The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

How to make money disappear

Posted on February 21, 2021 by

It’s difficult to know where to even start on the absolutely extraordinary reaction to our post about yesterday’s meeting of the SNP National Executive Committee. Our traffic exploded to levels not seen since 2014, racking up tens of thousands of pageviews an hour, and social media was aflame with argument into the small hours of the morning.

A whole raft of issues arose from our exclusive revelations, but the one we want to talk about now is the one that was buried at the bottom of what a panicked SNP hastily and laughably produced as the “minutes” of the meeting, and we didn’t even notice it until a couple of hours after the original post.

It’s this:

And that’s weird, because it’s £2.1m of money the SNP simply doesn’t have.

The £1.5m allocated to this year’s election campaign is pretty much the same as the £1.56m the party spent in 2019’s UK general election – a year in which the SNP made a financial loss of £319,000 and wiped out most of its cash reserves.

So it’s questionable whether the party would actually be able to afford to spend such a sum again from its 2020-21 income (ie the period since the last published accounts). It’s struggled for large donations for years, and has been pulling all sort of tricks in the last 18 months or so just to stay afloat and keep paying the six-figure salaries of its top executives like Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick.

(Such as retaining the 25% “dividend” of member subs normally returned to branches, and sending out a series of letters asking members to pay their annual fees early.)

Though in fact it’s doubtful whether it really intends to spend the £1.5m at all, because several branch officials and others have sent us messages like the below:

But the really dodgy bit was this:

And that’s because the “ring-fenced” £600,000 still hasn’t been found. It isn’t in the 2019 accounts, and nobody has yet provided a scrap of evidence for where it went.

And it wasn’t supposed to be spent on “preparations” either – it was supposed to be ringfenced for an actual campaign, and we know that there’s going to be no campaign this year because there isn’t going to be a referendum, because COVID-19 is still running rampant, and Boris Johnson isn’t going to concede a Section 30, and even if he did after the May election (assuming it goes ahead, and delivers an indy majority) there wouldn’t be time to actually make the vote happen in 2021, and if the SNP tries to hold a referendum without Westminster co-operation then we’re looking at probably years of legal wrangling, and half a dozen other really really really obvious reasons why there absolutely won’t be a 2021 indyref.

“Preparations”, then, is a meaningless nothing word that conveniently provides cover for a multitude of shenanigans. Allow us to illustrate.

A few weeks ago the SNP announced the appointment of Marco Biagi to head a new “taskforce” charged with “laying the groundwork for a new Yes campaign” – a woolly enough definition on its own. Biagi was also to be supplemented, readers were told, with “existing SNP headquarters staff and strategists across the party”.

And there’s the trick.

Because if a clutch of existing staff – whose wages the SNP are already paying – are assigned to Biagi’s “taskforce”, then the party can claim that those wages have actually been expended in pursuit of the new “preparations”.

The SNP spent £1.1m on staff costs in 2019. So if it were to redesignate around half of its current employees as members of this new group – and remember, “preparing for independence campaigning” is pretty much the basic job description of ANY employee of the SNP at any time, so it’s not like they’d have to do anything different – then hey presto, 12 months later it can say it’s just spent the “ring-fenced” £600K and never have to answer questions about it again, even though it was really all spent two years ago on securing Pete Wishart and Alyn Smith’s pensions. Phew, that was close!

Now of course, you may choose to dismiss this as nothing but cynical supposition. And since it hasn’t actually happened yet, the “supposition” part is certainly accurate. But ask yourself this, readers – if it’s all above board, why now? What exactly are these “preparations”, when there’s nothing to prepare for? What will there be to show for it?

Because if all that money is indeed spent “this financial year” and then we somehow get an indyref in 2022, it’ll all be gone, exactly at the point it was needed and supposed to have been ring-fenced for.

And in the highly unlikely event of that happening under the current leadership, maybe you’ll be so happy about it that you won’t mind digging into your pocket again. But it won’t change the fact that you’ll have been robbed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

207 to “How to make money disappear”

  1. blackhack says:

    Keep it up Stu, you’re running rings round them.

  2. Black Joan says:

    Did Chapman ever reply to your request for clarification, Rev?
    Craig M is saying he’s to be trusted, but Chapman doesn’t reply to lesser people who ask about the “ring-fenced” money via Twitter.

  3. Margaret Lindsay says:

    The whole “donate here” shit kept me awake last night I was so angry. Yet still to the faithful St Nick can do no wrong. Hell mend them.

  4. iain MacGillivray says:

    you missed out the bit about the complaints process overseen by the National Secretary, they will blow plenty on setting up that office I’m sure..

  5. Black Joan says:

    Of course if Chapman hasn’t replied to the Rev he will now have been forbidden to interact in any way. Most convenient.

  6. Ian McLean says:

    Anyone know what “transfers out” are?
    £563,294 is a substantial sum.

  7. Republicofscotland says:

    So the ringfenced indy funds are gone never to be seen again, and false campaigning for indy will be used as an excuse that, that’s where the money went, I feel sorry for everyone who contributed to the fund, to now find out that they’ve been mislead.

    Mind you it wouldn’t surprise me one little bit if Scottish government money will be used to tidy up the edges the non existant indy campaign to make it look better.

  8. Livionian says:

    This is absolutely disgraceful. Theft, plain and simple. If I donated to this, which thankfully I wasn’t a sucker for, I would be all up for looking at how to bring about charges of fraud. But they will get away with it, by the looks of things, as always.

    Seriously, we need to get this corrupt political class to fuck

  9. Peter Bell says:

    More research and honesty than you’ll ever find in any of the shitey MSM publications or websites.

  10. Skip_NC says:

    How much did they spend on the database they are now abandoning? See notes 17 & 18 of the accounts. Not able to access that right now, alas.

  11. Mike. says:

    Keep up the excellent analysis Stuart.

    The SNP high command will be absolutely fizzing at this.

  12. Kerfuffle says:

    Like many others I had a standing order with the SNP where I paid a modest sum every month. I cancelled it a couple of weeks ago. I will not fund hate, I will not fund misogyny and I will not fund the development of thought crime legislation.

  13. Heaver says:

    People in suits are not robbers, they’re embezzlers.


  14. Lintonbairn says:

    Maybees aye, maybees naw, maybe I’m a dreamer, Imagine if even a fraction of all this time and energy currently trying to ‘run rings round them’, was aimed at the unionist forces. Just imagine would that could look like?

  15. Socrates MacSporran says:

    “The beginning of a better nation.”

    No way – with the current lot in charge.

    At least, with the tories, you know you’re going to get shafted.

  16. Checks notes says:

    iain MacGillivray says:
    21 February, 2021 at 3:24 pm
    you missed out the bit about the complaints process overseen by the National Secretary, they will blow plenty on setting up that office I’m sure.

    I thought the same, they must be inundated. Furthermore, what exactly will they be doing to “support local government”?

  17. robertknight says:

    Smoke and mirrors…

    Lies and damned lies…

    Scraping the barrel…

    I could go on all day!

    Sturgeon’s SNP – Award Winning Purveyors of Bovine Manure since 2014.

  18. Heaver says:

    Lintonbairn, in its current form the SNP is unionist.

  19. Liz g says:

    Ah I’ve just worked out Nicola’ s secret plan.
    She’s going to have the SNP self Identify as a local news paper ( cause the membership is forbidden from reading anything else ) and claim the Scottish Government millions ear marked for the media …. it’s so obvious now …it all makes so much sense.

    Well as much sense as any bloody thing else she’s done ….

  20. Thorfinn says:

    “…new Headquarters staff to support.. the complaints processes overseen by the National Secretary.” Sounds like they’re gearing up for a purge to me.

  21. Al-Stuart says:

    A great solution…



    To the all those with their fingerprints over this £600,000, all it takes is for one Winger or even one person concerned about the alleged criminality here to make a formal complaint to Police Scotland.

    IF you end up with a LAZY COP, sergeant or inspector who comes out with the tired and often unlawful mantra “not a police matter” way to dodge their duty to complete the legal paperwork or handling tricky subjects, use the magic words: “Then please accept this next missive as a formal complaint of neglect of duty against you and Mr Iain Livingstone”.

    More often than not that gets the lower-than-acceptable-standard uniformed person to DO THEIR JOB. It must be noted, MOST police officers sign up to do the right thing; most distinguish tehemselves by doing a job bravely, especially in these times of Covid. BUT middle management police officers know the Bourach the big bosses have made of the Alex Salmond stitch up and they would rather run into a burning building to rescue folk than touch the Murrells with a long barge pole..


  22. Checks notes says:

    How much did they spend on the database they are now abandoning? See notes 17 & 18 of the accounts. Not able to access that right now, alas.

    If I’m reading them right, looks like it’s been costing them 700k a year since 2016. Spend jumped from £235k in 2015, and £119k in 2014) for Office/computer equipment. The database seems to be listed as software licences and software development (approx £350k spend on each).

  23. Bob Mack says:

    They used to do this in a few organisations I worked for, under the heading of “cross charging”. They pay you the same rate to work in a different team, but there is no extra money.It comes from the same original budget.

    Clearly this is just a con to try and explain the missing funds, to which I donated.

  24. Socrates MacSporran says:

    You’ve got to, albeit grudgingly, respect the Unionists and their tame media.

    They are simply refusing to interrupt the SNP while they are piling mistake upon mistake and making absolute erses of themselves.

  25. Whits Happenin says:

    @Ian McLean Transfers out are monies given back to branch offices(their 25% of subscriptions from their members).

  26. David Earl says:

    Fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, theft, call it what you like but is there a case for a police investigation or getting solicitors involved if a group was to initiate it? This has Perjurer Pete’s stinking hands all over it in my opinion but others are also covering it up. I’m no longer a member but if I was I wouldn’t give them the steam off ma shite!

  27. Neil MacKenzie says:

    Local branches have their own funds held in their own accounts. Central party can call on branches to donate however much they choose whenever they choose. The party’s finances are much healthier than they may appear.

  28. Daisy Walker says:

    and their finances are even more ropey than that…

    How much will they have to find, in order to finance legitimate legal appeals against their gerrymandering ‘self ID onto the list as ‘disabled/BAME’. They’ve already been advised by a QC it is illegal and will cost them.

    And then, I suspect they might have legal challenges with their definition with Transphobia…

    It is one thing to adopt an established legal definition – for example ‘hate crime’, ie you can no longer be a member of the SNP if you commit a ‘hate crime’. That’s fair enough.

    But it is quite another, to state, you can no longer be a member of a Political Party (to which you have paid membership) if you contravene our made up, not fully published, legally inconsistent definition of ‘transphobia’.

    Political free speech and representation is protected, and the rules and regulations around how Political Parties and Politicians behave are numerous, often appear pedantic, but serve a purpose.

    I completely understand that there are Yes supporters who feel AS let the side down and behaved inappropriately, and that NS has singlehandedly driven support for Yes to the mid 55% levels with her Covid handling…

    Fair enough. But the NEC Gerrymandering and this mickey mouse ‘transphobia’ definition – are clearly, utterly illegal.

    It’s not so much a case of the lunatics have taken over the assylum. Its more that the head of the assylum has become a lunatic. Incompetence on a truely mad hatter scale.

    And will the SNP members have to fund the legal bill – when the ring fenced Indyref2 money is challenged – because, there is reasonable cause to suspect the crime of theft by Embezzlement has/is taking place, and the SNP high heid yins are the suspects.

    And if JC is hounded out, will she take them to court for constructive dismissal on the basis of homophobia. Pretty sure she’s got grounds for a case there…

    The only good thing is NS is where she is, and is not actually practising her version of ‘law’ on poor unsuspecting members of the public. ‘Qualified’ lawyer that she is.

  29. Sylvia says:

    “17 meetings. No minutes. No papers? Alex Salmond to accuse the government of covering-up plan to bury his legal action”

    “A written submission by Salmond is expected to be published tomorrow, followed by his appearance before the committee on Wednesday”

  30. ClanDonald says:

    So not only is the cash donated by non-SNP members for a Yes campaign being spent on SNP staff costs but some of these jobs have been created for close personal friends of Nicola Sturgeon who would otherwise be unemployed? Have the non-SNP members who donated this money been told that this is how it will be spent?

    And on the subject of Biagi, how many more of the dear leadership’s best pals have had a well paid post created for them now? In addition to Biagi there’s Somerville and Ruddick who both had very well paid senior posts created for them. What about Angus Robertson, who paid for his boring and ineffective Progress Scotland think-tank to be set up? How much does the SNP pay to it to carry out polling and other services? No doubt it will be wound up the minute he succeeds in getting himself back at the parliamentary trough. Any others that we know of?

    I wonder if Nicola’s other woke pal,Derek McKay will be found a quiet wee job somewhere when he finds himself on the dole come May the 6th?

  31. robertknight says:

    Must be tricky if you’re employed in the running of the SNP’s online shop…

    If someone mentions “mugs” you’ll have to check if it’s merchandise or members which are being referred to!

  32. holymacmoses says:

    I honestly believe that the Murrells have forgotten that there’s a distinction between the SNP and Government money. I shall be astonished if there hasn’t been some virement going on over the past 6 years. That’s why I think Peter Murrell acts so smugly when he says it can be available whenever he snaps his fingers.

  33. Lintonbairn says:


    No great fan of what’s going on around and within the SNP, but genuinely flummoxed how all this energy and activity is helping the Indy movement attract, persuade, influence the folks we need to get us over the line. The talent, insight and skill on here is phenomenal, but can’t help but think it could be channeled in a much more fruitful and rewarding direction. Indy is so much bigger than the SNP but it doesn’t feel like that here.

  34. Scott says:

    Dear Lintonbairn,

    This site posts pertinent facts regarding all politics in Scotland.

    How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?



  35. Bob Mack says:

    Are members not liable for any losses sustained by the party if they declare bankruptcy ? I think they are.

  36. Teetering says:

    Branches can take all the money out of their HQ account and keep it locally. At least that means members still control it.

  37. Dave M says:

    Surely “this financial year” ends in March/April? 2021-2 is next financial year.

  38. Tenruh says:

    Showing £2.247,000 members fees, that’ll be down below 1.5m this year, looks like on- line conferences in the future or maybe back to Perth Toon Hall

  39. holymacmoses says:

    Lintonbairn says:
    21 February, 2021 at 3:38 pm
    Maybees aye, maybees naw

    Even the Yoons didn’t stoop so low as to try to destroy an innocent man who has given most of his life to the idea of Independence.

  40. ANNE DONOHOE says:

    I’m not a member of the SNP, but I donated to the Yes.Scot fundraiser when it was set up.
    Ah’m no’ happy!

  41. Elle says:

    Any chance the cash has come via kickback from certain lobbying organisations in payment for services rendered? Happens all the time in politics, and the SNP haven’t half been bending over backwards to appease a certain group; mindbogglingly so.

    Goes without saying I’m just speculating here.

  42. Sharny Dubs says:

    Are you angry enough yet?

    Feel belittled?

    Feel deserted?

    Feel cheated?

    Feel like a mug?

    Welcome to the new SNP

  43. lawrenceab says:

    Among the several reasons why any referendum in 2021 is impossible is the climate fest COP25 in Glasgow that will bring UK Govt ministers, hangers on, foreign delegates, intl press, Greta Thunberg et al, and will basically shut Scottish politics down from at least August to October. Imagine Nicola surprising the world’s assembled delegates with an indyref campaign? Boris smiling at the sea of Saltires? No, I don’t think so, either.

  44. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Any chance the cash has come via kickback from certain lobbying organisations in payment for services rendered?”

    No. It would be extremely criminal for that not to be recorded in the party’s register of donations, which it isn’t.

  45. Bob Mack says:

    @Dave M,

    The official financial year yes. I think you will find The SNP accounts are not submitted till Oct \Nov.

  46. Jacqueline McMillan says:

    Thanks Stu

    Truth is usually a hard call, esp just now.

    At this particular moment in time it’s really, really hard.

    All the nasties coming out and this is just the start. Shocking.

    Thanks for being a strong Scottish man, an Honest man

  47. stonefree says:

    OK then it’s back to the money,
    Looking at the data on yesterday’s posting..
    The £600K has gone. On top of that , and given the SNP are a bit sketchy of financial details and as the data is limited
    I’m inclined to think there is another £500K to £750K adrift PLUS the legal costs how much was for Smith?
    If the figures had been clearer or more detailed Would the Money that Smith would have paid to Tice shown up somewhere?
    Why do I think that the SNP paid all Smith’s bill? The SNP management thought they are/were indestructible
    That was the Members money ring-fenced of course .
    Not the SNP’s ,not Sturgeon’s or anyone else’s
    It’s been about ten years since I did this stuff
    There are three types of misrepresentations—
    innocent misrepresentation,
    negligent misrepresentation, and
    fraudulent misrepresentation—all of which have varying remedies
    That kind of describes what it donating the peoples agreed that the money would be “ring-Fenced for a specific purpose” so donating was a contract
    And that leads on to the Theft act of 1967 or 1968
    And the SNP members don’t seem to give a rat’s arse about it.
    They are so dazzled by Sturgeon and Murrell
    If it was me I’d be writing a LBA (a Letter Before Action) and demand that the money be returned withing 14/21 days and that should they not comply you will be taking the SNP to court, you don’t need a lay firm and I think the cost is circa £60, and the minute it’s filed the SNP owe you that
    money as well

  48. LeggyPeggy says:

    If I remember correctly the Snp also sent out in 2019 approximately nine or ten emails to members asking for donations over and above their normal yearly membership fees .

  49. Jason Smoothpiece says:

    Any organisation which allows itself to Haemorrhage paying members at a shocking rate may very well find the money to be tight.

    One member leaving will not pay the annual membership fee. Will not purchase raffle tickets for the annual draw. Will not contribute to appeals. Will not buy from the online store.

    Multiply the above with hundreds or thousands of departing members bad stuff really stupid.

  50. Lintonbairn says:


    Hi Scott, I’m an occasional rather than regular visitor. Perhaps it’s just a ‘moment in time’ but there seems to be a very narrow focus at the moment. I remember when, for me, Wings did soar over Scotland and interested and engaged the ‘Indy curious’. Not sure that it will just now, indeed a good few folks tell me it’s a complete turn off. Why might that be? As I say, maybe it’s just where things are at just now. Nothing stands still. Cheers.

  51. stonefree says:

    @ Teetering at 4:08 pm

    I think that is incorrect

  52. Astonished says:

    The money (or lack of money) will be their downfall. I suspect jail time for some.

    Police Scotland what are you doing about all this missing money ?

  53. zebedee says:

    The £1.1m for staff is really strange. The 2019 accounts show that number (salary+social security+pension) for some 21 full time equivalents (FTEs). That would be an average of more than £50k per FTE, which seems extreme, given that the average clerical FTE salary in Scotland is just about £20k.

    It really looks like these people are paying themselves a fortune. What am I misunderstanding here?

    Who decides the salaries for the staff?

    Does anyone have remuneration figures for individuals, especially the most highly paid ones? Do SNP members not expect to have that information made available to them, since it’s their organisation, their money?

  54. kapelmeister says:

    Sturgeon & Murrell have wasted more money than the KLF whilst being bound for Woo Woo land.

  55. Peter A Bell says:

    Isn’t this actually about how to make disappeared money appear to reappear?

  56. Bob Mack says:


    It’s a complete turn off because it gives you the facts and the truth. Things we would rather not hear because it damaged our hopes and our dreams and beliefs.

    Once you accept that you feel better.

  57. Bob Mack says:

    @Peter A Bell,

    _,,,_and disappear again. Shazzam.

  58. Strathy says:

    Nothing to be spent on the forthcoming parliamentary election?!

    Is it still a political party?

    Perhaps it should be re-registered as a charity for the support of the First Minister’s husband and friends.

  59. Al-Stuart says:

    On reading the SNP minutes above where the word “Independence” is a rare at-risk endangered species in the dictionary and the word “trans” is like Japanese knotweed, if the 0.4% of the Nicola Sturgeon’s Woke Brigade believe it fair the can dump Independence as an objective of “HR21” with ZERO funds being returned to branches to fight HR21, then the answer must be…


    No more parasitic party-within-a-party. That is the oldest smoke-and-mirrors trick in the book for fucking up a political party. Militant Tendency did it to Labour decades ago and the ERG Brexit Group have pretty much taken over the Conservative Party which is why we crashed out of Europe and will lose a million jobs.

    It is now time to establishe the TWO legitimate parties…

    The STP ~ The Scottish Transgender Party (this is what Sturgeon’s lot if she and Penfold Murrell are still at liberty after this Wing’s article).

    And the new party..

    The NSNP ~ The New SNP. A clumsy title, but factually correct. Better still call it the…

    HSNP ~ The Honest SNP. In other words an SNP we can ALL support again. One that HONESTLY has IndyRef2 at its core and not this corrupt bunch of Woke thieves who cannot run a minodge, nor an organisations NEC meeting legally, nor look after members funds lawfully without the serious jail time problem of massive (alleged) embezzlement.

    One last thing on the amateur effort by the STP ~ SCOTTISH TRANSGENDER PARTY…

    Where are “legal costs” in those accounts. We know beyond reasonable doubt a LOT of SNP members funds were spent on legal fees. We here and Stuart Campbell have to pay our Wings legal fees and Stu., is impeccably clear about that.

    Alex Salmond had to pay his legal fees and he was impeccably clear about that.

    But where do the current imposter SNP/STP account for the money they squandered on legal fees in the above primary school effort at a set of accounts?

    Did we pay for the Murrells’ legal fees? Who paid Alyn Smyths legal fees for the TWO occasions he fucked up (don’t forget his drivelling apology when he was threatened with libel).

    Fuck it. Someone really needs to send in the forensic auditing unit from Police Scotland. Though frankly I would be happier if the Met Police sent their blue collar crime unit up.

    Stuart Campbell, this is one of your best pieces of research yet. Avon and Somerset Constabulary will be contacting you with an offer to join them as a Special Constable any day now 😉

  60. Confused says:

    Given that the SNP is by now – a TRANS RIGHTS LOBBY group, rather than a political party, could they not get a bung (as it were) from the lovely elven princess, JENNIFER PRITZKER.

  61. Meg merrilees says:

    Tenruh @ 4.09

    re Perth Town hall fir the next Conference – Aye, an Nicola can sit on the Stone of Destiny then. maybe that’s what she’s thinking!

    They must be using Donald Trump’s accountants! I don’t even think he would be THAT creative!

  62. Daisy Walker says:

    If I were a paid employee with the SNP, right about now, I would be seeking confirmation that my NI stamp was being paid, and assurances that any pension contributions/accumulated could not be raided by the party.

  63. David R says:

    When I saw the minutes yesterday the bit that leapt out was the new HQ staff helping local authorities with the complaints procedure. Why is the SNP sticking it’s nose into how local authorities handle complaints? It’s not as though the SNP or the Scottish government are exactly the gold standard and why is the SNP national secretary running it?

  64. Intractable Potsherd says:

    I wrote on Twitter yesterday that it looks as if someone is trying to drive the SNP into bankruptcy so it can never rise again. Nothing has changed that opinion so far.

  65. kapelmeister says:

    Monday through Friday Murrell must earn about £600 a day if the reports of his salary are accurate.

  66. 100%Yes says:

    It doesn’t look like voting for the SNP at all will bring the Scots or our country closer to Independence, 6yrs of Sturgeon leadership has brought endless trouble and none of the goals she talked about has come true. Endless mandates ignored countless Independence funds appeals setup this woman has done more to stop and destroy the SNP than what the UK government could have ever done during her reign. Is there any doubt in anyone mind that the return of the former FM to frontline politics is essential more now than ever, but why would Mr Salmond want to return after what his fellow countrywoman have just done to him. I would be mad to vote for the SNP who have denied me my right to a referendum for the last 6yrs and who have denied me my rights to remain an eu citizen for the last 6yrs and to give then another 5yrs to the SNP I would be consenting for the SNP to lie to me again.

  67. stonefree says:

    @ Bob Mack at 4:08 pm
    The main liability would be the Office Bearers, and the NEC as the members would not be involved in the finances of the association, then I don’t think they would have any liability.
    But the branch treasurer could have.
    It’s an interesting one

  68. Carol Neill says:

    Almost 1/4 of a million quid on miscellaneous! Our allotment committee get called to task if there’s 25 quid miscellaneous!!

  69. Glortard says:

    I can only speak for myself and people I know that have previously voted for independence that no longer wish that as the current Scotland that is governed by Sturgeon and her cronies would be 10x worse. For people that say vote SNP as its a means to an independence exactly what would that look like?

    Do you think for a minute that they would not seek to have a system whereby they maintain much more control that they have now? How more restrictive would some of their laws be? how much history would be rewritten?

    I retain my SNP membership and come the end of Covid will return to the branch meetings and argue against the current direction of the party. Hopefully I will not be thrown out! However I believe independence will only be gained by us regaining a party which is focussed on making Scotland a better country for all so its important people still within the SNP to fight for that even although it looks futile at times. It was here before Nicola.

  70. MikeD says:


    Look at Notes 20 & 21 in the 2019 accounts.

    Note 20 shows £879,488 as Prepayments and Accrued Income.

    Note 21 shows £582,238 as Amounts owed to Accounting Units.

    So the Asset (Prepayments) and the Liability (Amounts Owed) essentially cancel each other out. (There will be other Prepayments & Accrued Income beside the “ring-fenced” money which is why the amounts are different).

    This is why it is not included in Cash at Hand/Bank. In addition it is not money that is available for day to day SNP purposes which is what the cash at hand figure refers to.

    With regards to the £1.5 Million figure for election expenses that is certainly not currently available but I’m sure we will see lots of crowdfunders popping up soon.

    For anyone that wants to see the full accounts you can download them here…

  71. NS is employing a marketing con to dangle the carrot of an imminent Freedom Is around the corner with the Yes Camp to use them to benefit the SNP candidates in May’s election and keep the Yes campaign followers voting for her MSPS so she can keep control of power. She needs a few years break to relearn that success breeds success and she has failed as a leader by acting and mouthing the right words but sounding like she means it all but its Hold the ship steady and keep power that is her real strategy and to Hell with Indy 2. No doubt big donors money will be sitting in her vault given she serves big global companies these days and the Scottish people are just presented with an actor who looks and sounds good next to Boris the aristocratic Tory clown. The evidence in Gordon Dangerfield’s blog makes it clear she has to step down but is there any honor left inside her? For the sake of the SNP and INdy 2 she should step down

  72. Jontoscots20 says:

    I have just joined the ISP and made a decent donation. I am leaving the Labour Party which I have been I for Decades. I voted and secretly campaigned for Indy but was was always suspicious of the SNP. I worked closely with some of their politicians/ advisers in my technocratic day job, and was impressed by either their intellect ,integrity or commitment to independence. There may be other vehicles for independence, but unless you want to be on one that is weighed down by a band of self centred wagon jumpers it won’t be the SNP.

  73. Intractable Potsherd says:

    @Lintonbairn: if you can think of anything, anything at all, that the useless Unionists are doing that affects independence even half as much as what the SNP leadership is doing/not doing, please inform us.

  74. john rose says:

    @zebedee, staff costs are approximately double their salary. So 50k staff costs equates to a salary of 25-30k.

  75. Scott says:

    Dear Lintonbairn,

    Why are you so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

    How can presenting facts about any political party ever be a bad thing?

    If those facts turn people against independence at this “moment in time” then fair play to them for seeing what is currently being done in their name by the party in power. (The same party who claim to be the only conduit to achieving independence)

    With regards to your “good few” strawmen, if all of the other posts on this site hadn’t convinced them of the merits of independence then there’s be no loss of support is there?

    Highlighting what’s happening within the SNP isn’t designed to turn people off the idea of independence, it’s designed to inform the electorate in much the same way that Martin Keatings is.

    Reards again,


  76. Ian M says:

    Quite a ruse, that. Having spent the ‘ring-fenced’ money, they now pretend to spend exactly the same amount on a non-existent campaign, thus ‘balancing’ the books on an item that sounds vaguely like the original purpose it was raised for. Some cunning stunts there.

  77. Frank anderson says:

    I notice the Party spent more on Conference than they brought in! Absolutely unheard of. Most organisations see their annual,conference as their biggest fundraiser.
    How can they blow all that money? They then have the ability to take all Branch funds into the campaign teams for the Holyrood elections, as well.
    I suppose they have ‘interwoven’ millions for legal fees going forward.

  78. Bob Mack says:

    @Mike D,

    Prepayment is money you have spent. Office accomodation,rents,insurances and various liabilities you pay monthly throughout the year.

  79. Mike says:

    Tore my membership up a few years ago when I caught a whiff of what the SNP have become and glad I did as I want no part of this corrupt, phoney, hateful organisation.

    It needs to be gutted from the top down and completely rebuilt.

    How do they sleep at night?

  80. susanXX says:

    It seems the SNP is a totally rotten structure and all under NS’ watch. Damning.

  81. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Did Chapman ever reply to your request for clarification, Rev?”


  82. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “How much did they spend on the database they are now abandoning?”

  83. Muscleguy says:

    @Daisy Walker
    You can make a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland over a dodgy/incompetent lawyer. Short of nuking Glasgow how do we get rid of Sturgeon?

  84. James Horace says:

    Hi Stu,

    For me, we are about to enter the crucial fortnight.

    Both Salmond and Sturgeon to appear in front of the Committee, James Hamilton to give his verdict on whether Nicola Has breached the ministerial code, and Craig Murray’s verdict due too. I am sure there will be a few extra bits of drama along the way too…

    Will it be possible for you to create a aingle all-encompassing article on the corruption of Nicola Sturgeon?

    One that will make sense to the layman, who has not followed things too closely up till now? By all means, add some links to other posts/appendices, but the main piece should make sense to someone who knows little about the cover up, so far. A post which we can all share the absolute shit out of on Twitter, as the go-to guide on the whole sordid affair?

    Vevers of the Sun has done a nice timeline, which helps to explain one aspect of her misdeeds. But I know you can do better. What do you think?

  85. MikeD says:

    @Bob Mack

    What are accruals and prepayments?

    Accrual: A balance for an expense or income that will be paid/received in the current financial period but was actually incurred in the previous period

    Prepayment: A payment for an expense or income that was paid/received in a previous financial period but relates to an expense/income incurred in the current financial period

    So relates to both income and expenditure.

  86. zebedee says:

    Staff costs: as mentioned, SNP appears to be average just over £50k per employee.

    If I compare to the Scottish Labour Party accounts at £88k total.

    Note 4 says that Scottish Labour ‘made a contribution to five employees’ salary costs, all other staff costs were paid by the National Labour Party.’

    So we don’t know whether the 88/5 = 18k average was the total salary cost of those five employees. But if it was, then the average would be £18k, which seems a bit low.

    Looking at the Scottish Lib Dems:

    they have 144k staff costs, including 26k consulting fees, and they give an average monthly number of employees as 10, half of whom are ‘campaigns’ (i.e. low paid envelope lickers?). Average would be £14k which seems low.

    Scottish Green They say 5 FTEs and actually give an average staff cost: £27k. That seems believable.

    How about Plaid Cymru? They give average salary per employee of £37k, which is maybe a bit high?

    The format of all these financial statements is quite good, in that it is somewhat standardised. But within that, there is quite a lot of variation, as shown above. Some include consultancy and say so, others maybe do, but don’t say. Some break down the kind of employee. ScottiGreens give an average staff cost.

    SNP staff costs do appear to be far higher than those for any other party.

  87. Beaker says:

    Perhaps they are hoping for some advanced sales of The Speeches of Nicola Sturgeon.

  88. Bob Mack says:

    @Mike D,

    I can plan to stay at a building for a year and make allowance for that rent. I may decide to move after six months and so would seem to have saved six months money.
    I still need that six months money for another building.

    It is possible to see it as an asset but is in fact a liability

  89. Cenchos says:

    OT but relevant to some concerns raised in an earlier thread today.

    Remember this:

  90. Breeks says:

    Maybe this is the point in time when the SNP receives a massive bung from some big American Pharma Company which likes to sponsor Gender Reassignment Surgery, and recognises Scotland as a win-win investment and a vulnerable target.

    If Scotland stays in the U.K., the Scottish NHS is on the menu and ripe for privatisation. If Scotland goes for Indy, and rejoins the EU, then any US Pharma Companies who have established a foothold in Scotland’s NHS , suddenly have a back door into Europe.

    It’s pure speculation of course, but a couple of million is chicken feed in the greater scheme of things, but it might explain the SNP’s absurd fixation with Trans Extremism. Maybe the story isn’t in where the money has gone, but where it’s expected to come from.

  91. MikeD says:

    @Bob Mack

    Or you own the building and rent it out.

    You get 1 years rent in advance which is an asset but you ring-fence it to pay for rates, utilities, insurance etc that will become due which are liabilities.

    Because you have ring-fenced the money it is not cash in hand.

  92. Liz says:

    Teetering says:
    21 February, 2021 at 4:08 pm
    Branches can take all the money out of their HQ account and keep it locally. At least that means members still control it.

    They can, and many do,(or at least a fair portion of it) which is why the party’s accounts are better than appear on the audited accounts. Each branch/constituency Association has its own account (those who hold large accounts submit their own accounts to EC). In an election ALL branch money is available for the election. If they are a constituency branch they run it themselves, if part of a constituency association then the CA can access ALL the money in ALL its branches. HQ can demand a payment from all branches if required as they did in 2019 for EU election and Shetland bye -election.

  93. msdidi says:

    It will be interesting to see how much the Party will charge members to attend said rally “the largest online event of its kind”. Considering they charged an extortionate £6 for online attendance to their National Assembly on Independence I expect they will be hoping to make any members they have left contribute to funds by paying for this too!

  94. Daisy Walker says:

    Muscleguy says:
    21 February, 2021 at 5:15 pm

    @Daisy Walker
    You can make a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland over a dodgy/incompetent lawyer. Short of nuking Glasgow how do we get rid of Sturgeon?

    At the Ballot Box… May 2021 would be good.

  95. Biker Trash says:

    They must absolutely hate you Stu, but never mind, if they get there majority I’m sure there’ll be protection for you in the new Hate crime bill…

  96. Aquarius says:

    I have had the habit of reading the posts before contributing mu tuppence worth, and I appreciate that many who post know far more than I. I nearly posted this the other night but have not seen any reference to it so I thought that this FOI request might be of interest:

  97. Captain Yossarian says:

    ‘The head of Scotland’s civil service is expected to be heavily criticised in the Salmond inquiry report. Informed sources are predicting she will have to go, along with Peter Murrell and Liz Lloyd.’ – The Times

  98. Cooper says:

    Mairi Hunter will just run a coffee morning, nothing to see here!!!

  99. true scot says:

    Database spend very probably on sentiment analysis via Splunk. SNP were very keen on it. It pulls in data from multiple feeds incuding twitter and allows you to see reactions based on policy announcements etc. Does a lot more too. Not cheap.

  100. MikeD says:

    Here’s the definition of “Cash in hand and at bank” under the GAAP rules…

  101. Sylvia says:

    Breeks @5.29

    The Scottish Government has a strategic partnership with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) based in the USA. Between 2012 & 2018 paid £2,243,921.43

  102. Baxter says:

    Captain Yossarian @ 5:54pm

    The Times testing the water to see if a few sacrificial lambs will be enough, I would doubt it if Sturgeon and Swinney remain.

  103. Indy says:

    If you have the means.. I would have a look at Blair McDougals latest thread. He has searched for all the SNP MPs, MSPs activists who have ever shared your content or interested with your profile on Twitter.

    Humza, Alyn Smith.. it’s quite revealing and important given the latest developments. #WeeBlueBook

  104. Stoker says:

    Elle says on 21 February, 2021 at 4:15 pm
    “Any chance the cash has come via kickback from certain lobbying organisations in payment for services rendered? Happens all the time in politics, and the SNP haven’t half been bending over backwards to appease a certain group; mindbogglingly so.”

    I’ve been thinking something similar but with a slight difference. I know The Rev has responded to your original post and said it would be extremely criminal for it not to be recorded in the party’s register of donations, which it isn’t. But what if it was via a verbal “gentleman’s” agreement? For said “ring-fenced” equivalent to be donated *after* mission accomplished, ie: certain policies/laws are put in place?

    Just something that’s been eating away at me for a while. I know it would be utterly irresponsible to do anything on a gentleman’s agreement but this is the current SNP “leadership” we are talking about here. They have aided & abetted the prosecution of an innocent person of rape so they’d be capable of doing something comparatively simple as risking other peoples donations on a handshake.

  105. Stoker says:

    Yesterday i seen a tweet on Twitter saying that The Rev said he was packing it in if Sturgeon doesn’t resign through all this. I’ve not read every comment for months now so can anyone confirm if this is true or bullshit?

  106. Dan says:

    @ Indy

    Here’s the link. One wonders if they will all be ejected from the SNP…

  107. Stoker says:

    Baxter says on 21 February, 2021 at 6:03 pm
    “The Times testing the water to see if a few sacrificial lambs will be enough, I would doubt it if Sturgeon and Swinney remain.”

    I noticed that too on Twitter. Talking about Lesley Evans “possibly” being thrown under the bus. Do they think we’re that stupid? I already thought, way back when they should have binned her, that they were keeping her for a later date.

  108. Republicofscotland says:

    No wonder the SNP are skint with Murrell taking home £160,000 a year.

  109. Lenny Hartley says:

    O/T times reporting (sorry cant read article as behind paywall) however if Bawris got rid of him because he wanted to play hardball with SNP, is Bawris protecting Sturgeon?

    The head of Boris Johnson’s Union unit, set up to prevent Scottish independence, quit after the prime minister refused to give him extraordinary powers to pursue a “hardball” strategy to confront the SNP.

    Oliver Lewis, who resigned from Downing Street on Friday, had mapped out a strategy to deny a referendum and take the fight to first minister Nicola Sturgeon on her handling of domestic Scottish affairs.

  110. Beaker says:

    @Daisy Walker says:
    21 February, 2021 at 5:51 pm
    “Short of nuking Glasgow how do we get rid of Sturgeon?”

    A nuke in some parts of Glasgow would be considered as gentrification.

  111. Elmac says:

    MikeD @ 5.32pm

    “You get 1 years rent in advance which is an asset but you ring-fence it to pay for rates, utilities, insurance etc that will become due which are liabilities.

    Because you have ring-fenced the money it is not cash in hand.”

    Sorry Mike – if you have received rent in advance at the end of an accounting period it will already have been reflected in the bank account at the time it was received and may well have been spent on other things before the end of the accounting period. It cannot be treated as income as it is income for the next period and will instead show as a liability in the balance sheet under Deferred Income. Double entry bookkeeping – the debit goes to the bank account and the credit to deferred income. As far as expenditure for rates, utilities etc these would be treated as a liability at the end of the period to the extent that those expenses were incurred by that date but not paid. The overriding principle is to match income earned in a period ( whether received or not) with relevant expenditure (whether paid or not).

    Of course if it was ring fenced money that was received and not rental income, the normal treatment would be to deposit the funds in a separate bank account solely for that purpose and the balance sheet would then show that bank account as a separate asset and also show a liability for the same amount to the relevant fund. Restrictions on the use of that money should be covered in the notes to the accounts.

    Spot the retired accountant!

  112. MikeD says:


    Thanks for your reply and I acknowledge you know more about this than me as I’m relying on recollections of Higher Accounting 30 years ago.

    But if you have an asset of a prepayment or accrual and a liability of monies owed to another accounting unit is that not the double entry?

    The accounts in question are for the SNP Central Party so would the “Indyref” funds not be owed to another accounting unit?

  113. Bob Mack says:

    @Elmac Preciseley.

  114. Republicofscotland says:

    I don’t know if Craig Murray’s being fooled here by Chapman or not, on discussing SNP finances.

  115. Molly's Mum says:

    So, a couple of things reading this. One is that I’ve worked in a couple of public sector orgs where money was moved about to look like new money but was really the old money given a wee bit spit an’ polish. The best was where departments were renamed Business Units, and each Unit had a manager. However as with much of the public sector the desire for acronyms couldn’t be resisted and these Business Units Managers ended up being called B.U.M.s

    Very apt

    So instead of, say, getting a joiner from down the corridor to come and fix your dodgy office door, you had to submit a Works Order to the Works Dept B.U.M and it would take weeks to go through the system, and eventually said joiner would come and shake his head at your door then disappear for another couple of weeks. Then you would get a missive from the Works B.U.M. telling you it would be £80 to screw on a new handle (it was £100 for a new lightbulb because he had to do a risk assessment for the step ladder)

    Of course, we soon got fed up of this palaver and a quick visit to B&Q was sufficient to sort most things, no B.U.M. required.

    The other thing I was reminded of was the time our team requested a laptop – we had one desktop PC between five of us and a laptop would have helped us a lot to get work done. The Head of Dept said we could have a laptop when we hit budget.

    Except every time our team leader went in to a budget meeting and said “Ta-da ! We’ve hit budget, can I order the laptop ?” he would say “Eh, no….Team X hasn’t met their budget so I’m giving them money from yours. You need to make more money next month if you want your laptop” And the next month. And the next month.

    I was there for seven years – we never got the laptop. Every time we exceeded targets, he gave the money to other departments.

    It’s a bit like “One more mandate, another poll for YES, just a bit more money”

    It’s really just a load of BUMs

  116. Bob Mack says:

    SNP membership to old Treasurer” Where are the funds? ”

    Old Treasurer “Woven through the accounts”

    SNP members and Wings to new Treasurer ” where are the funds exactly? ”

    New Treasurer. No reply forthcoming.

    Many members and non members who contributers have asked including me. No reply.

    It should be easy enough to find don’t you think?

  117. Calgacus's wee brother says:

    Um, they paid over 300k for a software license?

  118. Lenny Hartley says:

    Sorry for above, it was meant to be tweet from McWhirter

  119. BS Whitworth says:

    I’m a Unionist and believe in honesty and free speech. Love the web site. Have a tenner.

  120. MikeD says:

    @Bob Mack & @elmac

    I could very well be wrong on my understanding but I don’t think I am.

    But another question is has Doug got any sort of accountancy experience?

  121. Elmac says:

    MikeD @ 6.32

    You’ve lost me a bit on that one Mike. The debit, or asset if you like, is created by the initial deposit of funds to the bank account. The corresponding credit would depend on the nature of the funds received. For instance, if it was bona fide income of the SNP for the accounting period then the credit would be to an income account, if it was income for a future period the credit would go to deferred income, and if the funds were received on behalf of another organisation or for a ring fenced purpose then the corresponding credit would be to a liability account.

    I think what may be confusing the issue is what happens to the money when it hits the bank account. If the money is rightly income of the SNP they can spend it on legitimate purposes in full or part, but if the funds are received on behalf of another organisation, or for a ring fenced purpose, then they must only use those funds in compliance with the conditions on which those funds were paid to them. In the case of the SNP it appears obvious that they spent the Indy money and little or nothing was left by the balance sheet date. Whether they had the right to do so is for the legal eagles to decide. To me it reeks of embezzlement, at the very least in a moral sense, and possibly criminal. Perhaps some of the contributors to the fund will take them to court – maybe a group action to cut down the cost to the individuals?

  122. Bob Mack says:

    @Mike D,

    He was a banker for a good many years though I’m not sure how far he rosd in the ranks. They usually have a good grasp of balance sheets. Was he not SNP spokesman on Small business?

  123. Lenny Hartley says:

    Bob Mack insaw on twitter last week that Douglas Chapman had called in a forensic accountant to try and find out what had happened to the finds, no links or backup im afraid.

  124. MikeD says:


    Look at the 2019 accounts and in particular the explanatory notes.

    Note 20 shows Prepayments and Accruals of £879,488 (Asset)

    Note 21 shows Amounts Owed to Accounting Units of £582,238 (Liability)

    So given these are the accounts for the party as a whole and the “indyref” funds aren’t for party use then of course that money won’t show up as Cash in hand/bank for party purposes and therefore has to be accounted as matching asset & liability?

  125. Paul says:

    All very depressing but trying to look at it from the UK establishments side I will be amazed if they don’t take this opportunity to expose Holyrood to the general public as a cesspit of corruption, sleaze, incompetence and outright criminality. Then they close it as a failed experiment and give no shits what anyone says. Sturgeon and others I think, will end up in the criminal courts to prove the point, leaving a hollowed out SNP.

    Even if the Party regroups and returns to its fundamental purpose it will have no power base beyond MPs in an English parliament and a few councils. I watched Rees Moggs gleeful expression taunting the SNP about Sturgeons upcoming difficulties when Salmond gives his evidence and I’m quite sure he knows the outcome for her and Scotland. Hope I’m wrong

  126. Captain Yossarian says:

    ‘Retweeting the scurrilous Wings Over Scotland blog is to be a disciplinary offence in the SNP.

    Here is a thread identifying some of those SNP politicians and party workers who must now presumably be considering their position.’

    From the excellent Iain MacWhirter. He no doubt recognizes that the FM is on the verge of a psychotic episode.

  127. ScottieDog says:

    “All very depressing but trying to look at it from the UK establishments side I will be amazed if they don’t take this opportunity to expose Holyrood to the general public as a cesspit of corruption, sleaze, incompetence and outright criminality. Then they close it as a failed experiment and give no shits what anyone says. Sturgeon and others I think, will end up in the criminal courts to prove the point, leaving a hollowed out SNP.“

    It probably benefits them more to see it continue and to ‘fail’.

    If it was closed, then the dominant pro-indy party in at the WM 2024 declares victory a plebiscite for indy. That was the SNP’s own policy for a long time.

  128. Bob Mack says:

    @Mike D,

    Very good. I admire you come in to try and make sense of it all. However we have a Treasurer who is unable to do that himself. One paragraph detailing where the funds are kept. One solitary paragraph. Nothing. Maybe He needs your creativity.

  129. iain mhor says:

    @Captain Yossarian 7:20pm

    It’ll be anyone found eating strawberries next…

  130. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Captain Yossarian (7.20) –

    Cheers for the heads-up about Ian MacWhirter’s Twitteration.

    Just had a look there. Some good stuff there. He’s certainly doing a braw job for this place!


  131. Strathy says:

    So the fixed assets are the now useless database, true value pretty much £0, and a load of second hand desks and computers. Let’s be generous and say ten grand the lot.

    So, £416,190 becomes £10,000 (real value rather than written down accounting value).

    Therefore, the net asset figure is really minus £134,274.

  132. Bob Mack says:

    Two Treasurers unable to say look at section 12 or section 23 “That’s where the money is”. Worrying

  133. PhilM says:

    @Molly’s Mum (6.40 pm)
    I’m sure you could not possibly comment but renaming depts as business units sounds like the Common Services Agency to me (NHSNSS).
    Am I right?

  134. Lothianlad says:

    I Absolutely despise this SNP. All those years of campaigning. Attending meetings,fundraising all for that poisoned witch of a FM to wreck the party and scupper independence.

    My children will be growing up I this horrible union because she and her careerist bastards chose wealth over freedom.

    Rather than delivering Independence, she has switched sides and became an advocate for the union.

    I fucking hate them all.

  135. Robert graham says:

    Reading a few comments , as you do
    One in particular caught my eye well two actually the original and the follow up
    Wouldn’t it be better if all this work and attention was directed at the Unionist parties no shit Sherlock eh now why have all these fools not been doing this eh since 2014 best part of 6 bloody years and where are we ” up shit creek ” not just without a Paddle the Captain has holed the boat and we are all bleedn sinking ,
    That’s yer answer Sherlock ,pissed off fed up and now very very fkn angry please feel free the next time you stop by take a ticket and stick it up yer arse in nicest possible way ,
    Have a nice day .
    Next .

  136. Elmac says:

    MikeD @ 7.18

    I had a good look at those accounts when the furore broke a couple of months ago and commented on here to the effect that there appeared to be no realistic possibility of any of the asset or liability categories in the 2019 balance sheet including the missing funds. I also looked at the accounts for the 2 prior years during the time the bulk of the money was received and saw no indication that an asset and corresponding liability had been set up.

    I think we have an example of Occam’s razor here. The most obvious explanation is that the funds were received and spent by the SNP, treated as their income, and spent for their purposes. At the last balance sheet date there was therefore no asset and no liability included in their figures. As I said moral embezzlement and possibly criminal. The police should be involved but I won’t hold my breath. They appear to act only on instructions which come through the chain of command – Sturgeon – Wolffe – COPFS – Chief Constable of Scottish Police.

  137. Mac says:

    You would think it would be illegal to do a fund raiser for a very specific purpose and explicitly promise people that the funds raised would be ‘ring-fenced’ until a specific event occurred (indyref2 in this case) but then go and spend the supposedly ring fenced monies on something completely different. You really would think the police would be looking at something like that. But not in Sturgeon’s Scotland it seems.

    The 600k is spent. It cant be unspent or brought back to life somehow. It is just gone. When you buy a pint of milk you don’t still consider the money you paid the shopkeeper yours somehow, ready to be deployed later at a moments notice.

    So I think you have nailed it here. What they now intend to do is to take pre-existing staff costs and convert them into ‘fighting indyref2’ costs despite the fact there is no idyref2 or any chance of indyref2 and these costs would have been spent exactly the same irrespective, meaning they are clearly not for indyref2 or anything like it.

    What will pay for these re-tasked run of the mill expenses will be run of the mill future revenues that have eff all to do with the original 600k that people gave.

    So the SNP are stealing off the donors of today to ‘pay off’ the the donors of yesterday who gave the missing, ring-fenced, 600k.

    Amongst all the other shit they have done, the SNP is now also a f**king ponzi scheme at this point. Bent as a nine pound note.

  138. TheMadMurph says:


    £350k for software licenses. I work with some pretty big databases and could see that sort of money for some of the software I work with, but really? Postgres is free and if your biggest table is possibly voters, your only talking about 5m+ entries for the whole of Scotland, including “future” voters.

    Jesus, what were they doing with our money?

  139. MikeD says:

    @Bob Mack

    Thank you!

    It is still possible that I’m wrong, but yes it would be so easy for the Treasurer to confirm/deny.

  140. cctxt says:

    O/T Does anyone know how the lads from aye right radio
    are doing ? – they seemingly vanished two or three weeks ago.

  141. MikeD says:


    So how do you explain the £582k owed to other accounting units then?

  142. Robespierre says:

    @ Ian MacLean. Transfers out is the 25% of members subs that are remitted to the branches.

  143. Mac says:

    Now that wings is officially taboo I think you should consider some merchandise options.

  144. Bob Mack says:

    @Mike D,

    If you were trying to hide a sum as large as £600,000 in the above accounts where would you hide it in plain view? I mean if you were devious and willing to take the risk you were not going to be audited any time soon?

  145. holymacmoses says:

    I have a feeling that the accounting alley may not simply be a blind alley but a dangerous alley for us to go down. If the Yoons want Sturgeon et al to stay in power it would be easy enough for them to whip up a couple of million and make us all look like knaves and liars. Numbers are as slippery as words.

  146. MikeD says:

    @Bob Mack

    But the accounts were audited by Johnston Carmichael LLP?

    I’ve got plenty to dislike the SNP about right now but I don’t think this issue is what everyone thinks it is.

  147. Mac says:

    It is not hidden, it is spent.

    If they still had the money (in its little ring fence) do you really think they would hide it.

    They have enough problems as it is without hiding it!

    C’mon folks. It is spent.

  148. Mac says:

    They are hiding that the money is gone, not hiding that it is there.

  149. Bob Mack says:


    The money is indeed spent Gone. We are just having a hypothetical discussion about possibilities. Mike cannot accept they could do that

  150. Garavelli Princip says:

    It’s a very interesting case of reverse accounting. In normal accounting you try to study the cost of an activity by absorption costing – allocating resources, people, space etc to activities – thereby ‘discovering’ the costs of those activities.

    Here we are seeing this reverse engineered – exiting staff are ‘allocated’ to supposed activities.

    Nothing actually changes – nothing is actually done – but magically an activity is conjured up out of nothing, merely by allocating – re-allocating resources to a supposed activity.

    Sometimes called creative accounting – otherwise known as fraud – but probably legal, since legitimately controlled by the managers involved.

    Utterly disreputable.

  151. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Please settle an argument…

    Is it true that Nicola Sturgeon, in the Scottish Parliament, once mentioned Wings and/or Rev Stu during a debate, or maybe FMQs?

    I say yea, my wicked adversary says ‘nae chance ya roaster!’.

    If she did (given that WOS is now taboo for SNPers, apparently at her command) does that mean she will be obliged to retrospectively discipline herself?

  152. Saffron Robe says:

    They are trying to fund a mirage with recycled money, having crossed over from reality into the realms of fantasy. They may have ring-fenced the £600,000 initially but couldn’t stop themselves feeding from the trough. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt, bereft of ideas and lacking in humanity. That’s what happens when you trample over all the values of decency. In a normal country the cream should rise to the top, in Scotland it’s the shite that floats.

  153. Sylvia says:


    Humza’s adoption night -Guest star – Martin Compston known for his lead role as Anti-Corruption Unit Detective Sergeant Steve Arnott in the BBC crime drama Line of Duty.

  154. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    Acht forget it folks, it’s gone.

    The money was spent on “wine, women and song.” Albeit not my kind of women which is a shame cos I like a good old party.

  155. Robert graham says:

    A what are you lot like , look as Father Ted said it’s really really really simple isn’t it Dougal ? It’s just like the telescope remember really close and far away that’s right isn’t it Mrs Doyle the money , remember the money it’s resting in another account , now have we all got the story right because I noticed the Garda drawing up and we wouldn’t want to confuse them would we ,
    It’s resting in another account Father Ted that’s it that’s grand now you can open the door Mrs Doyle .
    Aye sometimes fiction is more believable than these silly numbers on bits of paper I mean who believes that stuff that’s just for the little people not for us , we intellectuals are above that sort of thing the very thought is well beneath our commenting on the ridiculous assumption .

  156. John Cleary says:

    Mac says:
    21 February, 2021 at 7:45 pm
    Bent as a nine pound note.

    You youngsters. It’s “Bent as a nine-bob-note.”

  157. John Cleary says:

    AYRSHIRE ROB says:
    21 February, 2021 at 8:34 pm
    Acht forget it folks, it’s gone.

    The money was spent on “wine, women and song.”

    That’s right. And the rest was wasted!

  158. MikeD says:

    @Bob Mack

    Actually I just found out the SNP has 292 (Two Hundred and Ninety Two) Accounting Units so that might very well blow my theory out of the water.

  159. Elmac says:

    MikeD @ 7.50

    The figure for amounts owed to other accounting units I believe relates to funds received centrally which are held for later disbursement to Branches. The initial fund raising drive for Indy 2 had a target of £1m and was due to end in June 2017. At that time it was reputed that the fund stood at £482,000 and we know there were subsequent donations, probably in the order of £100k to £200k.

    If you looks at the SNP accounts the figures for Amounts owed to Accounting Units were as follows:

    At 31/12/16 £557,424
    At 31/12/17 506,235
    At 31/12/18 758,336
    At 31/12/19 582,238

    If the funds raised for Indyref2 had been included here you would have seen a massive jump in the balance during the year ended 31/12/17 whereas it dropped by over £50k to £506,235 and by no stretch of the imagination could that have included the Indy ref funds of £482k plus. The balance at 31/12/19 is relatively similar to that at 31/12/16.

    As Mac has said above the funds are gone, they are kaput, they are the financial equivalent of a Norwegian Blue. Stop clutching at straws, what we have here is a case of moral, if not criminal, embezzlement and the police should be investigating. Even Inspector Clouseau would be welcome at the moment – oh wait! He is French and we are out of Europe. Oh well we’ll just have to wait for the normal chain of command to kick in. Sturgeon – Wolffe – COPFS – Chief Constable of Scottish Police. I’m sure they will get round to it soon.

  160. MikeD says:


    Yes I’m revising my position having just found out that there are 292 accounting units in the party.

    What a tangled web they weave.

  161. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Sylvia @ 8.33pm

    What! You mean Humza is actually H?

  162. Scott says:

    @Ian Brotherhood

    Searching the Official Report gives 1 entry for “Stuart Campbell” >>!!stuart%20campbell!!

    None for “Wings Over Scotland” or “Wee Blue Book” or “Rev Stu”

  163. Alf Baird says:

    Its maybe time to bring up Tommy’s Republican Socialists folks, who appear to be the only party proposing a plebiscite election. That’s not entirely unexpected given postcolonial literature which tells us the pampered bourgeoisie elite in the dominant National Party sells us out and seeks only its own “accommodation with colonialism”, whereas the real ‘movement’ is the proletariat upon which independence ultimately depends.

    We need a party representing this movement that is serious about independence and demonstrates this by including independence in large print on the front page of its Election Manifesto and saying clearly that:

    “if a majority vote for Independence supporting Parties, then independence can be declared and an application to the UN can be made for international recognition. It’s that simple”! “Anything less is not good enough”

    The entire List vote should in my view be used as a plebiscite vote on independence and all serious pro-independence parties should support this.

  164. El Mariachi says:

    I know you’ll have likely seen this already Stu, but the fact that she quoted it verbatim made me laugh so hard.

  165. Sylvia says:

    Socrates MacSporran

    “Stranger Than Fiction”

  166. Ian Brotherhood says:

    The veteran Winger, BuggerThePanda, has run out of wine and has already tapped the neighbours.

    (They can’t get any more cause shops is shut, lockdown in France innit?)

    Please send prayers etc…


  167. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Scott (8.52) –

    Thanks for that.

    Looks like I’ve lost that bet…


  168. Scott says:

    @Ian Brotherhood

    You’re weclome, brurr.

  169. Republicofscotland says:

    Dugdale realises what she is, and then has the audacity to talk about decency.

    “Today I was called “a drooling halfwitted imbecile who doesn’t know what simple words mean” – 18mths after leaving elected politics. If you’re still amplifying this guy I know what side of decency you picked”

  170. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Ian B, I recall that Kez the Dug, was bleating about Wings and Nicla responded by saying she was not responsible for Wings or Stuart Campbell. Something like that.

  171. James Horace says:

    Are there any turbo-yoons on Twitter who you suddenly find yourself agreeing with on a worrying regular basis, when it comes to the need for Sturgeon to be binned?

  172. R Ross says:

    John Cleary at 8:38pm and Mac at 7:45

    From Spike Milligan’s ‘Puckoon’.

    “Here!” Barrington hastily counted out four brown ten shilling notes. “Brown, dat’s the colour of money,” thought Cafferty.

    Aye, I’m old enough too…

  173. Dan says:

    @ Alan Mackintosh

    Aye, both Kezia D and Ruth D have previously mentioned Stu / WOS during FM’s questions.
    Even if Nicola had there’s every chance it’ll be scrubbed from history so she’s distanced from any future purge / cleansing activities against those who have scorched feathers from flying to close to the sunlight of truth. 😉

    Altering / deleting history is something the SNP seem quite good at, though they’re not very discreet about it, as their own site history page still shows 404 error…

  174. StuartM says:

    Someone up above said that the accounts are for the whole Party. That’s not so – they are solely for the Party HQ. I will repost what I previously posted BTL in The Telescopes Eye

    I downloaded the SNP accounts from the Electoral Commission website. As someone who’s seen more than his share of company accounts they make peculiar reading, seemingly designed more to obscure rather than inform. On a cursory scan a few things jumped out at me:

    1) These accounts are for the year ended 31/12/19. Why are they being released 10 months later? This also implies that the AGM has not been held yet either. Companies are required to lodge accounts within 6 months (at least they are here in Australia, I assume similar in the UK) That’s for private and public companies, but in most listed public companies if the accounts were delayed that long there would be a shareholders’ revolt and the directors turfed out.

    2) These accounts are for the Head Office only and don’t include the local branches which these accounts refer to as “unconsolidated accounting units”. If the SNP was a public company it would be required to produce “consolidated financial statements” where the income & expenditure and assets & liabilities of all subsidiary companies (ie separate legal entities) are added together and intra-group transactions are eliminated. The purpose of this is so the profitability and financial position of the group as a whole can be visible and to limit scope for accounting skullduggery. In the case of the SNP I would expect the HO and the local branches to be part of the one legal entity, so the accounts should reflect all of the SNP’s activities. They don’t. Why the Electoral Commission allows this I don’t know. Are the branches separate legal entities who submit their accounts separately?

    After writing the above I saw Note 1 to the accounts that states “the SNP is not incorporated in law and thus not bound by the Companies Act 2006. The Party … is required to prepare financial statements in accordance with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 (PPERA). … As stated in the Annual Review the Party has 292 accounting reporting units. …. These accounts are unconsolidated and present the accounts of the Central Party only.” While answering the question of why the accounts don’t comply with the Companies Act this raises a host of others. 292 accounting units? How about a list of them in the Annual Report – seems excessive in a small country like Scotland. Are the IndyRef funds parked in one of them? If so, why not include that in the Annual Report? Regardless of what minimal disclosure PPERA may allow I’d still want to see consolidated accounts and full disclosure to the standards of a public company. For example are there debts in those accounting units that the SNP are liable for? Where are the “ring-fenced” IndyRef money?
    (Update: These 291 other Accounting Units obviously include Branches and Constituency Associations as well as the Westminster Parliament Group. However the number seems unusually large. The Annual Review states that a full list is available from Party HQ on request. Good luck with that given their track record of never replying to emails)

    3) The financial activities of SNP Head Office are relatively simple: they receive member dues, allocate monies to branches, pay salaries and office expenses. The election campaign of December 2019 adds a little more complexity but most of the expenditure would have been incurred a couple of weeks in advance and the invoices for printing, travel etc submitted promptly. Any competent accountant could have the accounts ready within 2 weeks or 4 at the most. The biggest delay is probably the availability of the auditor, for whom the SNP is not likely to be his most important client. However I would expect that the audited accounts could comfortably be available at the latest by 3 months and the AGM held within 4. This stuff about “we have to wait for the Electoral Commission to release the accounts” is nonsense. The Electoral Commission doesn’t audit the SNP’s accounts, at most it probably checks that the donations agree with those declared to it. The SNP’s primary duty is to its members and there is nothing to prevent it issuing the Annual Report and Accounts to members and holding its AGM without asking for the EC’s approval. I’d think that the SNP’s Articles of Association would have something to say about this.

    4) The first thing that strikes me about the Balance Sheet is how much white space there is and how little text. Current Assets and Current Liabilities (both totalling Pds2+million) consist of 2 lines each, the same amount of space as is devoted to furniture and computers totalling Pds134,400. In order to get details of the CA or CL items you have to dig into the footnotes. It’s almost as if they’re trying to hide something!

    The second thing to notice is that Current Liabilities (“CL”) of Pds1.225M exceeds Current Assets (“CA”) of Pds1.097M, meaning they are technically insolvent (and were so in 2018 too). “Current” refers to assets that can be realised and liabilities that are payable within the next 12 months. How has the SNP survived? Diving into Note 21 we find that the largest items are 357K in Trade Creditors and 582K in “Amounts owed to accounting units” ie the local branches. The bulk of the Trade Creditors presumably relate to the December 2019 election and since normal trade terms are 30 days and the 357K greatly exceeds the 97K in the bank the HO presumably either went into overdraft or delayed payment to the creditors. The 582K owed to the branches is why the SNP HO is still afloat. This appears to be mostly the branches’ 25% share of members’ 2019 subscriptions – 561,836. So HO collects the subscriptions this year and pays the branches their share of 2019 subscriptions out of 2020 subscriptions. Since they owed the branches 758K at 31/12/18 it seems this questionable practice has been going on for some time.

    5) Turning to the Current Assets, there are 67K in Trade Debtors and 54K in Other Debtors. I suppose the Other Debtors could represent legacies they’ve been notified about but not yet paid, however I’d have thought it more prudent to book those as income only when the cash is in the bank. As for Trade Debtors it’s difficult to imagine what these might be for a political party unless they’ve been accepting ads in the party magazine and election literature. But the lion’s share of the 1M in CA is 879K in Prepayments and Accrued Income. Prepayments are expenses that you pay for in advance, such as insurance, mobile phone and internet usage, however it’s hard to see them adding up to 879K. (Unless of course
    Murrell and Ruddick et al are getting paid their enormous salaries 12 months in advance) It’s also difficult to see what the accrued income could be.

    6) The IndyRef funds are not the only funds supposedly “ring-fenced” but aren’t. The accounts state that the Parliamentary Levy is “ring-fenced for national campaign purposes”. With both an EU and a HoC election in 2019 I’d expect all those funds to be spent by 31/12/19, however there should have been money in the “ring-fenced” fund at 31/12/18. Maybe it’s part of the 411K cash in the bank but I’d want it to be in a separate bank account disclosed as a separate line item and with a reconciliation of the movement in that account during the year.

    It is clear to me from the above that the Head Office is hopelessly insolvent and the only way out of this is for the branches to forgive the outstanding branch share of dues on the basis that their share will be paid promptly in future. Why not do that? My guess is because it would expose Murrell’s mismanagement and he and others would be forced out. In addition, the Income and Expenditure needs to be placed on a sustainable basis – which means job cuts at HO.

  175. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    Alf Baird: ‘That’s not entirely unexpected given postcolonial literature which tells us the pampered bourgeoisie elite in the dominant National Party sells us out and seeks only its own “accommodation with colonialism”, whereas the real ‘movement’ is the proletariat upon which independence ultimately depends.’

    Who do you expect to win over, writing like a first year humanities student? Seriously.

  176. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    kapelmeister: good call on the KLF! Listened to that classic song earlier on this evening. “They’re justified, and they’re ancient, and they drive an ice cream van” has to be one of the best lyrics ever written. 🙂

  177. Astonished says:

    ” BS Whitworth says:
    21 February, 2021 at 6:50 pm
    I’m a Unionist and believe in honesty and free speech. Love the web site. Have a tenner. ”

    Bravo, Sir.

    I have a pal who is a decent, cultural yoon ( not a rangers fan – before you ask). He is very slowly changing to yes. And my admitting that sturgeon is a disaster has helped enormously.

    If we clean out our own house – we may be the better for it.

    The woke may yet deliver independence.

    P.S. Transwomen are just men in dresses ( I recommend everyone puts this at the end of their posts, twitter feeds, letters , gas bills etc.) Humza can’t send us all to jail – although the privately-educated barsteward will try.

  178. R Ross says:

    WhoRattledYourCage at 9:38pm

    I’d a big sister who talked like that. Mind you, as a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party she had an excuse.

  179. kapelmeister says:

    WRYC @9:38

    Yes, brilliant bathos.

  180. Kenny J says:

    Re the accounts, I seem to remember the treasurer of my (ex) branch saying that head office had access, and the ability to remove however much they wished, from the branch account.

  181. Alf Baird says:


    I was unaware of your superior knowledge on postcolonial realities and how Scotland fits into that.

    You do know that decolonization independence is politically revolutionary, yeh?

    Let’s hear your learned synopsis of how things should play out, and the role of bourgeois parties in that.

  182. StuartM says:

    The short version of the accounts:

    1) Murrell & Co are snowing the membership by releasing the accounts 10 months after the fact and having inadequate disclosure with the aim of hiding the facts. The best that can be said is that they’re (probably) arithmetically correct.

    2) The 97K in the bank at 31/12/19 is an illusion. They had 357K in Trade Creditors due and payable in January if not already overdue. They either had to go into overdraft or pay it out of 2020 subscriptions. My guess is that’s why they “suspended the branch dividend” in 2020 as they didn’t have the cash.

    3) The party HO is hopelessly insolvent and only stays afloat by not paying the branches their 25% share of members subs until the following year. With Colin Beattie suspending the branch “dividend” (actually branches’ 25% share) they’re not even doing that. They’re robbing Peter to pay Paul and with a rapidly declining membership and thus declining subscription income they’re headed for the cliff. In fact, Beatties’ “25% reduction in income due to lockdown” sounds like BS to cover up their loss of membership.

    4) The Party HQ has absolutely no financial discipline over their expenditure. To cover it up they count any money coming in as ordinary income and spend it on day-to-day running costs, principally inflated salaries for themselves and their chums. Appointing Sue Ruddick as Chief Operating Officer is indefensible. COOs are in multinational businesses with scores of subsidiary companies and divisions, not a penny-ante 5 million quid political party. Now they’re putting Marco Biageo on the payroll too! Hey why not, it’s only the membership’s money. That’s where your IndyRef cash went – into Murrell’s pockets and those of the pals in the form of salaries.

    5) The loss on the 2019 Annual Conference is almost entirely due to a 100K increase in Audiovisual costs over 2018. Was the Dear Leader starring in her own Hollywood movie?

    6) Large one-off donations like legacies from deceased members’ estates have been treated as ordinary income and used to fund ordinary running expenses. Since you can’t rely on members popping off on schedule this is incredibly reckless. The HO should reduce its expenditure to the level of recurring income from members subs and use windfall or large donations to build up a warchest to fight elections. That means wielding the axe at HO – Murrell & Ruddick should be the first to go.

  183. Nicola's Merkin says:

    SNP branches operate two bank accounts. One contains funds they have raised themselves via the ubiquitous raffles & auctions of tat etc. They are free to spend this on legitimate expenses.

    The other account contains funds received from head office: a portion of the branch members subs. This cash can be spent, but head office can dip into this e.g. sums are removed to pay for national campaign expenses such as ludicrous numbers of I’m with Nicola pens, leaflets and Nicola’s chopper. No I’m not suggesting she’s had reassignment surgery.

    The amount of cash in these accounts varies depending on how many elections have occurred, but a five figure sum in one or both is possible.

    Where these funds appear in the accounts I can’t say.

  184. Nicola's Merkin says:

    £300k in software licences is probably what they call *Activate. This is used to store canvassing returns. Not sure if it is the same system that is used for tightly controlled emails in branches: office bearers can send a very limited no. of emails per week. One it two I think! I’m sure I heard head office were charged per email. Perhaps that is an excuse for tight control. In any case, it’s shit.

    *I think Activate is this:

  185. Nicola's Merkin says:

    Having looked, I think it is the same software for canvassing & communications.

  186. AnnoyedDonor says:

    @Checks notes
    Hi, you’re not reading it right !! They’re spending about 130k ish per annum on the software/license stuff, in accounting terms, it’s in the Income statement, within depreciation/amortisation. In notes 17/18 you need to look at the amortisation CHARGE for the year.
    In real money, they spent most of it in 2015, it could have appeared in the expences as a one-off charge, instead it was capitalised and so appears on the balance sheet as an intangible asset, which they then amortise (depreciation for intangibles) it with an amount every year.

    I’ve not got through all the years yet, but I’ve looked at 2013 to 2018 (about half way through 2018). From a newspaper article, they raised indy ref money in 2017 and another year (2019 ?? I’d need to refresh my memory), and in October 2020 they said they had ringfenced money for indy ref campaign.

    So, I’ve not looked at 2019 yet, but …. (actually, just had a quick glance at 2019) ….

    Accrued income = a good or service that HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED, but you have not received payment for.
    I do not believe the indy ref money would be catagorised as accrued income.

    Deferred income = MONEY YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED, but you have NOT YET provided the goods/service for.

    The indy ref donations we are discussing is deferred income (IF they chose to account for it in that way !!). They got the money in the bank (an asset), balanced against a deferred income entry (a liability – as you owe the “goods or service”).

    If they still had the actual cash, they would have it in the bank, or they’d have it as a cash equivelant, there’d then be a balancing entry somewhere for it.

    I mean, in 2017, they could have put some of that notional surplus for the year into the reserves in a restricted fund (as they did for something or other in 2013), the actual cash would still be spent, but at least there’d be a notion of a ring fenced fund somewhere.

    Equally, they could have had a “deferred income” entry in the liabilities somewhere covering the notion of it being reserved somewhere within the acounts (the actual cash is still spent of course).

    According to a National article in Oct 2020, it states that in 2017 the push raised £482,000 and that there was £593,501 ready to be deployed instantly. They finished 2017 with about 8k in the bank. They had 411k ish in the bank at end of 2018.
    There’s no deferred income entry in the 2018 accounts that would cover 482k, nor is their anything nominally shown in the “reserves” section.

    Of course, I could be talking out my arse, and I’d absolutely love someone to point out where this “ring fenced” money is.

  187. Kiwilassie says:

    Lintonbairn 3:38pm

    Scott asks. Are you being obtuse?
    I don’t think you are. You know very well why you post in the manner you do.
    You don’t give clear opinions on what the subject of a thread is about, instead you ask questions of posters here, albeit in a civil manner to glean information. For some reason you seem to be a square peg in a round hole here.

    Why so many questions? what is your real motive coming into WOS?
    Surely if you live in Scotland, the questions you ask should be unnecessary. You should already know the answers.

    I live in NZ. I’ve been away for 50 years. Even I don’t need to ask posters here the questions you have been asking.
    What are you up to eh?

  188. Kiwilassie says:

    Cenchos says:
    21 February, 2021 at 5:28 pm
    OT but relevant to some concerns raised in an earlier thread today.

    Remember this:

    Wow! That is really scary. Make no wonder you have so many young people with weird ideas about sex in Scotland.
    That is not a healthy school environment for young children under 12 yrs.

    My son who is now 45yrs. When he was in primary. I bough weekly editions of a magazine Man & Woman. There was 50 plus editions & it covered every aspect of human relations. from teenagers to couples after 60yrs.
    Yes even I as an adult got quite an education. LOL

    Even though I bought them when he was about 6/7 years, He didn’t get access to them till he was about 11/12 years old.
    It was the best thing I could have done for him, he found it easy to talk with me on subjects he found confusing.

    I’m a true believer parents should be in charge of their childs sexual education. We all want our children to become happy adults & respect those of the opposite sex as equals.

    No wonder there are so many young people/children needing mental health care, if this is the type of thing they’re exposed to at 6/7 years old.
    Shame on Swinny & the SNP.

  189. Boaby says:

    Well despite all the begging letters i received whilst still a member of the snp, thank xxxx i gave them nothing towards wishart and murrells pensions.

  190. Matthew Statue says:

    the SNP put the 600k through thier INCOME STATEMENT. If as
    these were ring-fenced funds there should have been entries made only in the BALANCE SHEET; debit cash, credit loans.

    By accounting for the transfer of funds i.e. a LOAN between two legal entities as INCOME is improper.

    It needs to be ascertained how the transfer was recorded/accounted for in the entities which transferred the funds to the SNP.

    If they show a loan receivable from the SNP that is an asset which should be repaid, if it is shown as an EXPENSE in their
    INCOME statement, I would venture that this is fraud as the funds were spent by giving it to the SNP.

    In summary, the answers lie with the two entities used to collect the 600k.

  191. Boaby says:

    Kiwilassie 9.13am. I’d like to see them try that with muslim parents. This sort of perversion was quickly dropped at a birmingham school when muslim parents protested.

  192. Christian Schmidt says:

    Fundraising income £316k, fundraising costs £209k – surly some mistake???

  193. Kiwilassie says:

    Thanks for that Indy. Here is the link. Looks like the whole of the SNP politicians have visited this site. Will Nicola ban them all from the party? LOL

  194. Quoth the Raven says:

    Despicable She.
    Currently re-casting Dr. Nefario…

    Woven through the fabric of this post – my contempt for the current Scottish government.

  195. Cuilean says:

    As the SNP has only £96,854 in the bank, how is it going to pay Mr Murrell’s annual 6-figure plus salary?

    THis means that every penny paid by low paid, barely keeping it together, members into the SNP’s coffers goes direct to keeping the Murrells in their very fancy coffee machines.

  196. David Caledonia says:

    They get a fiver a year off me and that’s their lot, and they can keep their raffle tickets, but keep sending those nice little stickers with my name on them.
    Well it saves me using my own stamp with my name and address which I purchased many years ago
    Thank you SNP, and thank you nicola for your christmas card, sorry to say my hamster shit all over it, so I had to throw it out, the little fellow likes a clean house, and your christmas card affected his little tummy

  197. David Caledonia says:

    Yesterday I used the herald, poor little hammy, never seen so much shit in all my life, my own fault for learning him to read

  198. AnnoyedDonor says:

    Another observation.
    Does anyone know what Note 27 of the 2019 accounts is trying to say ?

    Opening net funds ?
    Cash and cash equivalents £716,398
    But cash at the start of 2019 was 411,042 so what’s the 305,356 meant to be ?

    Cash flows to entity (468,756) what the heck is that, where does that figure come from ?

    Maybe this has been discussed before, last year, and I’m just late to the game !

  199. stonefree says:

    Where did they spend the money? apart form the Murrell/Smith one and all chancers

    Branch money was allegedly being spent on Election costs , the printing was done via Edinburgh as a group cost money floating about branch to Edinburgh and visa versa
    No sane party would spend what appears to be 4 times the money on printing ie you don’t need for example 6000 in a constituency of 1400.or that kind of proportion .
    Paying Canvassers ? Outwith the timescale of the election, where did that money come from Note it can’t really be declared…One can’t help but asking yourselves “where did that come from?”
    Again the canvassers, what was getting paid, let’s say £100 per day for 5 days per week , and there are 5 of them
    £2500 per week , Consider that runs for 8 weeks between September and May ……£20,000
    The spending limit is blown out the water before any calculation for the whole constituency
    If they had big donors relatively easy to disguise , but the problem is there are no donors, and it’s been operating like that since 2015 or there abouts
    Of course that was hypothetical
    None the less it’s a ponzi scheme in it’s death knells
    I noticed a couple of references to software cost
    the figures were high, but Cambridge Analytica would seem the ideal source for Murrell to get the juicy little tit bits on the troops, noting it was virtually mandatory to have a facebook account

  200. John Cleary says:

    I’ve been following Scottish independence closely now for about six months, and so have formed a view of the protagonists. Nicola Sturgeon puts me in mind of Lady Mary Archer, someone I knew for about four years. She is oh so sweet and polished on the outside – indeed a High Court judge famously said of her “is she not sweet? Is she not fragrant?”. But on the inside….phew!

    I believe it comes from a sense of impunity, a sense they can do anything they like, however disgusting and depraved, and there is nobody that can touch them because they are best female friends with Queen Elizabeth II. And the result is, well, abomination.

    Let me give you some insights.

    The source of wealth for Lord Archer is Lloyds of London, specifically the asbestosis fraud. The quotes I am about to relate come from David McClintick’s “The Decline and Fall of Lloyds of London”, Time Magazine Europe, February 21 2000 vol 155 no 7

    Caressed by a soft breeze, Ralph Rokeby-Johnson and Roger Bradley surveyed the forbidding fourth hole of the vintage Walton Heath golf course south of London. It was a bright Thursday in early October, 1973. ??”Orator, you’re not orating,” Rokeby-Johnson said. “Have I upset you?” Rokeby-Johnson had been needling the normally loquacious Bradley for inside information since they’d teed off in the autumn golf outing of Lloyd’s of London, the world’s pre-eminent insurance market. Bradley and Rokeby-Johnson were leading executives at competing firms in the market and Lloyd’s men maintained a spirited rivalry in golf as well as business. ???But as they shop-talked their way along the first three holes, “Orator” Bradley had fallen silent, because he sensed that Rokeby-Johnson was himself harboring information that could prove explosive: the threat to Lloyd’s posed by asbestos, the ubiquitous, benign-looking insulation material that was slowly but surely infecting workers in the asbestos industry with deadly lung diseases–asbestosis and cancer–prompting lawsuits and insurance claims in America. ??”What can you tell me?” Bradley finally asked as they idled on the fourth tee, waiting for the players ahead to clear the green. ??”What I can tell you,” Rokeby-Johnson replied in a stage whisper, “is that asbestosis is going to change the wealth of nations. It will bankrupt Lloyd’s of London and there is nothing we can do to stop it.”

    It was Jefrey Archer who devised a means to turn an impending disaster into the Midas touch.

    Fast forward to February 2000. Over a quarter of a century has passed since Ralph Rokeby-Johnson shared his apocalyptic vision with Orator Bradley. Legendary Lloyd’s of London, pioneer of the insurance industry and synonymous with it, has escaped bankruptcy. But the organization that was once part of the very bedrock of Britannia has been devastated by losses including massive compensation claims from American workers afflicted by asbestosis and lung cancer. The wealth of nations may not have changed dramatically, but Lloyd’s fundamental character has changed, and thousands of Lloyd’s investors–the so-called Names who pledge all their personal wealth to underwrite insurance policies issued by Lloyd’s syndicates–have been ruined. ??The decline and fall of Lloyd’s, like all engrossing tragedies, has been building to a spectacular d?nouement. The final act is now upon us and waiting in the wings are a group of Names who could yet prove to be Lloyd’s nemesis. These are the dissident investors, including members of the so-called United Names Organization, who have refused to settle their asbestos-related debts with Lloyd’s because, they claim, they are the victims of a massive and calculated swindle. Back in the 1980s, they argue, Lloyd’s duped them into becoming Names by fraudulently misrepresenting its profitability and concealing the ruinous asbestosis losses that were in the pipeline. ??Do they have a case? The truth, they say, will soon out. Later this month, in what could prove to be the trial of the new century, the Lloyd’s dissidents will claim in England’s High Court that they have been the victims, not just of negligent underwriting, but of one of the greatest fraudulent conspiracies of all time. They will argue that they were recruited to Lloyd’s at a time when the 300-year-old institution knew it was facing massive asbestosis claims and needed extra capital to absorb its forecast losses. The dissident Names will further charge that this massive fraud was not the work of a few posh-mannered, money-grubbing Lloyd’s underwriters, but was condoned and indeed orchestrated by the Lloyd’s hierarchy itself. ?

    How much was involved?

    Admonished by their partners to stop the shop-talk, Bradley and Rokeby-Johnson dropped the subject until after the game when they settled with drinks in a corner of the tweedy bar of the clubhouse. ??”Were you serious about asbestosis destroying Lloyd’s?” Bradley asked. ??”Of course,” Rokeby-Johnson replied. On the back of his scorecard, he then proceeded to calculate that Lloyd’s could be swamped by claims far in excess of the market’s ability to pay–perhaps as much as $120 billion by the year 2000. ??”Do you mean ‘million’ or ‘billion’?” the incredulous Bradley asked. ??”Billion,” Rokeby-Johnson stressed. “It’s the time bombs that worry me.” ??”What are the time bombs?” ??”The time bombs are the young victims [of asbestosis] who will gradually develop lung disease. When they die, the lawyers are going to have a field day. Pick a figure, but it won’t be far off what I’ve told you. See whether I am right. I shall be gone long before you.”

    The day after the golf match, Bradley recounted the conversation to a senior Lloyd’s colleague who warned him against repeating it to anyone else. It seemed to Bradley then that at least a few Lloyd’s insiders were aware of the looming asbestos problem even as they recruited new Names to bolster the market’s capital base. ??And recruit they did. The number of names soared beyond 7,000 in the early ’70s to 14,000 in 1978 and reached over 34,000 by the late ’80s. After nearly three centuries of genteel, discreet one-by-one recruitment in Britain, Lloyd’s salesmen fanned out across the world, especially North America, touting Lloyd’s as an exclusive club offering secure investments to only a select few who qualified for membership. According to many of these new recruits, the Lloyd’s sales pitch promised not only risk-free profits, but the opportunity to join an elite and prestigious “society” which had existed for 300 years and whose membership included titled British aristocrats. New investors signed up in droves. As one Name recalled later, “You don’t need to drop the names of many English earls to attract a bunch of North American dentists.”

    Evans says the clinching argument for joining came again from Coleridge, who boasted to recruits that Lloyd’s was backed by its own act of Parliament. “He said, ‘Parliament would never have passed the act had Lloyd’s accounts and regulation not been impeccable.’ I thought to myself, if Parliament has given its seal of approval to Lloyd’s, what more do I need?”

    None the wiser, Parliament on July 23, 1982, gave Lloyd’s its exemption from lawsuits. It could be held liable for damages only if a plaintiff could prove “bad faith,” which is difficult to establish under English law where the “buyer-beware” principle is more firmly established than in the U.S. (an obstacle the Jaffray suit will have to surmount). Not only was Lloyd’s still self-regulating, it was empowered to determine itself what was meant by the notion of self-regulation, unilaterally making rules governing its operations, without answering to any outside authority, even Parliament. Lloyd’s secrets were still safe.

    And Jeffrey Archer, what was his big idea?

    In 1986, Lloyd’s quietly added a clause to its contract with investors. Any legal dispute over the investment would have to be resolved in England under English law. Investors were not told that Parliament four years earlier had effectively inoculated Lloyd’s from lawsuits in England…..Most lawsuits by private investors against Lloyd’s in the U.S. were stymied, too. The fraud allegations for the most part never got a hearing because Lloyd’s invoked the clause it had slipped into its contracts with investors beginning in 1986 calling for any legal disputes to be litigated in England. Even though the investors argued that they had been tricked into signing that clause–and Americans’ rights under U. S. securities laws generally cannot be waived by such contracts–U.S. appellate courts ruled that the contracts were valid and that Names had to sue Lloyd’s in England.

    Archer has a plot in one of his books where a contract is central. One protagonist asks another “Did he sign”? And the other replies “Yes, he didn’t see that, nor any of the other three clauses I had slipped in.”

    If you understand what happened you will understand why Lord and Lady Archer are such favourites of the British royal family.

    But my point is about Mary Archer, and the blackness within. It was not enough for this person to reduce others to absolute penury, oh no. She had herself appointed as Chair of the Lloyds Hardship Committee.

    If you tell Lloyds you cannot pay your bill you can claim hardship. But you will have to justify yourself before this committee. Can you imagine Mary’s joy and pleasure at making others beg for mercy? Her ecstasy as she noses through the most personal matters of other women she has just cut down to size. She probably became quite moist at the excitement of it all.

    No, this is not my imagination. When “Lady” Archer got rid of her secretary for “disloyalty” she didn’t just fire her. She sued her, took away her house and bankrupted the poor woman. Remember, she’s best friends with the Queen.

    These people are monsters. And Nicola Sturgeon is one of them.

    Note to Rev. Stu. I do not have a link to the Time Magazine piece, but i’d be happy to post the entire text if your readers are interested.

  201. twathater says:

    @ John Cleary 2.17pm It’s always not what you know but WHO you know , twas ever thus , and as for Sturgeon acting lessons not required

  202. Studhog says:

    292 accounting units.
    I’m guessing each constituency branch has several affiliates, eg: TUG, BAME, Scots Asians (strange as I thought they would be included under BAME).
    There is also Out for Indy, SNP Students and YSL, the Venn diagram of these members list would be a series of concentric circles. I see their bios on Twitter- treasurer, secretary, convener etc.
    Multiply these 7 groups + National by the number of constituencies would it be anywhere near 292?

  203. steelewires says:

    100%Yes says, “Endless mandates ignored countless Independence funds appeals setup this woman has done more to stop and destroy the SNP than what the UK government could have ever done during her reign.”

    When Sturgeon and the mandarins began to tout to stop Brexit I said, “The SNP has become a British Party. They prevent us from becoming independent.” I’m more worried than ever that the SNP may prevent us from becoming independent.

  204. StuartM says:

    @ Annoyed Donor

    Note 27 is supposed to account for the changes in net debt or funds from one year end to the other. However if you look at how their figure of Closing Net Funds of 247,642 is supposedly made up of Cash at Bank, Finance Leases and Loans, that’s complete nonsense. They’re adding together assets and liabilities that in reality have opposite signs! The auditor must have been asleep when he signed this off.

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