Narrowing the options
We’ve just sent this letter to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Thank you for your response, which I have considered with care.
I note you have advised that “full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established. That investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement. These conclusions were agreed by the procurator fiscal, by Crown Counsel who was a KC and by a reviewing KC.”
I agree that the evidence to which I have pointed demonstrates the crime of embezzlement, as I said to you in my previous correspondence. The point is, however, that there are two instances of embezzlement: that to which Mr Murrell pled guilty (ie his embezzlement from the SNP); and that which has seemingly not been the subject of investigation and certainly not prosecution, for reasons which remain unclear.
The evidence to which I have pointed admits of little doubt. In short:
- Money was ingathered by the SNP on the basis of assurances that it would be “ringfenced” for defined purposes
- That money was thereafter subject to a trust under Scots law, in terms of which it could only be spent for those defined purposes
- The First Minister of Scotland has now confirmed that the money was spent on other matters.
It really is that simple. It defies belief to think that the Procurator Fiscal and two KCs could look at that simple factual matrix and conclude that there was no evidence of a crime.
That being so inherently unlikely, I can only assume that those involved were not considering that point, and were (as your last reply suggests) considering rather whether or not it could be shown that fraud was involved in the solicitation of donations. I can quite understand that proving fraudulent intent at the time the donations were sought would be difficult.
But again (and at the risk of repetition) that is not the point. Assume that the donations were solicited in bona fide for the defined purposes: thus no fraud in ingathering the money.
That does not answer the question which I am posing, which is on what possible basis could it be lawful for those donations then to be spent on anything other than the defined purposes for which they were solicited?
I thus invite you to reconsider.
I should say that I have instructed the drafting of civil proceedings based on fraudulent breach of trust, which as I am sure you are aware is the civil equivalent of embezzlement.
Given that fact, I dare to suggest that it would be rather embarrassing for the Crown Office to be found to have ignored repeated requests to look at this very point if a civil court decides that what I have described above as a simple factual matrix does indeed show that which I contend is blatantly obvious: embezzlement, in the form of the wrongful use of money held on trust by those to whom it had been entrusted.
Regards etc,
Rev. Stuart Campbell
As ever, we’ll keep you updated.
And in relation to those last two paragraphs, if you were a donor to any of the SNP’s “ringfenced” fundraisers and you’re not happy that your money was stolen and used to elect the likes of Karen Adam, Lloyd Melville, Patricia Gibson, Alyn Smith, Kirsten Oswald and – ultimate trolling – Colin Beattie instead, please drop us a line via the Wings contact form. We’ll be getting in touch with all respondents very soon.
Offfttt. Class indeed.
Excellent! It’s very clear. With you, I await progress.
I really hope you get somewhere with this, even tho SG and COPFS are desperately digging a hole deep enough to bury this in
I suspect squeaky bum time for the offenders and those who covered for them
Keep up the excellent work
Jez
Oh, God. I just LOVE really elegant lawyers’ letters. If Roddy Dunlop were ever to get posters made, I’d have one on my bedroom wall….
Magnificent Stu and counsel.
For funding of civil proceedings, count me in.
Me too, happy to contribute. Anything to send a message to these unelected bureaucrats that – at the end of the day – they are public servants who must do what is right. They were super-quick to prosecute Alex Salmond. Now we are seeking answers & information from them, they have slowed to the pace of a snail… Funny that…
Me too.
Is it criminal for public servants/lawyers etc to participate in a cover up? Because, this sounds very much like a cover up.
Oh, what fun. We need some entertainment now that the World Cup is over.
Crowdfunder awaited – or is counsel doing it for the sheer pleasure?
Irresistible force meets immovable object.
Up until now, that’s always been classed as a nonsensical statement.
But in this instance, my money is on the irresistible force.
Thank goodness we have you holding their feet to the fire. Bravo.
Excellent stuff, Rev; keep going! I wonder if it would be possible to get them in a pincer movement by forcing the Police to say it was actually the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who decided to drop the prosecution, then ‘mis-spoke’ about this in the BBC interview.
May I say, the way in which and your manner of approach to the the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is that of a real gentleman with a tender approach, it is unlike your usual Rottweiler approach, I mean no offense.
It would appear your communication is get lost in translation, might I suggest a face to face meeting with the above and your KC.
I can’t wait for there reply
“Ingathered” is my new word of the day. The spell checker didn’t know it either.
Happy to donate towards any civil action here (even though Wings blocked me last year for expressing a view that differed from his on the comparability of constitutional separation and divorce – never mind!).
Great letter, Stu!
But sadly, it will be evaded/ignored, just like your other great letters were.
It’s glaringly obvious that powers to be want to avoid the fraud issue. I suspect it will expose others inside the SNP and lead to further revelations.
Sir,
Your persistence in this matter is most admirable and I wish you every success.
However I suspect this will be subject to the legal equivalent of kicking into the long grass and then it’s long forgotten.
That’s what all the smart money said when the rev first started this. I’m betting on WoS.
Holding them to account stu!! thank you for all you do! without wings, they would be getting off free. with your scrutiny, they must be having sleepless nights.
What happened to us? When I grew up in the 60s and 70s our education and legal systems were the envy of the world, including our nearest neighbours. Now our education is pitiful and our legal system corrupted to the core by the SNP and their control of their cronies. If I could afford to emigrate I would. I am ashamed.
In terms of funding, I think RevStu has that more or less covered for now & if not then hopefully he’d let people know.
Unlike certain other organisations who have a fundraiser and realise they can’t use the money as it was intended 😉 I have a distinct recollection of being asked to vote on various options to disburse excess Wings funds to other causes.
I’m guessing that any civil procedings would be brought against the SNP, as an organisation, and/or senior officers of the party, meaning that they would not be able to rely on the bottomless pockets of the public purse to cover their legal fees. The consequences of successful civil procedings could potentially bankrupt the party and/or senior officers.
The demise of the SNP cannot come soon enough for me. The rancid, rotting corpse of the party has been, and continues to be, a greater impediment to Scottish independence than Westminster.
The independence movement needs a new vehicle to advance its cause. Nothing in the SNP is worth saving. The 2018 amendments to the party’s constitution and rules turned it into an effective autocracy that prevents members from ever being able to fix what has gone wrong. Its candidate selection processes since 2015 have flooded the party with Sturgeonites and hounded others out. I’m struggling to identify a single SNP MSP or MP who I would trust to organise a piss-up in a brewery, far less build a compelling case for independence, win it, then negotiate a successful and appropriate divorce agreement with Westminster. We need to start afresh, unencumbered by the damage that Sturgeon and her cabal have done to our movement. The sooner, the better.
“I’m struggling to identify a single SNP MSP or MP who I would trust to organise a piss-up in a brewery, far less build a compelling case for independence, win it, then negotiate a successful and appropriate divorce agreement with Westminster.”
We already have a compelling case for independence; the unwarranted and abusive dominance of English authority in the governance of Scotland is fundamentally unconstitutional, illegal, and highly undemocratic, because it ignores the retained sovereignty and constitutional rights of the entire Scottish half of the Union.
England’s MPs are not legally or constitutionally entitled to overrule any majority decision of the Scots MPs because no such provision was formally agreed in the Treaty or Acts of Union.
Not compelling. Not persuasive. Not practical. Not aligned with reality.
Find something else.
For example, Alf’s claim that Scotland loses out to the tune of £150+ billion per annum.
If you can’t build a compelling case for Indy from that you’re never gonna persuade us by reference to some musty 300 YO documents.
This is the real world, not an instalment of the Indiana Jones franchise.
But that ‘reality’ is unlawful and unconstitutional precisely because of those ‘musty 300 YO documents’, Hatey. Even merry old England relies on its own even older musty documents, like Magna Carta for example.
It is your argument that is “Not compelling. Not persuasive. Not practical. Not aligned with reality.”
And what on earth makes you think that we can’t build a case around Alf’s stated theft of £150+Billion per annum by the English half of the Union from the Scottish half of the Union?
That case is built on official recorded data, and is so straightforward the case practically builds itself.
You are not convinced? I don’t care. Far more sensible people than you very likely will be convinced.
There are people in England who claim that due to their own interpretation of Magna Carta, that whole swathes of jurisprudence and statute do not apply. Normally, conveniently, in a way that significantly advantages the person making the claim. For example, such people claim that there is no legal obligation to pay council tax, but simultaneously do believe they have a legal right to receive council services.
So there’s nothing novel and unique about what you are doing, and it certainly isn’t limited to Scotland. There are some of what are called “Freemen on Land” in England, and a substantial “Sovereign Citizen” movement in the USA. The specific claimed legal basis is of course different, nobody is going around in the states claiming that the ToU means they don’t need a driving license. However, the overall philosophical approach is broadly the same: adopt a unique interpretation of a very old statute or legal concept to disapply a whole host of subsequent laws that are either personally inconvenient or inconvenient to an ideology.
It goes without saying that none of these nonsensical alternative law doctrines enjoy any support or recognition by any authority anywhere. Most of the proponents don’t actually live by their beliefs in their day to day life, a tactic recognition that the actual (rather than pretendy) law does actually apply to them. For the most hardcore, they usually set themselves on a one way escalator which inevitably leads to a prison sentence for contempt of court, unless they decide to give up and jump off at some midway point (which most invariably do, when they realise the futility of what they are trying to do).
I think Hatey has summarised it quite nicely with the phrase “not aligned to reality”.
“Xaracen says:
5 July, 2026 at 10:28 am
And what on earth makes you think that we can’t build a case around Alf’s stated theft of £150+Billion per annum by the English half of the Union from the Scottish half of the Union?
That case is built on official recorded data, and is so straightforward the case practically builds itself”
Because the data is not “officially recorded”, it was wrong when the article was written and it’s even more wrong now.
They must actually think that the Scotch zip up the back of the heid.
Why let the facts, plain for all to see, get in the way of unionist BS though?
In fact who needs cheap leccy with all this hot air produced by Adrian? The Walter Mitty of Wings.
Good grief, you must be bored and very bitter, Fatso. It’s not all about how much more “free” stuff you can extort from hapless UK taxpayers.
As Hatey remarked the other day, maybe if you’d made hay whilst the sun shone during Scotland’s oil boom (eg got a job), you wouldn’t be whining impotently into the ether on that busted sofa of yours? Hey ho.
“Far more sensible people than you very likely will be convinced”
Far more sensible people and far less sensible people will agree in wondering what’s taking so long.
And if economically the case for Indy is so slam dunk, what the eejits poncing around the UN in kilts think they’re up to. And why they even believe what they’re doing is necessary.
As I said back in May, Xaracen, all this was done to death over the past 5 years and made no difference whatsoever in the court of Scottish public opinion – the voting booths for the 2026 HR election.
Is the plan really to spend the next 5 years flogging the same dead horse? Because it stinks like only a long dead horse, putrefying in the sun, can stink.
“It goes without saying that none of these nonsensical alternative law doctrines enjoy any support or recognition by any authority anywhere.”
Granted, but they do not apply to my argument.
My argument is based on the agreements in the Treaty and its associated Acts, and they do not permit any English-based “law doctrines” to set aside or overrule Scotland’s law doctrines, including the guaranteed permanence of Scotland’s constitution and legal systems, except where specifically stated in the Treaty. At the very least any change to the law in Scotland must require the formal approval by majority of Scotland’s MPs, and even then, because of Scotland’s extant sovereignty and constitution, they are subject also to approval of the Scots people, whose constitutional rights allow them to challenge any perceived reduction of their rights and authorities in Scotland. Being sovereign Scots and not English serfs, they are not obliged to accept any old English overeach that wasn’t mandated in the Treaty. Even more so, given that they were unlawfully denied the means to exercise their rights to have the Treaty struck down in 1707.
As for Alf’s assertion, where do you think he got his figures from? It’s not his style to pluck them out of thin air, so they must have some legitimate basis.
Yes Xaracen – and similar to the argument that Article 61 of Magna Carta means it is optional to pay council tax, that theory enjoys no support anywhere. There are hundreds of cases determined every year where this theory, if it were true, but would be highly relevant and determinative, but yet it is not even mentioned let alone applied. It is therefore, by definition, not law.
Alf’s figures are in pounds (although labelled in $) for Scotland, but dollar figures for every other nation, and a mix of nominal and PPP, and also for I believe 2021 (a Covid year in which makes for a poor comparison anyway) which were subsequently subject to an upwards revision by the ONS. Alf has acknowledged these errors previously but not corrected the article and continues to distribute it.
You’ve got em squirming, Rev. No more wiggle room. They must love you.
I think all could be forgiven if the KC showed Scotland her Blips live on TV.
Surprised you’re still here. Thought you’d be at the funeral. Lasts until Thursday so there’s still time.
Whos Deed?
Did you see my clever use of words there? That snooty cow will never show her Blips. So we will never forgive her.
You can’t know that for sure, Mark, until you’ve worked your way through the OnlyFans directory.
I hear Snooty Cow is a popular category, so allow plenty of time.
The SNPCO or SNP Crown Office plc must be starting to worry about their avoidance of the obvious crimes to protect one another and chase the little fall guy.
Dorothy Bain presumably won’t be asked to hear the case, as she is now a judge to be in January 2027.
John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Colin Beattie etc – trial for embezzlement would be a fitting end. Possible sentence for what they may have done falls neatly into this example – ”……….Confidence fraud
These are crimes where the perpetrator deceives the victim and wins their confidence. They are frequently targeted at vulnerable people and can include crimes such as charity scams, advance fee frauds and lottery scams. These are prosecuted under the Fraud Act with a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years. Typically, sentencing ranges from between 4 to 7 years……”
Andrea says:
3 July, 2026 at 2:28 pm
“Ingathered” is my new word of the day.”
==========
Like “outwith” it is often met in (Scots) legal documents.
In the same spirit, I am disappointed at the salutation, Dear Sirs/Madams instead of Dear Sirs/Mesdames.
Whatever the demerits of COPFS, none of us, surely, would wish to compare its female members with brothel keepers!
I am surprised that Stu’s legal team nodded it through.
Homer nodded.???
Martin Guisler hinted that it wasn’t his colleague’s finest day that they considered the original missing funds investigation a big nothingburger triggered by cranks.
Did he not give any indication that they would show a bit more testicular fortitude in pursuing both the Crown and the SNP indifference to either the remaining £260K, the entire £660K, or all the VAT/Tax/NI/BIK type implications left behind after the Murrell stitch up?
Boom.
Meanwhile in London readers, looks like someone has turned to comfort eating and drinking…. (caution advised this is not pretty)
link to i.dailymail.com
Dripping with sarcasm….love it!
I can just imagine the reply…
It wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute someone for embezzling the public.
@cynicus,
Actually “outwith” is a word I come across quite regularly, and I use it myself.
I think I saw mesdames written down in the past, and yes “homer nodded” was my new word of the day a couple of weeks ago (and we talked about it 😀 )
Nicola Sturgeon stated on camera that the SNP accounts were prepared “on a cash flow basis”. Presumably this means that donations were recorded as income, rather than put to the balance sheet as a reserve. She might thus argue that the accounts are not evidence of a lack of legal recognition of a trust, i.e. a duty to disburse an equivalent amount of money in the case of a referendum and that there was no legal duty to hold the amounts donated in a bank account.
I’m not saying it’s a good argument, but presumably that would be what she or the SNP would have to say in court. Perhaps she said it in her post-no-comment interview response to the Police.
If, as Sturgeon says, the accounts are prepared on “a cash flow basis”, why do the notes to accounts show a substantial sum described as “accruals and deferred income” (£388,000 in 2024) ?
Sturgeon had no clue what she was parroting when she said that. It’s a minor point but I am curious to know who fed her that nonsensical line.
Looks like mate in 1. Neat zugzwang. Well played. Will they really play knockboardover?
Your tenacity in this matter is a credit to you rev and I am reminded of a recurring line
in The Winslow Boy, “ Let right be done”.
I am English and a unionist but if funding is needed for this then count me in
I suspect they will reply no trust was constituted under the law. May be worth anticipating this in a further email.
E.g. “The assurances that the fund remained intact and deployable, given after the point at which it is now admitted the money had been spent, are — if made in the knowledge that they were untrue — capable of constituting fraud at the time they were made, producing the practical result of forestalling demands for repayment and further scrutiny. This depends neither upon intention at solicitation, nor breach of trust, and I ask whether it was considered.”
Maybe we’ll see the Augean Stables cleaned before the next election.
I’d be pretty confident in securing a conviction for fraud on the basis that no ring-fenced account was ever created, so there was clearly never any intention to secure any donation in a ring-fenced account.
That is a very good point that I have never, or at least ever been aware of any comment on before.
If you are expressly calling for donations to be ringfenced into a fund for a specific objective then you would expect monies to be put into a specific account.
Ringfenced means what it is understood to mean. Hypothecated monies protected for the objective it was solicited for.
Fraud, and the utterly corrupt police and COPFS know it. All part of the colonial gangster state. No one can have any trust in the police and the prosecution and these excellent articles by Rev Stu reinforce this in well researched and presented pieces.
Meanwhile, Sturgeon, poor estranged wife of the jailed embezzler Murrell, enjoying life in London:
link to dailymail.com
Cynicus says:
3 July, 2026 at 5:10 pm
“Whatever the demerits of COPFS, none of us, surely, would wish to compare its female members with brothel keepers!”
Those at the COPFS who have been protecting fraudsters and embezzlers are no better if not worse than brothel keepers, at least IMHO.
At least with brothel keepers, you know what to expect and you can be reasonably sure to be provided with the services they provide. Unlike the COPFS which is supposed to prosecute criminals. And apply the law to everyone equally.
And just to add to the earlier comment about how rotten and corrupt Police Scotland and COPFS are and how citizens can have no trust in them consider how the Police protected Sturgeon and others too in more basic ways.
Think about Covid and how the Police forced their way into houses looking for homes where maybe more than two from the same family were present. Or think about how “road block” type checks were made to find people maybe travelling outside their area.
Brutal stuff and the example of the police forcing their way into an innocent family in their home in Aberdeen with two young children, or police stopping walkers on the West Highland way and then contrast that with the non prosecution of Sturgeon videoed cutting about unmasked at a funeral. No case to answer said the Police. And ditto when the Prime Minister and his security entourage flew to Scotland on a one day political promotion trip to open a new commercial laboratory beside the QE hospital before thereafter the PM heading off to visit a Tory supporting business out Cumbernauld way.
No case to answer despite complaints to Police Scotland. It was ok for the First Minister and the Orime Minister to flagrantly break the law but not for the common five eight who were relentlessly pursued.
These are but more example of how utterly rotten and partisan our apartheid Police Scotland is. No wonder under Surgeon drug crime and its shadowy business tentacles grew.Can anyone have any trust. Not if they have any sense.
But yes, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the apartheid Police Service of South Africa give insight into colonial police forces. And that is where we are.
If people wanted they could look further into the practices of Police Scotland here.
A new HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland Review has now formally identified serious concerns within Police Scotland relating to:
• record keeping
• auditability
• whistleblowing
• referral pathways
• senior officer allegations
• and governance transparency.
Evidential analysis examines the constitutional significance of those findings in the wider context of Operation Talla and SPA oversight.
“blank” records were created on iBase systems;
• some allegations concerning senior officers were not shared with the SPA as required;
• formal pathways were bypassed.
Those findings now sit alongside existing evidence:
• “guidance to not record”
• Op Talla command structures
• and Covid-era evidential handling.
It is now a matter of official institutional record.
Ethical approach analysis:
link to ethicalapproach.co.uk
Full HMICS review here: link to ethicalapproach.co.uk
I’m sure the Flat Earth Society are guiding these people through this corrupt embarrassment
Perhaps signing for the Neds by Ford Keirnan could be our next form of communication.
No one is every going to sign off their name for this 3 wise monkeys act.
The constitution of the SNP at clause 28 sets tasks for the National Treasurer. Clause 37 sets out General Financial Provisions the responsibility of the National Executive Committee. There is the financial scheme at page 172 et seq, the duties of the Finance and Audit Committee at page 178.
What enquiries were made by that committee during Mr. Murrell’s tenure as National Treasurer about these ingathered funds, supposedly ringfenced to for a future independence campaign? Are members of the committee liable to query from and action by the wider membership for breach of duty, with possible personal liability for these? missing funds?
Archived link to the article showing Sturgeon living the high life in London.
link to archive.is
A poster in a previous article said that the Rev should let this go and it will be like the past where the establishment closes rank to protect Sturgeon but I’m not sure that this will happen this time.
The Scottish establishment is doing this now but the English establishment isn’t as forgiving and will continue to rake dirt about her private life, considering she is the type who is too stupid not to keep her head down and keep her mouth shut.
There is no doubt that when she starts her political commentating in the English media, articles from the Rev will continue to be reprinted.
She may have got away with it at the moment but her time will eventually come.
There is substantial public interest in a trial. Members of the public need to know whether other organisations in the future offering to ringfence money can be help to that: or is the term meaningless?
The only fact members of the public need to know is that the SNP, and by extension ScotGov, are organisations hoaching with crims, grifters, liars, malcontents and incompetents. Along with a fair number of biology denying eejits.
No need to over-complicate things.
But certainly, if a trial or trials are needed to ram this message home, bring them on.
Willie,
7:11 am.
Police Breaking in to Scottish homes and preventing Scots from moving around in Scotland during Covid,
Article XV111 treaty of union
The private rights of the Subjects within Scotland is unalterable by the Government down South or the devolved government to Scotland under Westminsters Scotland Act.
Perhaps we should pay a little bit more attention to conduct against the subjects of Scotland by Governing Bodies if people want to insist there is a union,
Because the subjects in Scotland have the private right to Scots law, Scottish Courts, trial by jury, and not devolved secondary law, or Crown of England law. Under the act of Settlement.
They have private rights regarding access to government information that effects or has a direct impact on their private incomes and their finances.
Scotland is still a Country and not a region and all the people in Scotland have PRIVATE RIGHTS over their finances that may be unaccounted for.
Scotland can use the treaty of union union unalterable laws to help assist it in many situations under article XV111.
Wether, How policing is done in Scotland still by consent of the people or by the Courts of Scotland because article XV111 retains the Sovereignty of the people in Scotland if it interferes with the private rights of the people in Scotland.
Not the rights of Government or Governing bodies.
So if Scotland non- parliament since 1707 insists it is in a union treaty with Englands parliament then use it,
Because Westminster, the parliament of England and Wales, the GREAT BRITAIN parliament, the ANGLO – IRISH parliament and the UK parliament is not allowed to alter the PRIVATE RIGHTS of people in Scotland without losing Scotland.
James, it wouldn’t matter even if Article XVIII (and/or the Tenor attached to Article XXV by the Scottish parliament) didn’t “retain the sovereignty of the people”, because literally no-one involved in the Treaty negotiations, from monarchs to minions, had the legitimate authority to remove or subordinate their sovereignty in the first place. It would have been ultra vires of any of them to agree to any such thing, and legally unenforceable in Scotland.
So it was illegally enforced instead.
The presumption that Scotland’s people would be subordinate to any authority beyond their own laws and constitution is the key falsehood and fault-line of the entire Union.
I think we all know why the fraud hasn’t been charged, the CP were hoping Peter being a fall guy for embezzlement would suffice as some kind of sacrificial lamb for the wolves at the door, and the crime of fraud (and possibly other crimes we don’t know about) would conveniently go away. I suspect that if they were to move forward on fraud charges a house of SNP cards might well come tumbling down. It will get very messy, and they know it.
In Scotland we actually do not languish half way between being in a union or not in a union, if union minded people insist the treaty is a reality,
Then the treaty articles apply to all the people in [Scotlands private rights] , including all expenditure of finances from their own pockets…. by all governing bodies.
The treaty of union article XV111 cannot
The union treaty cannot over rule or make self made declarations on what the union decides are the private rights of the people in Scotland, as it specfically states that this is for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland to decide.
It does not, repeat does not state that this is for a future devolved government to decide, nor does it state that this is for the Great Britain parliament to decide.
Private rights is for the evident utility of the people within Scotland. And is unalterable.
The Scottish peoples finances are private matters, the finances belong to the people within Scotland and how the police, and the courts and prosecutors and the later and latterly devolved government not mentioned at all in the treaty is spending our private accumulated finances from our Scottish incomes will always able to be questioned by the people within Scotland from a private rights perspective. For the finances… belonged and still belong to the people.
Several people here posting about Nicola’s London photo.
Just wait until she’s starring in the TV series with Michael Gove, when we’d prefer see her in court, then, hopefully, reunited with hubby in the clink.
The courts have no ruling over what are the private Rights of the Scottish people as it is the peoples decision,
And Article XV111 private rights for the evident utility the subjects within Scotland,
omits to say these rights are for the governments rights , devolved governments, governing bodies rights, officials rights , civil servants rights , judges rights , courts or prosecutors rights , if it is us ,we are the supposed to be the subjects Within Scotland,
And if we are not classed the subjects of the treaty of union article XV111…? What then?
As I look at the comments just now, 7 out of the last 8 posts from the same nutter. Probably all saying the same thing. Does anyone actually read them?
It’s the side effects of the puberty blockers.
It can’t be, Mark. Cesaire predicted this and there were no puberty blockers in his day.
No private rights for the evident utility of the of the subjects within Scotland. Or No union,
And this covers many many private rights for Scots within Scotland better and far superior to human rights laws which has limitations and restrictions.
It is not for officials to alter, to reinterpret, to make altered decisions on our private rights in Scotland or to go back in time to amend or add belated restriction to what they meant to say which was not said, and was agreed in 1706 and 1707.treaty.
These are the unalterable laws written and set down in the treaty of union to create the [State] of the United kingdom of Scotland and England.
PEERS: ‘WESTMINSTER’S CONVERSION PRACTICES BILL IMPERILS THE INNOCENT’
Peers have warned that the Government’s plans to ban so-called conversion practices risk “criminalising people who have done nothing wrong”.
Published last week, the Conversion Practices Draft Bill for England and Wales covers “emotional pressure” that causes a person to believe they do or do not have a particular “sexual orientation” or “transgender identity”. Any person found guilty of an offence faces a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
But the House of Lords emphasised that abuse is already illegal, and such wording could “trigger criminalising parents” who do not support their child’s gender-confusion.
‘PREPOSTEROUS’
Baroness Fox of Buckley urged the Government to note that family lawyers have already raised concerns about the Bill’s “loose definition of ‘abusive’ and so on”.
For example, she said, “if you are a mum who says to a teenager who says that they are born in the wrong body, ‘No you’re not’, that is a challenge to their identity, and that could even trigger social services investigations.”
Baroness Cash agreed, adding: “That drafting and those terms would put in question a wife who asks her husband to stop wearing her clothes, or parents who tell their child that they will not fund puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or a school that insists on referring to all its pupils as girls and boys.”
She also criticised the “weak” evidence base for the proposals, with “preposterous” claims of tens of thousands of exorcisms, “flawed methodology”, and relying on a Galop report, which admitted that the cases they found were already aligned with existing offences.
PRAYER
The Lord Bishop of Leicester highlighted the danger to church leaders, and the “lack of clarity on the difference between harmful conversion practices and perfectly acceptable practices of pastoral care and indeed prayer”.
“If this difference is not crystal-clear within the legislation, it will potentially have a very significant negative impact on what I believe is legitimate spiritual care offered by faith groups.”
In response to criticism, a Government spokesman claimed that “although abuse laws exist in other contexts such as domestic abuse and coercive behaviour, they just don’t always extend to conversion practices”.
ORDINARY CONVERSATIONS
When the Government published the draft Bill, The Christian Institute’s Simon Calvert warned that it is “wide open to misuse”.
“After eight years and five Prime Ministers is this the best draft they can come up with? The Bill would see parents, professionals and pastors having to answer to the police for innocent conversations that LGBT activists claim are ‘abusive’.”
“The Government claims its Bill targets abuse, but it’s now clear that parents are going to find themselves having to answer to police officers and the courts for conversations with their children.”
He also warned that causing “serious alarm or distress” to a person which “has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities” is not a clear threshold.
(The Christian Institute, 4 July 2026)
link to christian.org.uk
Fearghas
Please see here.
link to threadreaderapp.com
Thanks. A bit of context from you would have helped. I read through the whole thing to my bemusement. I presume you are drawing our attention to the short opening exchange about using personal pronouns?
My apology Fearghas.
It is a discrimination and harassment claim which has been running for several days and reported by Tribunal Tweets.
It involves Defra and a payments agency.
There is a post about it here.
link to pressreader.com
Sam is a pronouns kinda guy.
Caveman’s a fool. Knows nothing about the case. Opens his gub with nothing to say.
I have a brand new, crisp, uncirculated Bank of Scotland £20 note that says the legislation won’t be applied to Muslims.
Anybody care to take the bet?
A Bank of England note please. Can’t trust those Reichsmarks. Very volatile exchange rate.
Regularly drop by, but rarely post. I’ve been a frequent visitor here since 2012. I used to subscribe, then stopped as there was a period where I felt there wasn’t really much focus on indy. I listened to Rev on Radio Scotland and agree the SNP is the dead elephant (though I wouldn’t say it’s dead since it seems to know what it’s doing in blocking indy). I therefore applaud. However, more than that, I’m ready to contribute to a crowdfunder for this civil action, and any other actions including but not limited to judicial review. I’d imagine so are many others. Like Roddy, QC, there will be plenty of pro British people united with us pro Indy/Scottish types, so the reach should be pretty wide, with only about, what, 30k SNP members unlikely to contribute. The SNP post Salmond will go down in history in ignominy but I’d rather that “history” comes sooner rather than later.
“Like Roddy, QC, there will be plenty of pro British people united with us pro Indy/Scottish types, so the reach should be pretty wide”
Yes, I am sure that many pro-British people would be only too glad to contribute financially also, myself included.
4nd whilst we are on tbe subject of politically corrupt colonial police doing how many folks have heard of Home Office directed Project Servator.
Its a directive to integrate UK specialist, and typically military police resources onto the streets.
In this regard and as an example armed military police with facial recognition, APRN technologies and other resources such as dronex are being deployed in and around Argyll and Bute.
Empowered, or should I directed by tbe Home Office policy they will be undertaking surveilance and stop and search in public places.
All of course in the name of fighting crime such as drugs, organised crime and the ubiquitous terrorism its an iteration of lrevious policy where Ministry of Defence police were deployed in and around the Garelochhead peninsula effectively making areas of Argyll and Bute a civilian free police force area.
But Project Servator is now in place and in action in London. And in Reading specialist armed Nuclear Police have been undertaking actions in and around tbe town.
Its a concerning development where it very much seems the Home Office are seeking to integrate armed non civilian armed police and create a London controlled quasi civilian come military force.
People fear a centrally controlled police state and for good reason. Be interesting to learn more about what this is about as policing and the intrusive surveilance of tbe state intensifies.
The police faiking to prosecute fraud in 5he SNP and prot3ct Sturgeon whilst viciously pursuing Alex Salmond and his supporters are but the thin end of a thickening wedge we should all fear.
Or am I missing something
One thing you may have missed is the recent call by one of the more outspoken spokesmen for the religion of peace for followers in the U.K. to organise and begin collectively building up their readiness and fitness.
You may also have missed the state-sponsored acts of terrorism conducted in the U.K. by agents of 1ran.
And whilst we are on tbe subject of politically corrupt colonial police doing how many folks have heard of Home Office directed Project Servator.
Its a directive to integrate UK specialist, and typically military police resources onto the streets.
In this regard and as an example armed military police with facial recognition, APRN technologies and other resources such as dronex are being deployed in and around Argyll and Bute.
Empowered, or should I directed by tbe Home Office policy they will be undertaking surveilance and stop and search in public places.
All of course in the name of fighting crime such as drugs, organised crime and the ubiquitous terrorism its an iteration of lrevious policy where Ministry of Defence police were deployed in and around the Garelochhead peninsula effectively making areas of Argyll and Bute a civilian free police force area.
But Project Servator is now in place and in action in London. And in Reading specialist armed Nuclear Police have been undertaking actions in and around tbe town.
Its a concerning development where it very much seems the Home Office are seeking to integrate armed non civilian armed police and create a London controlled quasi civilian come military force.
People fear a centrally controlled police state and for good reason. Be interesting to learn more about what this is about as policing and the intrusive surveilance of tbe state intensifies.
The police failing to prosecute fraud in the SNP to prot3ct Sturgeon whilst viciously pursuing Alex Salmond and his supporters is but the thin end of a thickening wedge we should all fear.
Or am I missing something
The Bank of England?
Obviously not the Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Ireland, or the Bank of Wales.
Perhaps the other three nations should question why all revenues accrued only go to the Bank of England and not to a Great Britain Named Bank by Statue.
Fearghas,
The private rights of the Scottish people would include mums and dads in Scotland,
It would also include wether the population and people of Scotland wish to use pronouns on a select few persons,
There were no Stipulations announced by or in the treaty of union article XV111 how the people of Scotland need to address other people.
That is the private rights of the Scottish subjects within Scotland.
The Westminster Government nor its devolved governments can over rule a treaty and its articles that is the recognised conditions and terms and articles of a treaty,
The Westminster parliament has to decide wether to breach and end the union between Scotland and England,
It is what it is,
England cannot decide what the Scots private rights cover. As it is for the evident utility of the Scots.
The decision on wether we are in treaty of Union with England may or not may come a lot quicker than most people suspect,
If not over the private rights, but on peoples consent of police and there behaviour in Scotland. Amongst many other growing issues like like pronouns and it would appear that it is England, not Scotland that is pushing to end that treaty and break up The British created State sooner than later..
Can’t blame Scotland for new laws of dictatorship, when the British parliament is the ones passing them.
“James” Che…
Have your carers walked out on strike and left you alone with the computer ?
That’s just what you would say if you were working for MI6, which I think we can all agree proves that you actually are.
Cheap. Nasty. Nothing.
@Andy
Wasn’t it Elkins who proved that in a colony, everybody not working for the security services actually is?
Plus, of course, those who are working for the security services, you can guess the rest.
Aye Hatey, they are well worth their £2 billion budget for “those who are working for the security services” to maintain the ‘security’ of the UK by keeping Scotland haud ticht and continue the plunder here of £150+ billion/year:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
As I’ve just said to Xaracen, beats me how you can’t leverage that claim, if it’s true, into a slam dunk for Indy.
And please don’t come back with some “colonised” boiler plate, backed up with selective quotes from some nasty, third-world racists.
We Scots, as our considerable colonising history shows, have always been ones for grasping at any pecuniary advantage we see. A credible explanation of your fiscal claims after Indy would have us crushing each other in the polling booth queues to vote for it.
Yawn……
Thanks for clearing that up, Anthem.
I get it. The case for Indy is so open and shut that you can’t even be arsed to make it.
And yet here we are.
What’s your master plan? Sit on your flabby arse, saying and doing SFA, until the Pictish aliens descend from the stars to set Scotland free?
Something like that, eh?
If I took this pish as serious as you do then I would be out there with my rubble flag (fanny), my gender blender table cloth (Sissero: second rate hippy) standing shoulder to shoulder with smelly benefit cheats, university rejects, sweaty rapists and angry old women who should be looking after their grand children. The Bulwark of socialism, the front line of Geo-politics.
The screaming nonce’s. The bastard children of Marx and Engels.
And you are crying about a measly few billion.
Operation Branchform uncovered embezzlement but was primarily an investigation into fundraising fraud following a complaint about the handling of a £667,000 ring-fenced fund that the SNP had raised for an independence referendum campaign. I seem to recall reading, before the investigation started, that the Crown Office suggested all funds raised by the SNP were intended for the advancement of independence, implying that ring-fencing them wouldn’t matter. Is this the main issue: that ring-fencing is inconsequential?
Glad the Scottish establishment is being held to account.
“Police are investigating claims £1.5million went missing from the accounts of the 2014 Yes campaign. The organisation had close links to the SNP and to Peter Murrell, who has been jailed for embezzling £400k from the party.
The allegations have been made by former Nats branch secretary David Henry, who told the Sunday Mail he will meet detectives next week to hand over a dossier of evidence alleging “anomalies” in the books of Yes Scotland Ltd.”
link to scottishdailyexpress.co.uk