘the truth will never come out’ (as Iain Macwhirter said recently about the Salmond Affair: thank goodness for Stuart Campbell and Craig Murray!).

  22. Mac says:

    There is no fraud Willie. Perhaps some questionable accounting but no fraud or tax evasion.

    Another way of thinking of this ’employee loan’ is to rename it ‘deferred employee wages’. Where an employee has agreed that the company will pay them their wages but at a later time to help the company out with their ‘cash flow problems’ (caused of course in large part by your whopping fat salary but we digress).

    The company must then record the gross ‘unpaid but owed wages’ as a liability, as ‘deferred wages’, or in effect an ’employee loan’. You could call it both deferred wages and / or an employee loan and both would be ‘true’.

    As soon as the wages are actually paid the loan is effectively repaid at the same time and then all the PAYE deductions are made but only when the wages are paid. So no fraud.

    However I also see above that their audit expenses more than doubled year on year… interesting. lol.

  23. Breeks says:

    ross says:
    13 December, 2022 at 10:49 am
    the idea someone should be on 100oddK as CEO of a political party seems wrong. especially one purported to be centre left and caring.

    They’re offering £80k to a speechwriter FFS.

    It would appear money has lost it’s meaning to them…. Just like honesty and promises.

  24. PhilM says:

    Started typing this before Anonymoose’s post, but what follows complements his sums. I can’t be bothered to change anything. The important bit is where arithmetic and accounting meet.

    £107,620 ÷ 4 = £26,905 i.e the first repayment sum.
    So the first repayment is a quarter of the loan.
    £107,620 – £26,905 = £80,715.
    Now the second repayment sum of £20,717 × 4 = £82,860, so the second repayment was not paid on the same terms as the former which suggests to me that the structure of the loan and its repayment taken together cannot have taken the form of a proper contract unless said contract explicitly stipulates the payment schedule.
    However the outstanding amount from the first period i.e. £80,715 – £20,715 (the second repayment) = £60,000, a nicely satisfying round figure and no doubt the reason why the second repayment figure was chosen.
    If any of the above sounds like I know what I’m talking about, then you’ll be happy to hear I don’t! I’m just quick at seeing patterns due to an actual neurodiversity, not a made-up one used to get on a shortlist…feel the burn!!!
    Anyway, maybe these figures will trigger a response in someone who does know about these things…

  25. Mac says:

    Aye, Peter must have been putting in some shift trying to persuade the auditors it was true and fair to describe his unpaid wages as an ’employee loan’ and not as ‘deferred salary’ to rack up that bill.

    I guess he thought calling it an ’employee loan’ would make it harder for people to figure out it was his jumbo salary…

    Not today Peter.(I know you are reading.)

    This is hilarious.

    161,430 Great British Pounds. For a numpty. lol.

  26. stonefree says:

    I have rattled on about the Tice-v-Smith payment,the SNP as a body appear to have picked up the tab on behave of Smith,it can not be anything else than a Benefit in Kind and a Tax Liability of Smith’s
    Has it been paid?
    By whom?
    To me , If it was paid within the SNP then there appears to be another discrepancy

  27. Mac says:

    And of course the ’employee loan’ was ‘interest free’… because it is actually just ‘unpaid wages’. Ohhh ma sides….

  28. George Ferguson says:

    The effectiveness of posting leaflets through doors is 3%. In other words only 3 out of a 100 leaflets could result in capturing someone’s vote. Source SNP, from my doorstep canvassing days. So 830k is a lot of money to spend when you know it is a very inefficient way to get out your political message . Something is not right here. Keep shining the light on the opaqueness of the SNP Stu.

  29. Mac says:

    Listen I can understand Peter’s motive here… we have to consider the ‘optics’ as they like to say now.

    I mean…

    ‘Sir Peter Murrell, the white knight benefactor, ‘lending’ the SNP 107,620 GBP (not a penny more nor less mind) of his own ‘savings’ and ‘interest free’ no less, to tide the party over during some lean times.

    … looks a hell of a lot better than…

    Mega Fat Cat Murrell forced to delay paying his own obscenely enormous monthly salary in order not to drive the SNP into an insolvency event.

    I can see why the auditors maybe loved this idea. lol.

  30. Chris Downie says:

    I think we know, deep down, why this isn’t front-page news. The media and establishment know there is absolutely no chance of the Tories ever winning the popular vote in Scotland again (they haven’t done so since the 1950’s and never will again) and with Labour in disarray here (possibly permanently) the next best thing is a compliant, weak and timid SNP. They are, in effect, controlled opposition. As long as the Sturrell Mafia remain in charge, the Union – as weak and in disarray as it is – remains safe. We can bet the establishment will do all they can to keep them in power. At the very least they won’t be removed without one hell of a fight.

  31. Willie says:

    The whole thing stinks.

    The SNP is a political party. In the particular case it employs a Chief Executive. Quite why that employee would have to hand £107,620 and then to lend to his employer that substantial is unbelievably unusual.

    Taken with other pearls like the missing £600,000 which was in the accounts, then it wasn’t before it was admitted it was spent, fraud it seems is at the very heart of the SNP.

    Of course, Peper Murrell will give no detail of the loan, it’s a dirty secret that he, and only probably his wife knows about. Reinforces utterly the absolute shit ball that lies at the heart of the SNP.

    And the Police, our beloved Police Scotland, the establishment and in fact Nicola’s political police force, what have they done these last 18 months investigating the lost £600,000. That is a good question. But then of course our political Police Scotland spent £10,000,000 pursuing Alex Salmond, and other monies on other independence supporters such as Hirst, Singh, Murray et al.

    A rotten party with their backs covered by a rotten Police Scotland and a corrupt COPF service.

  32. Geri says:

    Her wee jamboree to Egypt?

  33. Graeme Hampton says:

    On Police investigations what about the investigation into possible perjury in the Salmond trial. Was it wound up and I missed it?

  34. Gordon Currie says:

    Deferred wages aren’t the same as a personal loan, “wages” implie the payroll has been run and the deductions calculated, these deductions would fall due in the same tax year as the loan. The loan would then be the net salary x 12. HMRC wouldn’t like receiving their blood money a year late!

    Paying the gross salary “loan” the following year would mean he was taxed on 2 years’ of salary, effectively paying top rate on the entire loan. Then again, maybe the loan is his net salary from the previous year and the taxes were paid (on circa £250,000 salary….)

    Whatever it is he’s paid far too much – after the various debacles, he should’ve resigned years ago.

  35. Geoff Anderson says:

    I have no idea what Peter Murrell is hiding…..but I suspect that is the intent!

  36. Luigi says:

    For me the big concern is why the establishment is not going for those responsible for the missing 600K? Anyone found knee deep in a mess of creative accounting would have been jailed long ago. Is the establishment going easy because they have leverage over the main players? This would certainly explain a lot.

  37. Mac says:

    On a serious note for Murrell to have done this – i.e. delayed paying his own huge salary – he must have been quite desperate.

    This would have been an option of last resort as it clearly risked exposing the amount of his ginormous salary.

    He has tried to muddy the waters as best he could it looks like but not enough… it is 161,430 fecking pounds.

    So given the above I think it is very likely the SNP are suffering from financial distress, maybe now struggling to cover expenses that in the past they could cover, like Pete’s colossal wages, and unable to secure real loans from their bank, i.e. not Pretendy Peter loans which is just his unpaid wages).

    Woven into the accounts was funny but this has taken it to a whole new level clowntown.

    And this is from 2021 year so can’t imagine it has improved in 2022.

    So for those that still send the SNP money, all it is likely doing right now is paying off Peter’s humungous back wages bill.

    Interest free though, what a guy…

  38. James says:

    “…I’m Paul and so’s my wife!….”

  39. Anonymoose says:

    Mac says:
    13 December, 2022 at 10:35 am

    The deferred salary / employee loan

    That is an interesting theory Mac, one worth pondering over.

    PhilM says:
    13 December, 2022 at 11:17 am

    …so the second repayment was not paid on the same terms as the former which suggests to me that the structure of the loan and its repayment taken together cannot have taken the form of a proper contract unless said contract explicitly stipulates the payment schedule.

    That is a very interesting point that I overlooked, I’ll admit that finance isn’t anywhere near my specialty, but just like most folk I have taken out a loan / mortgage during my lifetime, so do have experience on that front.

    Every single loan is a financial contract, financial contracts have terms and usually come with options of some sort, in the case of loans they normally have options for early/extra repayments over and above the contracted repayment schedule – that may be a reason for the payment to round the remaining figure off – but in these cases any amount paid as an extra would be in addition to the regularly scheduled and contracted repayment sum, in this case the second repayment (£20,715.00) is less than the first one (£26,905.00) by £6190.00 – very odd.

    I do wonder if this is a written financial contract or a verbal financial contract, in either case since it is internal to the party and without the Electoral Commission opening a formal investigation into it or a whistleblower coming forward, we will never find out the real terms of it nor reasons for it.

    There is also another more alarming thing about this situation, this is the “elected” CEO giving a loan to the “company” he runs, normally when companies need to borrow money the CFO would usually turn to banks in order for that financial requirement to be serviced – so when an audit occurs there would be a clear financial trail to and from a third-party (the banks/lender) within the accounts.

    The fact that this is supposed to be a “member led” political party, that no members (who are in effect, investors) are aware of or have been alerted to the need for this loan or its setting up outside of their knowledge by the CEO and the management of the organisation which the members all invest into monthly is very suspicious.

    I find it very odd and highly unusual for an “elected” CEO to give a loan to the “company” he runs (and has publicly stated has healthy finances) – to not inform the investors (the members) into the company of the need & reasoning for such a loan in the first place.

    If I were a member of the SNP and especially an elected member of any branch I would be requesting formal answers about this on behalf of the members as financial improprietry can sink a business very quickly and a political party even quicker – including all of the branches and persons in those branches with fiduciary responsibilities.

  40. Geri says:

    WTF does he do to justify that sort of pay packet?

    Did Scotland appoint a Prime Minister & I missed it?

    He should never have been in the SNP accounts when Imelda became FM.

    I cancelled my DD at his over inflated pay & the AS farce.

    WTF does he do? A few tweets a year & organising a helicopter?

  41. mikestand says:

    Nice to read the name Colin Weir in this context. Where did the other loan repayment come from I wonder ? and in which accounting period(s) did that happen ? Half a Mill ? Found in a hurry ?

  42. Shug says:

    Funny how the unionist press and media do not go al over this like they do with the ferries.

    So why do the unionists protect the Murrell’s

  43. Lenny Hartley says:

    Interesting read, so looks like the NuSNP deliberately intervened so the Supreme Court would rule that the Scots unlike every other “peoples’ on this Planet did not have a right to “Self Determination”

  44. Cringe says:

    What’s the reference to “Paul”?

  45. Ebok says:

    In March 2021, SNP announced that 12,500 new members had joined the party that month and the figure was expected to rise to more than 16,000 before the end of the month.

    Despite all this unexpected ‘new’ income, the CE felt it necessary to loan the party an additional £107K a few months later?
    And even that was not enough, because subsequently (if I’ve got the time-line correct) there were pleas of desperation for members to pay dues in advance during another cash-flow crisis?

    With all these (dodgy?) new membership figures, loan repayments, and the forthcoming much reduced income because of an advanced membership fee vacuum, the next set of figures may be even more … interesting.

  46. Cherrybank says:

    Cringe Search the internet for saying ‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’

  47. Skip_NC says:

    The 61,992 in the last screenshot is simply the increase in the year-end balances of loans – see note 22 on p34 of the accounts. Loans payable at end of 2020 were 9,343, owed to accounting units and members. At the end of 2020, this figure had grown to 11,335, an increase of 1,992. The net change in the loan of Peter Murrell was 60,000.

    Whether it should be presented this way is above my pay grade. However, basic accounting principles amount to “more information, rather than less.” For instance, fixed assets are never reported as a net number, but are shown at original cost minus depreciation taken over the years. However, showing the 107,620 as a new loan and reporting the repayments on the line below would not change the net result.

    Note 22 in the accounts states that loans are from accounting units and others & executive management. It further states that the loans are used for working capital. In other words, the S,NP needed a loan from Peter Murrell to help fund the Holyrood campaign. The loans in note 22 are repayable on demand.

    At the end of 2021, current liabilities exceeded current assets by 245,583. Current ratio (which is supposed to be at least 1.00 and preferably a bit higher) is 0.759. In other words, without outside help, the SNP was, at the end of 2021, in danger of being unable to pay its upcoming bills.

    The limitation of any set of financial statements is that they are a snapshot in time. Annual accounts tell us little. Quarterly or monthly accounts would help us form a more complete picture but nobody reading this (lovers of Pica pica excepted) are going to have access to that.

    What is clear from this is that the SNP did not, at the end of 2021, have the funds to finance an independence campaign. for a party which states that everything it does is in pursuit of independence, that is just a little worrying.

  48. Guy says:

    Breeks – the new speechwriter salary is £60k

  49. Al-Stuart says:

    I suspect the “Legal Fees: £60,193” will rocket when the McWoke SNP are required to pay Stuart Campbell £180,000 in recompense for unfair discrimination relating to Stuart Campbell’s recent job application to become Impotent Sturgeon’s spin doctor.

    P.S. Please can I thank Pete Wishart. Without Pete’s sterling effort, Stuart Campbell would have made his retirement permanent and gone off to write about ZX Spectrum computers.

    Instead, we now have a revitalised Rev, writing top quality articles accompanied by stalwarts such as Mac who answered the question of how much Mr Peter Sturgeon is paid!

    I suggest we should organise a petition to elevate Mr Wishart, to Lord Wishart of Slipperton & Pension Padders.

  50. Skip_NC says:

    Al Stuart, the S,NP accounts for 2020 and 2021 state that the Chief Executive’s salary, as at May 31st of the following year is $79,750. It was not reported in earlier years. I am sure that it is quite coincidental that the commencement of such disclosure was around the time serious questions were being asked, including by Stu, about the ring-fenced money woven through the accounts.

  51. Truth says:

    Is it just possible he’s not picking up his salary for now and this is then recorded as a loan?

    If you divide by 16 (months) you get a number that when multiplied by 12 is very close to his approximately £80k salary.

    So what happened 16 months ago that prompted him to forego his salary if that is what is happening?

    I mean, it is very interesting that approximately 16 months ago in August 2021 all the “Scottish” papers carried stories telling us he earns £79,750.

  52. Dorothy Devine says:

    robbo , unbloody believable!

    Any biology profs out there ? If so please stand up and be counted.

    I am truly sick of this crap. No votes for the SNP from me.

  53. Mac says:

    I did consider that it was 16 months salary and not 8 months but that would mean the accounts were materially misstated at the end of 2020 as there was no record of an ’employee loan’ (for roughly half the amount of 107,620).

    Also from the records above the deferral of wages (i.e. the loan) started in 2021 not 2020. So that would be a lie if it was 16 months.

    Maybe the auditors fell down on the job and let them get away with it for a whole year before clamping down in 2021 but I don’t find that convincing. At least I hope not for their sakes.

    For the record I do not suspect fraud here over this laughably called ’employee loan’ it is IMHO just mind bending and blatant ‘window dressing’ and that is putting it kindly.

    The missing 600k on the other hand is an open and shut case of fraud IMHO.

  54. TenV56 says:

    Mind the new batch elected to WM in 2019. The one who pleaded for help cos had to work a whole months lying time? Have SNP been paying them?

  55. Breeks says:

    Guy says:
    13 December, 2022 at 5:26 pm
    Breeks – the new speechwriter salary is £60k

    No it isn’t. It’s advertised £68.5 to £79k.

  56. Mac says:

    They have the start date for the loan as 20/06/21 on the electoral commission website.

    Yet I’d bet this with 95%+ confidence that this ’employee loan is actually ‘deferred wages’, 8 months worth, 16 months worth, it does not matter because even if it 8 months worth that start date above is not ‘true’ in any sense of the word.

    Who believes Peter Murrell transferred 107,620 pounds to the SNP bank account from his own on 20/06/21? Mon tae…

    Why would you transfer such a weird amount. You don’t, it was something being recognized retrospectively.

    And it was an awkward amount, an embarrassing amount. A number which tells a story which needed to be obscured. Whatever the truth there is IMHO is some accounting slight of hand going on here. It is the SNP, why am I not surprised.

    If this is true Murrell not getting paid is the side story, the main one is the SNP are increasingly skint and running on fumes at times.

  57. Alex says:

    This was reported earlier in the year to boost money. Sounds like deferred wages. Wonder if the full and proper tax will be paid on them?
    The SNP are in effect broke. Membership numbers aren’t covering the funds, and the lack of donations is embarrassing.

    Maybe this will finally bring down the power couple! But the membership can’t hold them to account because Saint Nicola says it’s ok. So she must be obeyed!

  58. John Nicolson says:

    Why is everyone saying this is deferred wages? He was lending the SNP money, not the SNP paying him??????

  59. James Gardner says:

    Apart fae his fat salary I take it that Wee Peem wull huv an expense account tae ?

  60. Robert Louis says:

    Chris Downie at 1153am,

    I think you are absolutely one hundred percent spot on, with what you say. The situation is EXACTLY as you describe. It suits the English establishment, to keep a weak and timid SNP hierarchy in place.

    Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell, are the Establishments ‘safe pair of hands’.

    Sturgeon will do nothing to secure independence for Scotland. Literally NOTHING. She will however, talk long and hard about how ‘scotland needs independence, and has since a wee girl she has wanted independence’, but when presented with chance after chance after chance to make it happen, she makes up lame excuses and does NOTHING. In the meantime, ebergy rich Scotland suffers under English colonial theft. Aye, Nicola plays her part well, worthy of an oscar. Had me and others fooled for a very long time.

    Do SNP members actually know how much Peter Murrel is being paid????? Their donations going to make that man and his First Minister wife, very rich.

    Got to say well done to REV stu for getting into this. As the old saying goes, follow the money.

  61. Skip_NC says:

    Alex @ 11:29pm, one of the first things you get taught as a fledgling PAYE Auditor is to look at current payroll and make sure correct tax has been paid. At the start of my training, I did that whilst the experienced auditor did the more complex work. So if the S,NP is doing that (which I highly doubt) they should not be allowed anywhere near government, on the grounds of terminal stupidity.

    Robert Louis, any S,NP member can do what Stu, numerous people here and even the Daily Express have done, which is to look at the party’s accounts, freely available on the electoral commission website. There, anyone can see Peter Murrell’s salary. They can also see that there are three people employed on “Digital” but only two on policy. Further, they will see that about 25 staff got the better part of 1.1 million quid last year. They will also see that about 750,000 has been raised for the (ahem) imminent independence campaign and that about 250,000 of that has already been spent, both numbers being woven through the accounts in a rather intricate pattern, like the finest Turkish carpet. Finally (for now) they will note that current assets (ie those available to pay debts falling due within a year) are well below current liabilities (debts due within a year). From that they will realize that the S,NP is skint. The more astute may wonder where the 500,000 still earmarked for an independence campaign is going to come from. It certainly isn’t from ring-fenced funds already raised.

  62. Anonymoose says:

    From Philip Sim on Twitter:

    “In response to questions about a £107,620 loan from Peter Murrell in June 2021, the SNP says “this was a personal contribution made by the chief executive to assist with cashflow after the Holyrood election””

    That is the SNP “spokesperson” saying that in essence after the 2021 Scottish Parliament election the SNP were completely broke and required a £107k loan to remain afloat?

    Shocking but not surprising given the years of mismanagement and wasting of members contributions on office “remodelling”.

  63. Anonymoose says:

    The herald also reporting on it 2hrs ago –

    I’m glad you’re back Stu, these dolts that call themselves journo’s are being kept on their toes.

  64. Ken McCallum says:

    It’s ok lads i checked it out and it’s all good.

  65. Wally Jumblatt says:

    I’m sure His Majetsy’s Revenue & Customs will want the PAYE & NIC off any salary, deferred or otherwise.

  66. Joe says:

    Mac says:
    13 December, 2022 at 11:11 am
    There is no fraud Willie. Perhaps some questionable accounting but no fraud or tax evasion ===================================================
    You think that yet PoliceScotland still investigating the missing £600K ? It was well publicised to be “ringfenced” it clearly was not and is now gone , that cannot be anything but fraud in legal terms surely.

  67. Andrew F says:

    At an exchange rate of 1$US = 0.7175 GBP
    107,620 GBP would equal exactly $US 150,000.
    That was about the exchange rate for USD = GBP in June 2021.
    Give or take a few dollars or pounds for charges, maybe that explains what happened.
    Maybe the “loan” was to pay, or repay, someone $USD150,000?

  68. A bloke called Gerald says:

    A number of years ago, MUrrell, Wishart and Stewart Stephenson set up a company selling SNP merchandise, which I’ve always thought was a bit odd. I think it folded after a year or so. Maybe they’ve set up/got shares in a printing business and that’s who’s got the SNP campaign material contract, hence the huge printing bill? A good way to launder party funds.

  69. Please fix email notifications. I keep checking the site like a teenager waiting for her boyfriend to call.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top