In pursuit of clarity
Wings has today sent the following emails.
————————————————————————-
The Chief Constable
Police Scotland
5 Fettes Avenue
Edinburgh
EH4 1RB
6 June 2026
Thank you for your (very swift) reply to my letter. However, I am afraid that it leaves more questions than answers.
Firstly, you state that Police Scotland “have been advised” that the information provided had already been investigated. That is rather odd. Who “advised” Police Scotland of this, and why did Police Scotland need to be advised of something which they should already know?
Second, you say that if any new information should be received, “this will be assessed”. I have provided new information, in the form of what has been said, publicly, by the First Minister over the last few days.
That is clearly “new information”: neither he, nor anyone else within the SNP, had disclosed previously that the ring-fenced funds had been spent on other matters. On the contrary, they repeatedly, publicly and stridently argued otherwise. Police Scotland cannot possibly have investigated the legal consequences of the recent public pronouncements by the First Minister himself in the short time that has elapsed since then.
Indeed, it is simply chronologically impossible for the statement in your reply to be true: Police Scotland announced the completion of Operation Branchform on 25 May 2026. The First Minister made his statement on 3 June 2026. How could his comments have been investigated nine days before he made them?
Third, and following on from this, I have provided you with a detailed legal analysis of why there is clear evidence of the commission of one or more crimes. That is also “new information”, unless you saying that that analysis was already available to Police Scotland? That seems rather unlikely.
That legal analysis was based on legal advice, instructed on my behalf and provided by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Doubtless he may have his citations wrong: even Homer nods, after all.
But if Police Scotland is going to decline to exercise its core responsibility for the investigation of crime in Scotland, at the very least one might expect an explanation of why the clear evidence of criminality and the accompanying legal analysis which I have provided is to be ignored.
The matter raised in my letter is of significant public interest. I quite appreciate that whether or not to prosecute is a matter for COPFS, and that their decision in that regard is (probably) not subject to judicial review.
However, an anterior refusal by Police Scotland to decline even to investigate evidence of criminality, at least in the absence of very good reason (and the only reason you have given, that you “have been advised this has already been investigated”, is plainly wrong) would be subject to judicial review. Given the level of public interest in this matter, I have little doubt that such a judicial review could and would be easily funded.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to take slightly longer to consider your reply this time: I would prefer a reasoned response to a rapid one.
Yours etc,
Rev Stuart Campbell
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1LA
6 June 2026
Thank you for your (very swift) reply to my letter. However, I am afraid that it leaves more questions than answers.
It may, in the general run of things, be “for the police or other reporting agency to investigate allegations of criminal conduct”. However, and as I am sure you aware, that is not the end of the story. Crown Office always retains the power to direct the police to investigate. This is made clear by The Law of Criminal Procedure in Scotland (SULI), 1st Ed, at 8-019:
“The position in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales (and the US): as previously noted, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland is required by statute to comply with any lawful instruction from a procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate. The latter can also issue instructions to the Chief Constable “with regard to the reporting, for consideration of the question of prosecution, of offences alleged to have been committed”.”
I have brought to your attention evidence of a crime. It is open to Crown Office to require an investigation. That is what I am asking you to do. If you decline, perhaps you could explain why.
You will be aware of the public interest in this matter, and the need to avoid any suggestion of anything other than the complete independence of Crown Office. Your telegraphic response to my detailed explanation of why (a) a crime seems to have been committed, and (b) the commission of that crime seems to have been admitted by the First Minister himself (by which I mean that his statements suggest a crime has been committed by someone: I know not who was responsible therefor) is unlikely to engender confidence in that independence.
My letter was prepared with legal advice, instructed on my behalf and provided by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Doubtless he may have his citations wrong: even Homer nods, after all.
But if Crown Office is going to decline to exercise its core responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland, at the very least one might expect an explanation of why the clear evidence of criminality and the accompanying legal analysis which I have provided is to be ignored.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to take slightly longer to consider your reply this time: I would prefer a reasoned response to a rapid one.
Yours etc,
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Well done Stu
A thing of beauty. Is Roddy still Dean?
Keep going – I agree that the words, ‘have been advised’ stood out like a sore thumb. The SNP are still trying to make out that this is all about the misbehaviour of one embezzler, and the press can only seem to manage to keep an intermittent focus on the ‘ring-fenced’ funds issue. For my money, that arguably more important than the embezzlement because the myriad failures/deliberate acts which gave rise to spending that money were of a piece with the failures that enabled Murrell. It is also the same culture of ‘omerta’ and protection of/obeying Sturgeon at all costs coupled with an ever moveable feast of explanations without proper press scrutiny that has enabled too much corruption by this awful administration.
I agree wholeheartedly that the misuse and misappropriation of the ring fenced referendum DONATIONS are MORE important if not as important than Murrell’s embezzlement of Scum Nonce Party funds
Firstly it involves WHO made the decision to effectively incorporate the £600,000+ DONATIONS into the general funds of the political party , was that decision made by one individual or did a group of the hierarchy or a committee decide to just appropriate those funds for the parties general usage
Did the party just decide that they had the permission of each and every DONOR to incorporate THEIR DONATIONS into the general funds for use in buying new furniture for their offices or buying a new state of the art coffee machine for their office staff
If the ring fenced DONATIONS were going to be appropriated by the party into the general funds, WHY has Nicola Sturgeon and every subsequent leader of the party found it necessary to continuously LIE to the DONORS and the general public about the whereabouts of the DONATIONS
The PRESSTITUTES like to call themselves the fourth estate formed to hold governments to account WHY are they ignoring this BLATANT THEFT and misuse of DONORS CONTRIBUTIONS to a RING FENCED APPEAL, and the subsequent ignoring and inaction of our LEGAL PROTECTORS to hold criminality to account
Great work, Stuart.
Thank you.
Here’s the question I’d like to see answered: “What exactly was investigated during Branchform, and what conclusions were reached regarding the referendum funds?”
Could you put this to both the police and the COPFS..?
What’s stopping you from asking the polis and COPFS these questions?
I remain confident that the police will undertake a new investigation. The responses to the original letters, as I understood them, leave open the door to a new investigation.
We are dealing with complex organisations that have many heads and hands and they are often/always very slow moving.
I have less confidence in the Crown Office since it is structurally more politically sensitive, but even here I have a lot more than no confidence.
Theres a lot of moving parts and through them blows a ferocious political wind; public opinion counts for more than people realise.
Pursuing a purely LEGAL solution is just a waste of time.
If there is a solution, it is POLITICAL. Wipe out the SNP in a couple of by-elections, and perhaps the SNP/Green MSPs will read the tea leaves and suddenly demand accountability.
Boom.
Go get ‘em boy
Scene: A room within a “Gentleman’s Club” in the St James District of London. Nigel and Jeremy are seated, enjoying coffee and scones>
Nigel – “Jeremy old boy, we have a minor problem in Jockistan. This Reverend Campbell chap – who apparently lives in Bath, is causing the chaps at COPS and Police Scotland some problems and quite frankly Hamish and Murdo are finding it difficult to keep him at bay.”
Jeremy – “I see, lives in Bath you say. Let’s pop along to GCHQ, that’s quite close, have a word with the chaps there and see what we might be able to do to nullify the threat.”
Nigel – “Good thinking old boy. But, might it be time for a sacrifice? Might we consider releasing Agent SeaWeed back into the wild.”
Jeremy – “Don’t feel we’re there yet, but it’s an idea worth keeping in mind.
“I salute your indefatigability”
– but all you are going to get is : “computer says no”
The bizarre nature of all of this – investigation started about one thing, finds something else, goes with that, ignores the original thing, and will not return to it and even claims “advised” the original thing was dealt with … well, its pretty standard with the police, really. The cops are just useless cunts who see investigating crime as a waste of time (when you could be out promoting diversity and hounding people for hate crimes)
The next big thing is going to be : how long does Murrell get?
– if the fix is in and I think it will be, he will set a new record for the most lenient sentence ever in Scotland for that size of crime
if, OTOH, he gets 12 years and his pension and all other assets gutted for payback, it gets interesting as he will feel screwed; he could start singing. A couple of years of easy time in a soft jail lets you hit the gym and catch up on your reading – its a healthfarm with locks on the doors – but then we will never really get to the bottom of it, and the crooks will have won.
Brilliant response Stuart – the pointedness but also sincerity of what you pen is in stark contrast to the weasel word response of the authorities. I don’t think the Police response was AI slop, it’s what now passes as adequate in Scots civic organisations.
Murrell singing like a canary would be perfection on earth. If only.
I feel a bit more hopeful about the country knowing that there are folk out there trying to correct things when they go wrong inside their professions and industries. When Alec Salmond delivered his evidence at the parliamentary enquiry he stated that the institutions involved hadn’t failed. He thought that it was the leadership of those institutions that have failed. Hopefully he was right. There is a failure of leadership in every Scottish service and public body it seems to me. Maybe this is a learning process. We should never appoint people on the basis of their support for an ideology. In this case I mean the extreme liberalism or fake woke agenda for want of better terms for it. That stands for political beliefs of all kinds, British or Scottish nationalism or the neo-liberalism that dominates today. It should not be a consideration when appointing people to the offices of state, quangoes etc. The evidence is all around us.
They are corrupt. The whole Scottish system is corrupt. The only option is to get Westminster involved, not that anything will come of that, as the corruption is at their behest.
Outstanding response Stuart, and thank you for not letting go of this. Scotland will never reach its full potential until the corruption at the heart of our major institutions has been dragged out into the open and exposed for what it is.
Well done Stu fir this follow.
It will be interesting to see the responses
He’s a good lad that Roddy Dunlop. We all owe him a negroni….or two!
It seems to me all reasonable Scots – whether pro independence or not – should be in favour of getting to the bottom of this whole burach. An independent Scottish state built on the Tammany Hall politics of the current Scottish establishment would fail and deservedly so.
YA BEAUTY
Go get em
If I ever get a rotwieler I’m going to name him Stuart
Is it simply that the Police and Crown Office have always known, and as such, to them this is not new evidence! Is that worse?
Persistence is a huge virtue, much underestimated in these days of the scroll. Via con Dios! Mon amigo fuerte! (Sorry for coming over all treasure of the Sierra madre there) To the sound of stirring music.
You sneaky devil, Rev!
“ … That legal analysis was based on legal advice, instructed on my behalf and provided by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. ”
BOOM
Brown trousers and bicycle clips at COPS and Poileas Alba .
“ an anterior refusal by Police Scotland…… would be subject to judicial review. Given the level of public interest in this matter, I have little doubt that such a judicial review could and would be easily funded. ”
BOOM -BOOM
You have them by the short and curlies. (In these days of gender fluidity I hope I am allowed to say that.)
Ok, I Need to have the Homer thing explained…
It’s a reference to a quote from the Roman poet, Horace, Andrea. He said something along the lines of being annoyed when Homer was sleepy, because even the great Homer sometimes made errors in his writing. Referring to characters being alive for instance when they’d already been killed off.
Or, as the Japanese saying has it, “Even monkeys fall out of trees.”
Yes, I’d like to know too…
It refers to line 359 of Horace’s Ars Poetica
indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus (“I become annoyed when sometimes the great Homer drops off”).
From Wiki:
The English translation Homer nods has become standard following Pope (1709), but is due to Dryden (1677).
=======
Stick it up your sleeve to pull out in the past tense should even the vigilant Rev. take his eye off the ball: Homer nodded.
Come off it — it’s a quote from the Simpsons!
As always, I defer to your erudition in matters linguistic, Fhearghais
Thanks Sven and Cynicus.
I confess, i too thought it was Homer Simpson, although that would have not really gone with the general tone of the letters 😀
Well, I should imagine “D’oh!!!” is a likely response on the part of the recipients of these correspondence. 😀
Delicious reading indeed. The plot thickens, and the dominoes still have a long way to fall. A very long way.
Why isn’t more being of the culture issues relating to the covering up of sex pests?
It’s all about the financial coverups but when you can really add the coverup culture involving everyone it paints more a picture than just financial. Does the normal person care how the financial crime was committed? It came out of the same account isn’t “exciting” and accounting rules / regs are mind numbing.
But Grady et al hit home because people easily understand that predatory behaviour.
Finding a way to really nail the culture problem will make a big difference to getting this to hit home.
We all know Swinney is going to cave after letting this run and having an inquiry. Flynn is waiting his time to let it start to be drawn out, inquiry, then when the bodies are being buried he is the shining light to take them forward in the era.
There is no oversight of the Crown Office.
This situation shows the very real need for oversight.
They are indeed a law unto themselves.
The oversight should be from the judiciary. The problem we have is that the College of Justice contains 34 (?) members not counting the chairman of the Scottish Land Court (I think). That is far too small a judiciary to adequately hold the other branches to account.
There is potentially a very serious problem here for every charity and community organization and their supporters in Scotland. If ring fenced or restricted funds can be spent on overheads or running costs and that is deemed NOT to be a crime, but something a bit less than that, then it opens up the door for all sorts of questionable practices, and will undermine the confidence of the general public in giving money to all sorts of causes. I once heard some SNP employees talking quite open about how the public “needed to be led and needed to have decisions taken for them….”. If that is the culture and sense of entitlement which exists, then we cannot be surprised when questions are not asked and then bad things happen. As a unionist, I am quite happy to see the SNP tear themselves apart, but this nonsense is contaminating every other walk of life in this country, and we have five more years of this ahead of us again. I commend you for asking the questions you have done. The real scandal in all this is that everyone in Scotland seen this happening before our eyes for the last ten years, and virtually no-one stopped to ask why. Such a country will always struggle to prosper, either in a devolved or independent state.
People in glasshouses –
link to archive.ph
The UK is unfixable. An independent Scotland might be. That’s the real difference.
A very depressing article. Quangoland, a colossal job creation scheme for the elite. Anyone wondering why our country’s are in debt, corrupt? They are run on the basis of elite self interest.
A colonised “country will always struggle to prosper”, not least given ‘the objective of colonialism is to widen inequality’ (Memmi).
Hence the 18C Scottish liberation message still stands: ‘Prosperity to Scotland and no Union’.
Today the union fraud is costing Scots at least £150 billion a year – tho A dinna expect a colonial justice system tae investigate that either:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
“The real scandal in all this is that everyone in Scotland seen this happening before our eyes for the last ten years, and virtually no-one stopped to ask why”
If you were more alert and paying attention you would realise that a very many people have been fighting to expose and oppose the vile things that are happening in Scotland
E.G the adoption and acceptance of the vile GRA and HCB by ALL the parties voting for them at HR, even the tories that people like to ignore
And do not forget that the engerlish government Boris, May and company including the other unionist parties were actually in favour of pushing the same GRA pish
Well Done Rev.
I can translate their response as we have all the power, the law is there for you and not us.
We will not engage in questioning or our corruption along with our VIP seats on the gravy train would be in danger.
Can you appoint an alliterate representative who doesn’t understand big words as we find them much easier to fob off.
Please go away.
Yours sincerely
Someone who doesn’t want to put their name to anything just in case.
STATISTA site shows support for independence at 44%, status quo on 56% that was in march.
The mountain is now much higher thanks to the useful idiots digging their own graves.
The more things get bad in England the more some Scots get jittery?
I do hope this all ends in bitter & caustic tears for the actors involved in grand fraud.
One arises from a low to a high station more often by using fraud instead of force.
Niccolo Machiavelli
TURABDIN:
“One arises from a low to a high station more often by using fraud instead of force.
Niccolo Machiavelli”
=======
The feminine version of his given name is Nicola !
I’m a bit confused about the admissions then the reiteratings it’s still there considering this in 2021? link to scotsman.com
This is good. I wonder if your source of legal information will be a lever for good.
Brilliant! Thank you for keeping going with this, Stuart.
Where are the opposition parties in Holyrood on this?
Shouldn’t they be taking the lead on investigating this scandal?
Alex says:
6June, 2026 at 1:19 pm
“Why isn’t more being of the culture issues relating to the covering up of sex pests?”
=======
A year or two back there were stories connecting the two. I recall the vivid phrase, ”Rolexes and rent boys” as some of the goodies allegedly purchased wiith the missing ring-fenced fund.
There was no rent-boy spending on the published charge sheet of Murrell’s thefts. Nor, quite, Rolexes either but the BBC tells me of, “…two luxury watches …..Bremont ALT1 World Timers, one in white costing £4,555 and one in black costing £4,795,….extremely popular with collectors often later being re-sold for up to double their original selling price due to their limited availability.”
=========
Perhaps some otherwise useless MSP should request at FMQs an assurance from Swinney the Ninny that none of the missing donors’ money was spent on rent-boys for the pleasure of his colleagues or SNP officials.
This is all very easily explained. We live in a country where the politicians are corrupt, the judges are corrupt and the police are corrupt. In such circumstances, how can justice prevail?
I wonder if Police Scotland considered if some of Murrell’s purchases were for wedding presents as I guess both he and Sturgeon would get invited to a lot of SNP weddings of friends and colleagues. He maybe grudged spending his own money on them and thought in his eyes spending SNP money was fine. It might explain the 3 toasters etc and if the Police didnt find them in their house etc. No wonder Sturgeon said no comment. I expect some people reading the list of purchases recognise some of them. The more expensive gifts may have been to girlfriends/boyfriends of the pair. Another reason for a conspiracy of silence.
Martin:
“ The more expensive gifts may have been to girlfriends/boyfriends”
=====
Interesting point. I note your admirable discretion in not revealing which of the pair had girlfriends and which had boyfriends.
Ordinarily, such details would be none of our business – but possibly not here, depending on what emerges in coming days. it cannot be long before the tabloids scent lavender.
It has been amply documented that investigations can be done in advance via old skool police box.
What about an FOI to Electoral Commission about what advice was provided to the polis, re the legality of the indyref fund being used for other purposes by SNP?
.
Hi Stuart,
Brave effort.
There IS another way to reach the same (and just) end that the current injustice, and horrendous, clumsy optics demonstrated in such an ill considered reply from COPFS on this post.
We went that way (many years ago) and shockingly we won. The Scottish Executive minister at that time, metaphorically defecated himself and did a 180 degree and ran away from his job shortly after. It is one of my own, profound regrets in life, that the Scottish Executive squandered a seven figure sum in legal fees.
With this current matter, it is a case of thinking laterally, which you have an evident gift for, and also a top notch Advocate (for our friends south of the Border, the term Scottish Advocate equates to a barrister a.k.a., KC (King’s Counsel) in England & Wales).
Stuart, my own legal qualifications are retired now, though did span the period 1983 to 2023 in UK Courts. So any suggestion I can make, needs to be heavily caveated…
In short, IMHO you do have a case. It is going to cost a vast amount for the Scottish Police to defend. The taxpayer will, as ever, pay the bill. More OAPs and disabled people will become further impoverished and/or die sooner than should be the case.
(i). However, Scotland is being governed like a banana republic by a bunch of bent politicians, a significant minority of whom are just in it for the gravy-train money.
(ii). Worse, ever since the SNP amalgamated the 8 Scottish police forces, the resultant morale-depleted quagmire that is Police Scotland has proven itself unfit for purpose, time and time again. That is based on a free and frank discussion I had with the Assistant Chief Constable of my old force. So the bona fides can be presented if so required.
(iii). Doubly worse, Police Scotland have yet to appoint a competent Chief Constable. Until that is remedied, the police element of the justice system will continue to deteriorate into an ineffectual, festering rump of what the police in Scotland used to be, when 8 police constabularies existed.
(iv). Add that to the COPFS long list of FUBARS aided and abetted by the primary ultra vires position of Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC., “going along with” the utter afront to our first-world country having the most senior law officer and Head of the COPFS breaching the international protocol of keeping the justice and the executive SEPARATE.
This continues to bring our country’s legal service into DISREPUTE. Scotland’s judiciary and executive’s incest, has been propagated too long. After Dorothy Bain departs to become Baroness Bain of The Scottish Legal System – down in the House of Lords, the next KC will continue what is a venal system of law and justice that is reaching a tipping point because the voters are beginning to smell the aroma off of the decomposing judicial system.
(v). The core framework that Dorothy Bain is evidently infracting by propagating the incestuous relationship of Scottish Justice AND the Scottish Executive sharing the same bed is in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985), which state that the judiciary must decide matters impartially, without restrictions, improper influences, or pressures from the executive.
Stuart, if your legal counsel is the person I believe them to be, they are top notch and independently minded enough to see the FIRST PRINCIPLES reside higher up the roots and branch-formed by this “Lord Advocate” problem that has the aroma of rodent all about.
In other words, just like the case we WON against the Scottish Executive, you will need to apply to an EXTERNAL and PREFERABLY an INTERNATIONAL judiciary that is NOT compromised/corrupted by the Lord Advocate sharing the metaphorical beds with Justice and the Executive.
Only an international legislature can now be TRUSTED with clearing out the tainted politicians and law officers in Scotland, so many of whom have soiled their vocation and allowed or enabled the Lord Advocate position to be capable of bringing the entire Scottish legal system and judiciary into international disrepute.
Apologies if this is a tad enigmatic and cryptic in the wording.
The end-game is purification of the Scottish Lord Advocate position allowing/enabling this afront to continue.
Dorothy Bain will put up a spirited defence of the status quo: “not my job to change this.” But she, and every Advocate of repute, adding perhaps, a statement from the Faculty of Advocates serving notice on John Swinney that no law officer will be permitted to fill the “Lord Advocate” position unless and until the incestuous, poisoned link is extinguished.
Until the current tarnished, tainted law club get their retirement packages and the incestuous Lord Advocate position made fit (and separate) for purpose, then all of this effort to get the polis to do their job will be a long running saga of stonewalling.
Buddy, you need to get an international judiciary to lance the current boil caused by Dorothy Bain’s fundament having one of her cheeks on two different seats!
I think the most you can expect is that they will look at it on VAR.
– trouble is, Dot Bain is on the VAR.
One avenue ordinary fowk might want to try is – if you donated to the SNP using a credit card – phone customer services, tell them you were defrauded and get them to “charge back” the amount. Really easy, and credit cards have a lot of consumer protections. Easy to do, and could hurt. The pips will squeak.
One thing which could also cause them trouble – Murrell almost certainly fiddled the ballot for Humza to win. Mind that to avoid problems, leaders on the way out like to appoint their successor, in this case the muslamic-toom-tabard, useless. Nikki was also tight with the south side asian community, and this might have been a wee favour getting paid back.
“Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.”
How stupid are the Police & COPFS to respond so hastily (and it would appear, in concert) to such a significant request? Has Morgan McSweeney suddenly started ‘advising’ both of them? Unbelievable…
Great work Rev and maybe, just maybe, one or both will actually do their jobs!
An exceptional letter rev and one that needed to be sent.
Even Police Scotland sometimes have to stand naked.
Even so, don’t jump to any conclusions.
Ask each one for their preferred pronouns.
You can’t be too careful in Scotland, where we have the best wee Hate Crimes Act in the world!
Appropriate song in the context of such good work. I guess that makes it 2 Honest Men.
link to youtube.com
I am amazed Mr. Campbell that having addressed and sent your email to The Chief Constable of Police Scotland it appears to have been intercepted and responded to by an unnamed Service Advisor lackey.
This suggests to me the email and its contents hasn’t even crossed the desk of the Chief Constable let alone been read by her. At the very least her PA should have responded personally to you acknowledging receipt of your email and the information you had provided along with a detailed response to your questions.
The fact that this hasn’t happened suggests Police Scotland are either grossly incompetent and unprofessional, or corrupt, or even worse, both!
I wish you every success in your pursuit of transparency and justice in this matter.
Repeat again……
It would beggar belief that Police Scotland after nearly five years have not already investigated your complaints and reported all facts to the Crown Office. If your complaint is taken as new then some police officers need the sack and the CC should resign. This is basic police work and most police officers would be able to identify these offences whilst still in their probation. To miss them and not investigate them would be inexcusable. Time will tell but I will be very surprised if Crown Office is not aware and decisions on who to charge (or not charge) will have already been made. The real question if that does transpire is why?
This is interesting
link to copfs.gov.uk
Victims’ Right to Review
This guide explains how the victim of a crime can ask COPFS to review a decision not to take action or to stop prosecuting a case after it has started in court…
victims in Scotland have a right to:
ask COPFS about how we came to our decision
have a say in what happens
ask us to review our decision if we were not going to prosecute
Victims can ask for a review if the decision:
was made on or after 1 July 2015
resulted in no action being taken in a criminal case reported by the police or another agency
stopped a case after it has gone to court
————————————————–
I have extracted some of the key points only.
Just to clarify, there are two routes that people can take to get their donations back.
First is contacting your bank and ask for a Chargeback to claim money back. There is no legal mechanism to guarantee that you will get your money back.
link to moneysavingexpert.com
However, if you paid by Credit card you are legally guaranteed to get your money back under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I’m not sure if there is a time limit to this so anybody who wants to go down this route will need to contact their credit card provider to clarify this
link to uklegalguides.com
It looks as if the chargeback time limit is 120 days, though if the purchase is a pre-payment for eg plane tickets, that time limit can be deemed to start when delivery was due.
How would that be assessed when there was no date? The SNP could perhaps claim that a referendum could still happen. Chargeback isn’t a legal right.
Section 75, which has no time limit, is a legal right, but only for purchases over £100.
It’s doubtful that any money could be recouped using those ways but I’m sure it would raise some eyebrows in Mastercard and Visa if they suddenly received a couple of thousands claims at the same time against the company that the SNP used to collect the donations.
*snigger*
Humza says Nicola is a woman of great integrity. Stop sniggering at the back.
A whole article about you Stu
Police Scotland warned it faces judicial review over flat-out refusal to reinvestigate missing SNP cash
Blogger Stuart Campbell has instructed the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the formidable Roddy Dunlop KC, to provide a legal analysis of why a new probe must take place
link to scottishdailyexpress.co.uk
Thanks for this link. It is great to see the Rev and Roddy Dunlop’s work getting the MSM attention and thus spreading the word further.
And another thank you from me. Making into a mainstream paper is excellent,even though it is the express.
Tgey are nithing more than enforcers of tge SNP cabal.
I am bemused by the claims of the professionalism of the Police team carrying the investigation of the Missing £660K.
Why you ask well it was not £660K to begin with as many as 20 folk asked and had their donations rightly returned, proof positive that the Ring Fenced Fund had had a coach and horses driven through it and therefore acknowledged as such by the SNP, that being the case did these so called diligent Police Officers follow thro’ and check if these donations were returned ? I would say no as I had no visits or telephone calls from the diligent Police. Surely that should have happened, they did have over 4 years to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s so they were not pressed for time, if you are checking a balance sheet you must check both the going ins and the going outs ! Professional and diligent I think not !
On a personnel note to Crazy Cat I’ve not forgotten I owe you a a bottle of fizz, I was lucky to have my hard earned cash returned back from the “Company”.
Yes, I got the last train to Clerkinville ! especially so as Hamza Yusuf switched the points into the buffers a few days after I was refunded, thus all the other dissatisfied donors were denied their right to a refund ! Pay one pay all !
I’m delighted you got your money back, James, but I don’t think you owe me anything in relation to that!
Wan guid turn deserves anither…
Keep going Rev – the idea that the credibility of Scotland might somehow be saved is largely relying on you at this hour. By the way, I love the way you made the replies’ wording similar, thereby telling them that you know they were operating in cahoots.
Sorry if this has been noticed and queried already but if so, I missed it.
ACC Houston’s statement: “…the Operation Branchform team who spent more than four years carrying out extensive enquiries across Europe to pick MUrrell’s offending.”
What’s that now with the more than four years across Europe bit? Did the polis visit the Niesmann and Bischoff factory to see how the motorhome was built, or a factory in Italy that makes coffee machines? Perhaps an Amazon warehouse near Prague airport through which the cruet set travelled?
Or was there a search of the Sturgeon/Murrell bolthole in Portugal? Were there overseas witnesses to interview? These would be interesting things to know.
Interested in the Judicial Review bit. Can you elaborate please. Police Aye COPFS naw.
Also you are right to suggest that there nay well be ample funding.
Swinney seems to have quite some difficulties in seeing right from wrong. Not difficult Jonny-boy.
He doesnt have a vision, doesnt have a strategy, doesnt have a message, doesnt have a team.
Still hopes for the Sturgeon-General to ride back in on a white and innocent white horse, that’s all.
Otherwise just has a pension plan.
TTG.
SHOCK AND HORROR!!
It turns out PC MacPlod isn’t there to protect us Scots from criminals efter aw… MacPlod actually works FOR the criminals – who knew, eh?
Well, me and ma pals fir a stert, fae the age o ten… maybe younger, but those are stories of another time for another time.
“Police Scotland” police Scotland; it does this on behalf of England (Scotland’s top cop is an English) to keep the Scots on a short leash and protect English ‘assets’ in Scotland.
Police Scotland should really be called “Police the Scots” if its name were to reflect the true nature of its mission.
To hope that “Police the Scots” will genuinely investigate (unless Westminster orders it) the crimes and proxy crimes of Scotland’s corrupt ‘Scottish’ elite is a hope too far, I suspect.
I’m surprised the crown and coppers (sounds like an English pub) could even be bothered to reply to such enquiries – well, actually, they didn’t… two ‘fuck offs’ do not a serious answer make.
Police Scotland? The Crown Office?
Which croun dae thae serve, a wunner.
Judging by the way the baith o thaim treat the Scots a’m guessin’ it’s the Inglis yin.
Ponsonby and Massie: Interesting podcast.
Besides references to Rev Stu and Mr Clerkin, note Ponsonby comments on first Sturgeon top SPAD, Noël Dolan (pro inquiry) and former (principled) treasurer, Douglas Chapman (names guilty parties). Above all, focus on the three words, “at this time”!
The Rev’s take got there first.
link to m.youtube.com
“The Rev’s take got there first”
=========
WRONG
Stu backed a different horse: “have been advised”.
it was the first poster in the previous thread with whom Bernard Ponsonby agrees.
I hope Christmas came early for all these parties in the Derby.
Since folk in this place insist on chuntering on and on about how fucking terrible things are in Scotland I thought I’d change the tune for a post or two and delve deeper into the nature of colonialism.
Scroll on by if you aren’t interested… no-one is forcing you to read my stuff.
Alf Baird wrote this in one of his posts:
“…at the end of the day colonial assimilation almost always fails…”
And it got me wondering, because Scotland actually is a colony…
What is colonialism if viewed as an unthinking structure… an emotionless machine?
Colonialism is “unthinking”, but it still requires administrators, soldiers, bureaucrats, merchants, elites and collaborators.
If its operators withdraw, defect, or lose interest, the colonial machine cannot run.
It occurred to me that this is like removing the technicians from a power plant.
At one point I thought colonialism was a purely entropic system.
But on deeper consideration I’ve decided that colonialism is not entirely entropic… it’s more a sort of parasitic paradox; anti?entropic at the centre and entropic at the edges.
What I mean is this:
And thus, it seems to me, colonialism is a structure, a system, that creates local order in its imperial metropole (London, in Scotland’s case) by exporting chaos outward from its centre.
Yes, that’s right, England’s biggest export is chaos.
That’s why Scotland, a peripheral resource feeding England’s metropolitan core, is in a constant state of chaotic crises – it writhes in agony as it is being devoured.
And so the Murrell affair, for example, becomes just one more ‘scream’ from the empire’s periphery as it takes yet another bite out of the Scots.
That’s why colonialism feels like a system that feeds on the world around it.
Inevitably, tho, when their food source is exhausted, colonial structures, being the unthinking systems they are, begin feeding on themselves.
The system begins to treat its own core population the way it once treated its colonies (we already see this happening in some areas of England) – and it enters the cannibal phase.
So, to answer my own question at the top of this comment:
Colonialism is a self?preserving pattern that stabilises its centre by extracting from its edges, and collapses inward when there are no edges left.
Which means that at some point England is going to consume its own self out of existence – almost.
Almost… because a greatly diminished England will continue on in the form of its last remaining attribute, its big mouth – the only part of itself it can’t eat.
Northcode: your comment somehow reminds me of a book (read in part) by V. Gordon Childe, ‘What Happened in History’, assessing the Roman empire. Many decades since I saw it. Sure you are onto a crucial thread for understanding what is going on and not only in Scotland subject to the English.
There are probably a few in the British ‘establishment’ who know full well what they are doing but the likelihood is that those who have the broader perspective will be excluded from power because of their ethical objections.
Unfortunately, developing technology produces new tools and personnel (think of P. Thiel, Alex Carp and plenty more) who find ways of perpetuating the fundamental pattern but maybe in analogue forms.
Maybe worth considering ‘gradients of exploitation’ between and within empires.
It is almost unbelievable but mass communication has been used very effectively to produce people in absolute denial of the blatantly obvious.
Nice point in your final paragraph.
Aye, Jay, I’ve read Childe’s “What Happened in History”, a couple of decades ago at least.
My take on it, as I recall it, was essentially that human history is the story of how changes in technology reshape society, create contradictions, and drive the rise and fall of civilisations.
I think what Childe was getting at was the idea that material change leads to social change which leads to historical transformation.
He wrote his book in 1942, I think, so lots of big historical changes happening at that time as fuel for his theory.
Also, you make an insightful point about folks in denial of the obvious.
Colonialism takes many forms. The first colony of the colonising country is always its own people. What we are essentially talking about, then, is exploitative relationships that have the same underlying structure as organised crime. If you care to look at cities in northern England, or just about anywhere else, you’ll see the same structures, the same outcomes, the same exploitation, the same problems, etc.
The entropy-order antagonism you refer to exists pretty much everywhere outside of abstract art and mathematics. It’s just the nature of things and all structures arguably contain the seeds of their own destruction; thesis, antithesis, synthesis, etc. It’s a slant that naturally appeals to Marxists but they are generally less than enthusiastic about it when anyone attempts to apply it to the sandcastles in the sky that they dream of and build.
As for Scotland, yes, a country, exploited by its neighbour, ‘colonised’ if you prefer, but I’m certain we would be suffering much like everybody else if those managing our exploitation answered to us (rather than some dusty old crown or crooks south of the border). If Sturgeon and her gang taught us anything, it’s that we should trust nobody.
What matters, I think, is that we can do better; Ideals aren’t worth the paper they are written on. By ‘better’ I mean we can make more people happier, more fulfilled, more prosperous, less miserable, less exploited, etc. Really, when you think about it, we are hoping to replace one bunch of bastards with another but that’s okay as long as it makes a things better.
Of course, the immediate priority is to destroy the SNP and those who betrayed us. They didn’t make our situation better, they made it worse. I’ll be satisfied if we can do that much.
I keep bumping into Hemingway quotes and in a recent collision he was talking about bankruptcy and how it sets in ‘gradually then suddenly’. I think that’s what we are watching with the SNP (morally, politically, and financially they heading for bankruptcy) but I can’t decide if we are in the ‘gradually phase’ or ‘suddenly phase’.
An intelligent response, Spade.
You make several good points.
I think we are yet to witness the SNP’s final, cataclysmic, and irrevocable collapse; and, yes, I agree… when it does come it will be swift, like the drop of Madame la Guillotine’s blade.
Spade, Northcode, your knowledgeability far exceeds mine. I will reduce comments but keep reading. Best regards.
I disagree, Jay
I think you should increase the number of comments you post in this place.
the tendency towards disorder in macro social systems, the existence of a “social entropy” is a constant and tragic problem for all of human history, bluntly, “things turn to shit” and even worse “things become their opposites”. Every religion, social movement, political party, every institution has had this problem (unless of course, they started out evil to begin with – no evil thing ever degrades back to the good).
Now there was a related movement to create an “econophysics” (physics based economics based on the real world and not mathematical abstactions like infinite growth, unlimited resources), but it never got as far as social organisation, mainly because people aren’t particles in a gas.
There are obvious flaws with mass, open, movements – first of all, anyone can get in, and also there will always be some hierarchical organisational structure; “bad people” in exactly the wrong place, can punch well above their weight (and professional activists exploit these situations tactically). People try to solve these problems with procedures, checks and balances, but these are easily hacked by those motivated to do so, even becoming tools of the trade.
The individual vector of this entropy is, loosely, psychopathy (I recommend Hare’s work); now psychopaths are driven to seek power like moths to a flame, and they are very good at climbing hierarchies, since they will “do whatever it takes”. An additional factor is – what happens when you have collectives of psychopaths, all working together : this is addressed in the work “ponerology” by lobacweski. The great writers have touched on these subjects – orwell, huxley, solzhenitsyn, hasek, kafka – but they described symptoms, not causes.
An example – in the great film dr zhivago the main villain is the vicious tsarist secret policeman, komorovsky, who appears later on as – a vicious bolshevik secret policeman. Same difference. Psychos go where the power is. The bad guys are everywhere.
The opposite of mass, open, movements are secret societies – but psychopaths love these even more than the former. Now you have dangerous people operating in secrecy.
Psychopathy exists at 6% in the general population; 20% for people who work in finance; 50% for violent criminals, and no one has ever measured it for politicians.
The SNP under Salmond was one thing; under the Sturgeon cabal it is the opposite – what is worse this cabal entrenched its position to make any restoration “from below”, impossible. Note that the next generation of leaders is likely to be even worse – e.g. dead eyed modern studies teacher, Gilruth – ideological, woke-dogmatist, doubling down as always.
The UK deep state is completely psychopathic. You see this when you do the reading, but history is boring – start with obituaries in the telegraph, its all weasels and evil fucking scumbags. Note that the british empire never started out as something good then was corrupted; it was evil from the start and the period of around the “glorious revolution” (english arranged their own coup detat) is when it all goes turbo as “the celtic periphery was subdued” – the anglos started out as pirates, and without us to keep them in check, they rampage around the globe; it is the original criminal organisation gone “legit” and the city, a separate sovereign state, their ganghut, making its own laws. As for america, it just copied what the brits did. Empire is just a looting operation.
Fascinating stuff, Confused. As if by magic you manage to blame all the world’s ills on the English and the Yanks.
Unaccountably, you omitted to tell us what percentage of the population would, like yourself, call for the development of gas chambers to silence those who might ask awkward questions.
How odd too, that you choose to ignore the biggest empires in term of sheer land masses and populations, the Orcs and the Covid Spreaders.
There will be quite a few readers on here who will have lost family members to the Covid engineered and spread around the world by the criminal gang in Beijing, but you won’t want to discuss that.
When you write about big mouths, Northy, we must all defer to your lived experience.
Interesting to note that some of those here today promoted the Salvo/Liberate fundraiser which also has a case to answer for embezzlement, especially for:
a) using donations given in respect of Scotland’s submission to make a submission on behalf of New Caledonia; and
b) continuing to raise money under false pretences when the approach to the UN had already been rejected.
What evidence have you that the UN has rejected Scotland’s case?
“Salvo/Liberate fundraiser which also has a case to answer for embezzlement…”
Ah, the old Tu Quoque logical fallacy of “you too have sinned as I have sinned”; where a charge is met with the same counter-charge.
The problem AI Dan has with this rhetorical attack is that for it to work the claim needs to be true… which for Salvo and Liberate, unlike the charge made against Murrell, it is not.
Yet another failed assault on the Scots by a colonialist attempting to tarnish the good names of Salvo and Liberate Scotland.
That is what is known in the legal profession as a “bare denial”, I.e. a simply statement of “no I dinnae” without presenting any exculpatory version of events or any analysis as to why, on the facts, no offence has been committed.
But of course that is typical of the meandering drivel you force us all to suffer on a nearly hourly basis – quite how someone can use so many words to say nothing at all (other than how intelligent you think you are, that’s a normal feature), it’s a skill in itself.
Prove Salvo/Liberate are guilty of embezzlement.
You can’t because you don’t have any proof.
And why don’t you have any proof?
I’ll tell you why… it’s because Salvo/Liberate aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing that’s why you don’t have proof.
And so what do you do instead?
You attack me with personal insults…. it’s the way of the colonialist.
Anyway, since you can’t prove your ‘Salvo embezzlement’ assertion I win by default and you lose… again.
“I’m not going to engage with the facts you’ve laid out and therefore because I’m ignoring the evidence I win (and also I’m really really clever)” – are you expecting that to persuade anyone?
If you find an objective, accurate description of your behavior insulting then perhaps some introspection might be in order, rather than shooting the messenger.
“…are you expecting that to persuade anyone?”
Yes… I am and it does.
You know, you go on fair bit about my intelligence… you must think I’m super smart – thanks for the compliment
lol, no it doesn’t. What might persuade someone is explaining how the circumstances I have set out above do not amount to embezzlement. But that would take some thinking rather than just waffling wouldn’t it.
@AiDan
If you’re so sure there has been an act of embezzlement committed, and it bothers you so much; Then why haven’t you rocked up to the polis and reported it, so the relevant authorities can then process and investigate your allegation and then presumably charge and find guilty whoever is responsible for the crime of embezzlement you state has occurred.
Throwing such serious accusations about without proof is piss poor behaviour.
I’ve just realised what, I think, you have presented here as ‘evidence’ of Salvo/Liberate embezzlement… and I laugh in the face of your so-called evidence.
Let’s take a look at it…
You assert that Salvo/Liberate are:
I’ll deal with your assertion (a) first.
Salvo Scotland (and allied groups) submitted material to the UN C-24 about Scotland, and in doing so:
This is a comparative argument, not representation.
Salvo was saying:
“Look at how the UN treats New Caledonia, Scotland should be considered under similar principles.”
That’s all.
Okay, let’s deal with your assertion (b) using a simple statement of fact:
Salvo’s submission was not rejected.
It was received and recorded, but is yet to be acted upon — this is standard process and is the UN’s standard response to petitions.
Not only do your assertions not constitute evidence, because they’re merely assertions – they have been proven untrue and so cannot win an argument.
And because I’ve destroyed your argument before you’ve even had a chance to properly present it — I win.
Now that we’ve sorted that out… tell me again how clever you think I am.
Well done Northcode, that was a spirited attempt at a defence but one that unfortunately doesn’t quite align to the facts.
a) Salvo/Liberate’s NGO advisers told them that they would not be permitted to attend C-24 and give evidence in respect of Scotland, given that Scotland is not a designated NSGT. However, it would be possible to attend and give evidence in respect of New Caledonia. This is what was done, not as a comparator as C-24 had already indicated that wouldn’t be acceptable. I believe there was maybe 1 offhand mention of Scotland in that evidence session. That is not the situation you describe below.
If accommodation/travel/other expenses for the sessions giving evidence in respect of New Caledonia were funded by money raised specifically to advance the cause of Scotland, then it’s very unlikely that this was a lawful use of that money.
Secondly, C-24 have rejected the petition, for reasons that I and others explained at length prior to it being submitted. The only avenue now is to persuade a majority of the UN member states (including the U.K. as a security council member) to amend/disapply Article 2 of the UN charter. The Salvo/Liberate team have known this for some time, as their advisors confirmed, and yet continued to fundraise on the basis of an approach to C-24 that they knew wouldn’t be possible.
I am not saying that this definitely amounts to embezzlement, but it’s sailing very close to the wind and there’s certainly some questions that need to be answered. At the very least, there’s some pretty significant governance failures here.
“Throwing such serious allegations about without proof is piss poor behaviour”
Where is the best place to get synthetic outrage these days?
Bet it’s all manufactured in Covid Central, bought online, and delivered by Amazon.
You said at 10:24 am today:
“…promoted the Salvo/Liberate fundraiser which also has a case to answer for embezzlement…”
And now you’re saying at 6:57 pm:
“I am not saying that this definitely amounts to embezzlement…”
Which is it?
Anyway, that aside let’s deal plainly with your claims:
Salvo did not attend the C-24 to give evidence for New Caledonia.
Salvo did not represent New Caledonia, speak on its behalf, or submit anything in its name.
The rumour is a misinterpretation, not a factual report.
You also write: “Secondly, C-24 have rejected the petition…”
The UN has NOT rejected Salvo’s petition (The UN rarely rejects petitions) and this can easily be verified.
You cannot win this ‘argument’… the facts are against you.
What you can do, tho, is tell me again how clever you think I am.
I’ll presume to speak for Aidan, Northy.
You’re every bit as clever as an alert reader would expect someone self-identifying as a 1,000 year old, interstellar traveling Pict to be.
You did come across as a hell of a lot cleverer when you used to post in your incomprehensible faux Scots.
Ignorance was indeed bliss where those posts were concerned.
Sorry Northcode, you are wrong. Here is a link to the statement given by our very own Alf Baird on behalf of the Kanak people of New Caledonia: link to liberation.scot
We also have the following statement from JPTi (who were advising liberate Scotland at the time): To assist in understanding how the UN manages decolonization, particularly through C-24, it’s important to note the strict protocols involved. Only regions on the UN’s list of “Non-Self-Governing Territories” can be discussed. Currently, Scotland is not on this list, restricting any dialogue on its situation.
and separately
On 9 June 2025, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi), in partnership with the International Probono Legal Services Association (IPLSA), delivered oral interventions to the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The interventions represented the voices of the colonially subjugated. JPTi addressed the ongoing denial of self-determination in French Polynesia and New Caledonia, also pressing for similar legal considerations for Scotland.
and
In the morning session, Matilde Pacheco highlighted that despite having internal governance mechanisms, French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory.
and
In the afternoon session, Ambassador Craig Murray addressed the recent unrest in New Caledonia, attributing it to the long-standing disenfranchisement of the Indigenous Kanak people
link to jpti.ch
So the reality is that Salvo/Liberate members attended C-24 to present evidence on New Caledonia and French Polynesia, and that there was no representation or analysis of Scotland, which was only mentioned (alongside a number of other regions such as Corsica) in passing.
Lastly, I’ve literally provided you below with a direct quote from the chair of C-24 rejecting a petition. In any case, your distinction between “rejecting a petition” and “not doing anything about it” is without difference.
Nope, I’m not wrong.
Let me break it down for you:
Salvo spoke in support of those territories’ decolonisation, while drawing parallels to Scotland.
This is normal and allowed… it is not representation.
Salvo and chums spoke during New Caledonia’s agenda item, but not on behalf of New Caledonia.
So did Salvo “give evidence for New Caledonia”?
No.
Salvo did not represent New Caledonia. Salvo did not submit petitions on its behalf. Salvo did not speak as part of New Caledonia’s delegation.
What Salvo did was:
This is allowed… it is not representation.
“So the reality is that Salvo/Liberate members attended C-24 to present evidence on New Caledonia and French Polynesia…”
I repeat my point above… At C-24 Salvo could attend, but Scotland could not be considered. They could not and did not not speak for New Caledonia.
“Lastly, I’ve literally provided you below with a direct quote from the chair of C-24 rejecting a petition…”
You are confused. No such statement was made by the C-24 Chair.
There is no evidence that the Chair of the C-24 issued any formal rejection of any petition in 2025.
Not Salvo’s. Not anyone else’s.
You either misunderstand the different United Nations C-24 and C-4 committee rules and procedures or you’re squirrelling some colonialist misinformation tactic in a feeble attempt to discredit Salvo/Liberate.
Your insistence that the C-24 Chair issued a public statement rejecting the Salvo/Liberate petition is bullshit… there is no record anywhere of such a statement being made.
There’s quite a lot of factual inaccuracies in that post Northcode, but first let’s deal with this issue of representations “on behalf of”. The Salvo team provided submissions on New Caledonia and French Polynesia. Of course those submissions were not made on behalf of the administering power of those territories, that would be France. However, the critical point is that they concerned New Caledonia etc. and not Scotland. So we can substitute “on behalf of” for “concerning” or “regarding” or “in support of” etc. you chose, it makes absolutely no difference to the argument.
Secondly, in the C-24 session, Salvo did not use New Caledonia or French Polynesia to draw parallels or as a case study for Scotland. “Scotland” was not even mentioned in any of the three PDF statements of the submission, which I have linked to on the JPTI website earlier.
So the question is then, was the use of Salvo/Liberate’s fundraising to attend UN sessions which had nothing to do with Scotland a lawful use of that money. The law on charities and trusts here is very clear, the money should only be used to advance the “core purpose” of the fund, which in this case was to secure UN designation of Scotland as a NSGT and the “decolonisation” (sic) of Scotland.
On the facts we have available, it’s unarguable that attendance at the C-24 session last year did not advance the core purpose of the trust. Scotland was neither on the agenda or even mentioned. There was no possible way therefore that attendance at that session would deliver any outcome for Scotland. Now whether that is poor governance, a breach of civil duties, or criminal embezzlement others can determine, but there is obviously a case to answer.
On the latter point, here is a link to a statement by the Chair of C-24 rejecting a petition from the people of West Papua in 2017: link to theguardian.com
So Salvo/Liberate were fundraising for a strategy that they knew, for certain, would fail, and has failed. That of course also could be an offense.
Now I see why Xaracen became so frustrated when dealing with you, AI Dan.
I’ve hit the bullseye on three of your moving targets – all pretending to be the exact same target – and here you are putting up a fourth for me to hit.
In rhetoric your very common tactic is a blend of three behaviours:
You aren’t debating — you’re evading.
And you used those exact same tactics when ‘arguing’ with Xaracen.
It’s a rhetoric 101 tactical blend – easily spotted and just as easily dealt with.
So, I’m going to put this ‘argument’ out of its misery.
Not by arguing the facts — that’s a trap. Your slippery assertions will always wriggle aboot like worms on a baited hook.
I’m going to end by calling out your behaviour, not your assertions.
“You’re not defending a point. You’re defending your pride and a corrupt union and you’ll twist the world into knots before you admit you are wrong.”
There is no debating to be had with you.
Alright Northcode – I get you’ve reach the point where the facts are clear, on the table, and you now have to explain why those facts don’t constitute an inappropriate use of trust funds. You’ve tried your best to take us down pointless rabbit holes, for example by quibbling the meaning of “on behalf of”, and lying e.g. by pretending that a triple of set of submissions about Pacific island territories, which don’t even use the word Scotland, are in fact all about Scotland. Now that those silly diversions are out of the way you have to defend the substance of my challenge you give up.
I’d suggest that’s either because:
a) you simply don’t understand the fiduciary duties of trustees or charitable trustees and the legal restrictions on the use of trust funds; or
b) you do understand it and you recognise that raising money for purpose A, and then spending it on an entirely irrelevant and unconnected purpose B is a breach of those duties, and given the evidence available you can’t think up any defence which isn’t going to look ridiculous.
Now I get when your back is up against the wall “okay let’s stop talking about this” looks like an attractive out, but to everyone else it comes across as a huge admission.
Here’s a fourth behaviour for you, Northy.
As you have in the past, on this site, claimed to be a thousand year old, space travelling Pict, I long ago concluded there is no debating to be had with you.
Fair play to Aidan though for making the attempt.
There remains a very simple way for you to demonstrate if you have any faith whatsoever that the UN will be gifting Scotland her independence within your lifetime.
Outline the practical steps you are taking in preparation for that paradigm shift that will affect the governance, finance, international status and future plans of every one of us.
You’re not taking any, are you Northy, because even as you interminably bloviate and bluster on here, you know the UN route is nothing but a grifter’s charter.
Phony fundraising claims have “worked” for the SNP, in the sense that they’ve embezzled the money, won office, and nobody yet is in jail.
Why shouldn’t Salvo/Liberation do the same scam? Money is money, and they’re so small and irrelevant a movement that nobody would bother to spend the time prosecuting them.
@Aidan; “the approach to the UN had already been rejected.”
Oh, FFS, not this tripe again! Prove it! Show us that final rejection slip.
lol – Xaracen: if you are involved in this eccentric escapade why don’t YOU publish all the
correspondence with various UN officials, showing an interest in this and starting an investigation. Games up mate, you know it, I know it.
You made the claim of rejection, your job to back it up, not mine to refute it.
Hah! Your own post I just commented on, Aidan, is itself a ‘bare denial’!
@Xaracen
How’s “Project Hee Haw” going at the UN? You’ve been quiet for a good while; I can’t imagine why. 🙂
Is it true or not true that the chair of C-24 issued the following statement:no petition … could be accepted because the committee’s mandate extended only to the 17 states identified by the UN as “non-self-governing territories”.
Careful, Aidan!
You’re trampling all over the green cheese with your muckle tackity boots.
Green cheese is all some of the regulars ever get to eat.
New Caledonia, eh? A name to conjure with.
Second only to Nova Scotia as a reminder of the Scots’ long, colonialist history of rapine, theft and genocide.
Unless, of course, you’re one of the human pretzels who can persuade yourself that the last acts of the big, English basturts, before they ran away, was to drop Scottish names on their new colonies. There are a few expert at such contortions on here.
There’s a tiny bit of me cheering on Q Trannimannie on his mission to steal back some of the Scots’ colonial plunder to return it to the descendants of those it was stolen from. What delightful schadenfreude to see the wangers oan aboot colonialism hoist by the parts of their anatomies that pain them most greviously – their wallets!
But that tiny bit of me is relentlessly hunted down and silenced by the rest. As a stereotypical Scot, my wallet is not for plundering.
Your wallet is constantly being plundered ya neep heid that was always wanting to be shown the money.
Howz the price of fuel for you after you were bigging up Trump as the greatest Scot of all time btl, and he then kicked aff the shit in the Middle East.
Or closer to home… After years of due diligence I had noted the mpg dropping on my car from an average of 45 down to 36mpg. What could be the cause… Well after a miss-fuelling incident it would appear everyone’s wallets are being plundered further during these manufactured times of austerity. Because the energy density of regular pump diesel has been reduced close to 10% due to its emission improving ingredients, and my mpg quickly rose from 36 back to 45 mpg whilst running on some old proper diesel.
And whilst talking about emissions… Howz about some careful scrutiny of accounts noticed that a certain electrical distribution company had used a factor of ten times more highly toxic to the environment refrigerant SF6 gas than they were allowed to keep its electrical conducting infrastructure cool.
But managed to quietly negotiate a considerably lower penalty (but still into the millions) with Ofgem than they should have been due for such a polluting practice. Meanwhile, Scottish Water pay their bosses big bonuses whilst still intentionally pumping untreated effluent into our rivers, and SEPA be busy chasing wee private businesses for minor comparative infractions.
And during scrutiny of other accounts it was noticed that for some reason the cost of bolts used to hold a long line of newly erected pylons together were considerably cheaper for one large batch… Well, now that was millions more to send technicians out to locate, identify, and replace all the cheaper bolts on all the pylons and replace them with ones of the correct specifications and tensile strength.
Greatest living half Scot, Dan.
Did he kick aff the shit in the ME? I’ve been around over half a century and that ME shit was already well under way the day I was born.
The lassie torturing tunnel skulkers are scum. No decent human being can lament their extinction. The cants who delight in shooting women in the genitals for being a bit lippy are also best assisted into the next world. I don’t want them having nukes and I consider spending a bit more for a tank of diesel to be a bargain compared with the alternatives.
Good points about the polluters though. I can’t help wondering if maybe we Scots weren’t the kind of people happy to spend our lives wading through our own ankle deep litter, then perhaps we’d be more determined to hold other polluters to account.
My Golf diesel provides mpg in the mid fifties. Even better if I put my specs on so I can see all the wee signs and thus comply with the speed limits.
Fotrget the three tenors, we.ve got the three Unionist wankers with their clown wagons in a circle.
Shot down in flames again. Comedy gold.
Excellent work Stu.
These people would get away with murder if it wasn’t for people like you holding them to account.
Some Scots believe what happened in Scottish care homes during Covid was murder.
And yes, “those people” did get away with it.
Flu Manchu and Dr WHO pulling bigger strings than Westminster.
The nightmares you must cause….?