It just takes a beat
Looks like we turned that round pretty fast, gang. Six weeks ago:
And today:
Amazing what a draft document and a KC opinion can do, eh? A casual observer might be forgiven for thinking that the SNP was absolutely cold-sweat desperate to avoid a civil case that would set a powerful precedent for a legal prosecution.
On that front, incidentally, things are getting interesting. Alert readers will recall that last month we received this email from Police Scotland, intriguingly noting that they had “been advised” that they’d already investigated John Swinney’s admission that the SNP had stolen all the referendum-campaign fundraiser money.
One such alert reader swiftly dropped the force an FOI request asking who’d advised them, and got a curious answer a couple of weeks later.
So that’s a novel use of language: “we have been advised” means “we neither sought nor received advice”. Naturally, our reader sought a little more clarity.
This morning they received this response:
So to strip it down to the basics: the curt reply last month to our question about why the original crime investigated in Operation Branchform – that is, the SNP stealing donors’ money, not Peter Murrell stealing the money the SNP had stolen – had not been resolved or resulted in any prosecutions was complete cobblers written by someone who didn’t know what they were talking about.
That’s not OUR interpretation, that’s literally what Police Scotland have just said. When we queried that original reply, we got a further response saying “Hmm, please give us a bit more time”.
That was almost a month ago now. (12 June to be precise.) And we did tell them to feel free to have a proper think before answering this time, so that’s fine.
But it’s really not a very complicated question. The “factual matrix”, to use the legal term, is undisputed.
As one of Scotland’s leading KCs agrees.
(Widely reported in today’s papers.)
The SNP’s dramatic and sudden U-turn on the question of refunds is undoubtedly the smart move. Paying back the stolen money to anyone who asks may be an effective move in shutting down a civil case (although that would depend on whether they also offered interest and compensation, as raised by Roddy Dunlop).
But it also acts as a(nother) tacit admission that a crime has been committed, because why else would you be paying people back when you’d previously said you wouldn’t because their money was being used for what they’d donated it for?
And that, readers, if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor, bats the hot potato right back into Police Scotland and the Crown Office’s court.
If a crime on such a large scale has been committed – the exact same crime Peter Murrell just got five years and three months in prison for, over a substantially smaller sum – and nobody disputes any of the material facts of the case (which they don’t), then why did a five-year investigation decide not to prosecute anyone for it?
The police and Crown Office, having previously tried to dismissively fob us off with two sentences, and then trying to blame each other, now keep telling us to wait while they come up with a proper answer.
We’ve waited a month so far, and we’ll keep on waiting, because we’ve got nothin’ but time. But lads, when the answer arrives it really better be a good one.
If the allegations of embezzlement are true, and even if not all donors claim money back or don’t receive it on acceptable terms, a crime has still been committed.
So even if the SNP gives monies (including interest and compensation on the terms laid out in the draft document and KC opinion) back to donors will you continue to prosecute the case?
I certainly hope so!
see paragraph 25 of Dunlop’s advice.
There’s a time limit on judicial review so be careful offering them unlimited time to respond.
I thought anyone in the bowels of government reading Wings was guilty of a capital offence. It seems not. Given that, though, it’s a bit worrying that it took them so long. We don’t have a very bright political class do we?
So when are you playing Nicola Sturgeon at seventh dimension chess and will it be livestreamed?
The police and Crown Office, have lost the will to live. I feel sure they’d wished they had never heard of WingsoverScotland.
But while the police and Crown Office are throwing accusations at each other, from out side of the rings it a cracking fight and who knows who’s going to win.
I can’t wait for the next move, its better than chess.
Just when we had been told 2026 was going to be a boring year thanks to the SNP, The police, Crown Office alone with Mr Swinney its turned out to be quite a interesting year and it hasn’t even finished, I’ve never been so entertained that you Mr Campbell.
The Nasty Party is in a panic, I hope the Murrel’s was worth it.
“when the answer arrives it really better be a good one”
Friday lunchtime.
Scotland’s great and good would usually be driving their top spec motors to their weekend homes by now. Or waiting last call to board the flights for their continental weekends away.
Is it too much to hope they’re in a conference somewhere, desperately trying out ever more convoluted lies on each other, to see if any of them will pass the “heid zips up the back” test?
Is it bad to hope that “to save the planet” the air con goes off at 12:30 on Friday’s and nobody can find a jannie with keys to access the control room and override the settings?
Oh to be a fly on the wall as the temperature rises.
It going to be very hard for the police and Crown Office to ignore the resent actions of the SNP.
I would presume they’d have to know give a firm response to Wings letters. I can only hope the response will result into a further investigation of this Independence fund and more charges.
Am I correct in saying the SNP used party money to pay a liable case regarding an elected member?
Keep going! Are there ways of piling on even more pressure? I’m thinking of the possible involvement of HMRC which was mentioned a while back, and also of somehow getting Police Scotland and COPFS to accuse each other of lying over the decision to drop the case.
Let’s accept for a moment that the original intention was to raise money for a referendum fighting fund. In such circumstances a new, specially designated bank account would almost certainly have been opened by the party and all donations deposited in said account. The question of how and when these funds ultimately found their way into the party’s main operating account remains to be answered. More importantly, the question of who authorised that transfer remains to be answered.
Is it possible that we might now be able to believe that as more people and institutions (The National) are turning against the SNP, they might be forced to change tack and actually now do something in the pursuit of Independence?