Or Something
We have today sent the following email to the Crown Office.
——————————————————————–
3 August 2026
Thank you for your letter of 30 July. I offer one last chance to reconsider. I do so having, once again, taken advice from the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
On 1 July, you wrote to me saying inter alia:
“No one was reported to the procurator fiscal in relation to charges of fraud. However, as part of a full and thorough police investigation by Police Scotland and the procurator fiscal, 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.”
The following day, I responded as follows:
“I note that 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. Indeed, that is what 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 not been the subject of investigation or 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 PF 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 message 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?”
You have now, by your email of 30 July, responded thus (in an email which used two different fonts, suggesting a cut-and-paste from earlier emails, as is clearly what has happened):
“We are not able to discuss the detail of the evidence. As we noted in out (sic) earlier response and in the information that we have published … the Crown’s assessment of Operation Branchform included the allegation of fraud, and the embezzlement for which Peter Murrell was prosecuted. Full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established against any individual. The evidence did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement.”
That just parrots the earlier, incomplete and unsatisfactory answer to my queries. It betrays either an unwillingness or an inability to grasp basic legal propositions.
I’m not sure I can make the point any simpler: but I will try.
- I know you have considered, and discounted, the possibility of fraud. That is not my complaint.
- I know you have evidence of embezzlement: that is the very point I am seeking to make.
- The undisputed facts of this case show that there were two instances of embezzlement: Murrell (now convicted) embezzling from the SNP; and the SNP – as the First Minister himself has admitted publicly – embezzling from the ring-fenced referendum funds.
- Every time I raise this with you, you say “we found no evidence of fraud”. I accept that. I am not asking you to reconsider that. Please do not address this again.
- Rather, I am pointing out, and have gone to the significant trouble of obtaining an opinion from the actual Dean of the Faculty of Advocates showing, that there has been a second instance of embezzlement which has not only happened at the hands of the governing party in Scotland, but has been openly admitted by the First Minister of Scotland.
- This is really very simple. It would be apparent to a first-year law student. If COPFS is not prepared to investigate that which is under their very noses, by way of apparent fact and clear admission, then there are only two possibilities: COPFS is institutionally inept, or COPFS is institutionally corrupt. Neither would be a good look.
- For one final time, I thus offer this simple invitation: given the legal analysis of the Dean of Faculty on facts which are as clear as day, can you please explain why COPFS is turning a blind eye? I am not asking you to discuss the evidence. No such discussion is needed: the facts are clear and admitted. This turns entirely on legal analysis. If you have a coherent legal answer to the Dean’s analysis, I will be very happy to ask him why he has got things wrong. If you do not, certain conclusions follow, as night follows day. None of them would be good for the rule of law in Scotland.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I will eventually get bored and go away. I will not. The eyes of the world are on COPFS. The country, and COPFS itself, prides itself on Scotland being a place where justice will be done without fear or favour. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum, no? Or is that all to be sacrificed in the interests of political quietude?
For the avoidance of doubt, I have run this email past the Dean. He is, and has indicated that I may so confirm, comfortable that I send it to you. I hope, in earnest, that this will now be given proper and mature consideration. Anything less will devalue COPFS, and its supposed independence, irremediably.
I thus ask that this be placed before a Senior Depute for consideration, and that a proper response be provided. If there is a legal answer showing that the admitted facts do not demonstrate a crime, I am happy to hear it. If there is not, a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach is one that I would suggest needs to be looked at further.
I look forward to hearing from you.
——————————————————————–
Doubtless we’ll receive the same reply as before, but in three different fonts, in around a month’s time, so make a note in your diaries, readers.
When you come for the King…….yie ken the rest.
“why COPFS is turning a blind eye?”
Good question, Rev.
This business suggests people in very powerful positions may be protecting the SNP leadership, for some reason.
A wunner wha thon coud be?
A clue – wha aye hauds pouer in a donsie wee colony?
“wha aye hauds pouer in a donsie wee colony?”
According to Fanon, the whites.
According to Hatey, that’s a useless answer for Scotland, leading to useless and pointless policies.
“According to Fanon, the whites”
Wrong again, Hatey.
Fanon warned colonized peoples in Africa, Asia and Latin America that “colonialism can wear a black face” and, also; that “colonialism may speak in the native tongue”.
Think of all those native colonial functionaries clutching and craving their KCBs, MBEs and OBEs… and the native elites and others “pensioned off by the colonial system”, the “most pampered elements” of colonial societies, proving that “colonialism is a co-operative venture”.
Ach, Alf, if “colonialism may speak in the native tongue” then I’m going to have to be wary of those who speak in the native tongue.
A couple of names – regulars on here – come to mind.
I really do wonder why you just don’t focus on shifting Indy support from 50%, at which it’s an impossibility, to 60%, at which it’s a dead cert. By my math, that’s fewer than 500,000 extra votes needed.
Not only would you avoid tying yourself in knots over Fanon’s inappropriate utterances, but we could all be moderately confident that an Independent Scotland would leap out of the starting gate in a very strong position.
And not linger, like so many other ex-colonies around the world, as a basket case shithole for generations to come.
That’s one of the many problems with painting Scotland as a colony. We can all see the ex-colonies sending all their best and brightest people to the ex-colonial master, and we can all see why.
Excellent. Could not be made plainer. Hard for them not to address the real issue without looking either stupid or of dubious moral integrity…
Excellent article. It really could not be made any simpler or any clearer.
“in around a month’s time”
would be about right, as everybody will be on holiday.
Can anybody think of any way to awaken the people of Scotland from their collective torpor? Not just about this, but about everything else.
‘everybody will be on holiday’
Not in Scotland.
OK, so I lazily exaggerated. I’ll re-write.
Over the months of July and August, when the schools are out, sufficient Scots are on holiday to make a noticeable deterioration to standards of service within both public and private enterprises.
Excepting perhaps those working in tourism, although here the deterioration to standards of service can perhaps be more fairly blamed on excessive demand.
People typically take two weeks holiday. Organisations typically provide patchy holiday cover, at best. And that only for priorities.
I think we can all see from the exchanges so far that nobody at ScotGov is treating this as a priority.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I will eventually get bored and go away. I will not.
Well said. Keep after them.
Excellent riposte. Reminding them that this is not simply going to go away and die quietly and unseen in some dark corner will inevitably produce results.
We need more journalists of your calibre willing to hold the feet of our politicians to the fire, and challenge the all too cosy relationship that they currently enjoy with COPFS and our Police.
No-one, absolutely no-one, should be above the law.
Rev, I am sure you are aware of the need to keep yourself safe. Perhaps get some professional advice?
On number 6 of your listed points, COPFS being either inept or corrupt I have no doubt (despite their inept efforts at obfuscation) that COPFS is corrupt. They know fine well what they’re doing.
COPS may well, and quite reasonably, reply that it’s not their job to explain the law to anyone, or their legal advisers. THey may also no wish to be seen to be raising cases at the behest of members of the public.
As I recall, this started as a criminal complaint to the police following John Swinney’s confession and they kicked it to COPFS. If they are not going to investigate a clear case of law-breaking by the party of government, I think the Scottish public deserves to know
In fact COPFS have all sorts of duties to explain things. Notably, under section 6 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 they have a duty to explain, to the likes of victims, to persons who are likely to give evidence, and persons who have given statements to a constable or the prosecutor about an alleged offence, things including a decision not proceed with criminal investigation and any reasons for it. (I admit that this is caveated by s6(5) which says that information need not be disclosed where COPFS considers it “inappropriate”, but that’s not a good look either.)
Moreover, under their very own Prosecution Code:-
“7.1 Where a prosecutor takes a decision to take action, or as the case may be no action, the nature of the decision made will be recorded along with the reasons for the decision by reference to this Code.
“7.2 The reasons given for the decision shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the decision is made in accordance with law and allow any review of the decision to objectively determine the basis for the decision.”
Thus the information our host is pursuing must exist, at least…
I think that what they have said to so far amounts to no more than this:
1. Now be a good man, fack off and jog on, we rule this manor ‘ere.
2. You want lawfare? We’ll give you lawfare. D’you call that a facking chib?
Twas ever so…
“Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I will eventually get bored and go away. I will not.”
This is excellent, and key. They rely on people accepting bullshitting brush-offs. Well done, this is admirable stuff.
Is there the slightest prospect of a private prosecution here? It seems clear that only this would break the mulish stance of the authorities. There seems ex facie ample basis for ‘exceptional, compelling reasons why a private case should proceed’ surely?
Requirements for a Private Prosecution High Court Approval: The individual must apply to the High Court of Justiciary by way of a Bill for Criminal Letters. Special Circumstances: The applicant must prove exceptional, compelling reasons why a private case should proceed, usually after the Lord Advocate has declined to prosecute. Lord Advocate Opposition: The official public prosecutor (the Lord Advocate) and the accused person have the right to oppose the application, making successful clearance extremely difficult to secure
“there are only two possibilities: COPFS is institutionally inept, or COPFS is institutionally corrupt. Neither would be a good look.”
?
There are in fact a third possibility, namely they could be BOTH .
The letter demands that the government agency admit they are institutionally inept or corrupted.
Here’s a list of the number of times in history that a government agency has admitted this:
No, there’s a third option: simply explain the reason someone was not prosecuted in the face of what appears to be overwhelming evidence of criminality.
Your “third option” “explanation” will, even if given, be so vague and general that it says nothing and explains nothing.
That’s how government bureaucracies work.
“Sandie Peggie’s employment tribunal appeal to go ahead next year.
A statement released on behalf of Peggie’s lawyers said a judge had concluded there were reasonable grounds for bringing 13 points of appeal.
It is expected a full appeal hearing will be heard in the first half of next year.
Peggie’s legal team said the appeal covers the original tribunal ruling, a first correction that rewrote a key passage on how protected characteristics are balanced, and a second round of amendments which altered the wording of several substantive paragraphs.”
link to bbc.co.uk
—————————————————
No rush then!
When you read responses like the one thst COPFS has just sent you realise that the COPFS has just issued you realise how there is in reality no functioning rule of law.
No one, and I mean no one can have any faith whatsoever in the police and prosecution. Scotland is a gangster state straight out of the Apartheid South Africa or 1930s Germany.
It must be quite depressing for so many in the legal profession across Scotland. And the emminent Roddy Dunlop KC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, he has just been disregarded like an unimportant circus clown. The COPFS is that bad. Its just an out of control gang masquerading as a prosecution service.
Thugs paid by the public purse just like Police Scotland.
Who guards the guards but the guards themselves and the mafia dons who pay them.
Your post is telling me you have no idea of what constituted the reality of 1930’s Germany (presumably you were writing about Germany under Nazi rule).
And you have no idea what a thug is, or how organised groups of thugs operate when authorised by the state.
Pray you never find out the hard way.
TBQH I cannot understand why our legal representatives in Scotland are not up in arms at this blatant protection of a political party who have ignored and usurped every decent principle of law
Is the legal profession happy to sit idly by while a procession of morons rewrite justice according to the whims and actions of a cabal of deviants and perverts
Are the legal professionals not outraged at the blatant open contempt being shown to our legal establishment and justice system
Are they content to be associated with a cabal who have shown they do NOT understand what integrity and honesty means
An FOI to the Electoral Commission on related Police / SNP matters was also refused with a: “can neither confirm nor deny” response.
In stark contrast, they did give some details to the Scottish Affairs Committee, confirming involvement in the Peter Murrell police investigation and in an ongoing examination of SNP accounts.
At least they never quoted Maverick in Top Gun: “I could tell you but then I’d have to kill you.”
After what they did to Alex Salmond I expect we will see nothing but partisanship. That alone told me who and what these people are.
They are a cabal. Drunk on power and a sense of their own entitlement. Willing to stich up someone just because it suited their agenda.
Rotten to the core.
Scotland will never get independence while such people hold power.
I think the idea of independence is to get rid of people like these, and ensure, through greater democratic accountability (eg the ability to reform/repeal much of the Scotland Act 1998 at our own hands) to ensure that they never get quite so much power again. A decent transition to independence might also involve some of those now relying on the British state to keep them safe from the righteous wrath of the people being exposed to that wrath.
Vote Indy for revenge?
Surely, with Indy support being 50/50 (approximately), that would lose as many votes as it gains.
It’s my recollection that, back in 2014, things were more positive. Vote Indy for truth and reconciliation, perhaps.
As nearly always, I’m suspecting that your idea of “democratic accountability” is about representing the 50% (approximately) of Scottish voters who agree with you.
Why on Earth would you think that when devolution hasn’t delivered “greater democratic accountability” and independence would only put greater powers into the exact same hands.
The British State has nothing to do with the mess, in fact their hands are tied and can only look on, aghast.
The response is an attempt to confuse . They know exactly what Wings is saying, they would rather not understand them.
This reeks of a tangled web , much wider than the one which snared Murrel who only. plead guilty because he knows the rest.
Off topic, sorry, but Jesus wept.
link to archive.is
Andy Burnham want’s to write a new UK Constitution, to replace the existing constitution, you know, the chaotic unwritten UK constitution within which Scotland’s Claim of Right and Constitutional Sovereignty is indelibly enshrined, and we have an SNP bellend, the Westminster leader no less, Dave fucking Doogan, bleating about how it must include a way to exit the Union. I mean, fuck me. Pardon the profanity, but fuck me.
I say it again. Jesus fucking wept. The SNP could give Trump a run for his money when it comes to fucking up every mortal thing they touch.
For over three hundred years, Westminster hasn’t dared to reform the UK Constitution because altering the Constitution requires altering the Articles of the Treaty, not a word of which can be altered, because change to the treaty requires ratification of both signatories to the treaty, and the myth of Union collapses as the extant sovereignty of Scotland is formally affirmed.
I’m beginning to think impeachment doesn’t go far enough for these imbeciles in the SNP who work tirelessly to enlarge the hole they’ve dug in the bottom of the boat.
Does anybody know if a public gibbit needs Planning Permission these days? Asking for a friend. I’m thinking three at a time, clipped onto each blade of a wind turbine. What ya think? Too harsh?
If they insist that there is no crime here and no need for investigation would this set a precedent in what the Scottish Justice system?
How about funds for a child that is dying who wants a holiday in Disney land when the child actually has average life expectancy but will of course die at some point in the future.
Are COPFS happy there is no lie or crime so you did this so keep the money and send us a postcard?
Judging by their responses thus far, I fear you are using too many big words for the intended recipient(s).
If this proceeds to what should be an unnecessary civil action, I will certainly be more than happy to contribute.
I wonder how many people have, or are planning to visit their lawyer to amend their wills removing the SNP as a beneficiary of their estate.
Anyone giving them money now must be mad.
There was a related article by Robin McAlpine recently
link to robinmcalpine.org
JR?
London Scot, what do you intend to provide by way of information?
Ewing?
I got a letter from Bwana today informing me I’d been “Selected ” to take part in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey.
The wee info leaflet with the letter included a wee map of the colony,excluding the Shetland Islands.
No even a wee partition box !!
An agent with the Zyklon B will arrive uninvited at my door sometime this week to conduct the “Survey “.
It’s Shite being Colonised.
Odd.
The only enthusiasm I’ve ever seen for Scottish gas chambers is BTL here *.
From people who loudly like to self-identify as stalwart supporters of Indy.
Are you sure you understand what this “colonised” shtick is all about? According to our academic source, it’s all supposed to be exploitation and theft.
Killing off the geese that lay the golden eggs wouldn’t work.
* Admittedly, I don’t hang out on the CM site very much. But from the BTL comments I’ve seen in the past, they are probably swapping blueprints and stock piling precursor chemicals by now.
I’m beginning to think Mr Campbell that maybe the reason for the COPFSs continuing deflection and obfuscation is because of the active malfeasance claim against the Scottish Government. Just a thought. Your tenacity knows no bounds and is impressive. Good luck.
Crown Office Chair is ex UK DPP – Dame Alison Saunders DCB is a qualified barrister and partner at Linklaters. Before joining Linklaters in 2019, Alison was the most senior public prosecutor in England and Wales, as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), only the second woman to hold the post. Alison served as deputy legal adviser to the Attorney General from 2003 to 2005, returning to establish organised crime division of the CPS and serve as the chief crown prosecutor for London from 2009 to 2013. She previously sat on the Sentencing Council. Alison has been a member of JUSTICE since 2018, when she was appointed to the JUSTICE Council. Alison was elected to the Board in October 2019.
It will be interesting to see if they decide to up the anti and pay for a more professional spin-doctor to extricate a third or fourth option – until now they appear to think that semi-literate, ill-though-out communications will be enough to get rid of you. They seem unable to recognise your staying power and certainly underestimate you ability as a researcher, thinker and writer.
“pay for a more professional spin-doctor”
You having a laugh?
It’s me paying for it all.
Me, you, and every other Scot. But it’s me I care about most.
O/T
I see that Sturgeon is tearing into Swinney in a new preface to her book which I presume is to shore up flagging sales and as well as funding her new London lifestyle.
link to archive.is
It’s hard to know what to make of this. When she is going to shut her trap and fade into obscurity or should she continue with her narcissistic utterings which is only going to speed up the demise of the SNP which she molded into her image?
Time will tell but no doubt she’ll keep sticking the boot into anybody just to keep herself in the news headlines.
She wrote: “To say I feel completely and utterly betrayed is an understatement. It isn’t just that in committing these crimes he has lied to me and turned our lives upside down.
“That would be bad enough. But he has also exposed me to suspicion, humiliation and vilification. It is clear that in everything he did, and for whatever reason, he did not stop to think about me at all. That is a very painful truth to process.”
——————————————–
She will keep milking it for every last ounce of sympathy she can get.
Odd.
So when Murrell bought the Northern Lights pendant with funds he had embezzled from the SNP, he wasn’t thinking about her at all?
It’s fun to speculate who he might have been thinking about, but nevertheless, I’m confident it was Mrs Murrell.
It seems she has kept the pendant, along with other items known to have been bought with embezzled money. If she is sincere about distancing herself from Murrell’s crimes, she should auction off the stolen goods and return the funds to their rightful place.
Note that she IS legally allowed to keep them. Morally, however, is a different matter, especially for somebody playing the victim card.
Reminds me very much of this:
Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
Warden Samuel Norton: [his anger rising] What? What did you call me?
Andy Dufresne: Obtuse. Is it deliberate?
Warden Samuel Norton: Son, you’re forgetting yourself.
With the Rev as Dufresne and COPFS playing the Warden. Remind me how that worked out again?
You might spend a long time in the hole Rev and you’re clearly having to swim through five football fields of shit to get there, but when the sirens close in on the COPFS premises the schadenfreude will really hit the fan!!!
Keep up the great work.
Hmm, looks like some serious franchise fanny shizzle going on here…
link to robinmcalpine.org
So forget for a moment using the ridiculously open Scottish local authority voting franchise, and adding England’s population to that vote pool mix.
Now, due to requirement of achieving 2/3rds majority support of all UN member, any Future Scottish “independence” vote will likely be cancelled on environmental grounds due to the carbon footprint of hacking down enough trees to produce paper to issue eight billion two hundred ninety-four million five hundred thousand ballot papers for the rest of those inhabitants of this planet to have a say…
Fuck me sideways. So Scotland can only ever return to self-governance if everybody on the planet gets a vote and agrees to let us achieve the same status as they already have.
Has anybody considered asking what aliens located elsewhere in outer space think about Scotland’s constitutional situation.
It jist so blood and soil planetalism only asking folk on this rock what they think.
Its funny how its alright for Westminster to play dirty tricks.
Robin acts as if the UKG is a genuine article maybe he needs to have a look at Salvo and get behind Scotland and ignore what matters to England.
“Robin acts as if the UKG is a genuine article”
It does take a “special” kind of genius to pretend the UKG doesn’t exist. Perhaps RM lacks the necessary intellect.
Then again, perhaps RM has noticed that we’re outnumbered 10 to 1, and that “they” have all the serious weaponry.
Maybe RM lacks the “special” kind of belief that would tell him that in a square go, being outnumbered 10 to 1 is the kind of odds we Scots ace every time.
Why don’t you read the article again, Dan?
Maybe then you’ll be able to write a sensible post about it.
Alternatively, you could declare your hovel and your veggy plot Independent and then sit down to wait for everybody else to join you.
Lead from the front, Dan!
Who reads mcalpine? It’s weak pish.
As for UN recognition – everyone in the place hates “england” since they were either colonised or had some kind of a war with them. Of the 200 countries in the world, I think it is only 22 who have not had a fight with them. All around the world, there is “beef”. We would walk it. Even amerika likes the english less than you think – I mean every hollywood villain is a brit and all true americans love the ‘RA on St Patricks Day,
– and Kosovo – what a load of pish – “it doesn’t have the numbers” … let me tell you they have the only number that matters: the hegemon, the USA
Kosovo was a CIA run narco-terror hub from way back, they armed them up and used them to break up yugoslavia; it was a transit spot for the afghan drugs trade and all associated scams; drugs, guns, money – anything.
– if cunt trump told little andy burtbum “scaatlan is free”, there is nothing he could do about it; shite it, eat shit, take on america?? – oh yeah … we buy all our weapons from them and they can turn them off at base. Someone should tell trump he should not buy greenland, but scaatlan. Just to stir the shit.
Then we would see realpolitik. Ironically, US states have more “rights” than a devolved Scotland, for example, control of their resources.
– if we can’t be in charge of our own affairs, at least let us choose which variety of cunt is running us.
And the biggest joke is this : all the CURRENCY TWATS – but witaboot the currency … what would ye use … you would need to join the euro
– sorry, but we would be on the dollar, all the way, the world’s reserve currency, enjoying the stability it provides while the forex traders r4pe the pound to death and england with it; a devaluation of the pound by 30% would be worse than a nuke on central London.
“Someone should tell trump he should not buy greenland, but scaatlan”
Genius, Confused!
It’s beyond belief that President Trump has never thought of that before.
Unless, of course, he has. And spotted immediately there’s fuck all here for him. Plus he’d have to dismantle all the windmills.
Keep em coming, Confused. Probability Theory proves that with enough attempts, you’ll get something right eventually.
Your steadfastness and logicality are admirable. This is unanswerable. If no response on the substantive issue is not received we can conclude that Scotland is a corrupt place without the rule of law.
Let justice be done…
Bilbo @ 6.57
Re Nicola Sturgeon’s latest outburst. It seems as though her handlers have now told her to throw the parliamentary SNP under the bus. They’re not satisfied with their destruction of Alex S and Peter M, or maybe that hasn’t damaged the independence cause sufficiently for them.
On the other hand, in some ways, Nicola’s correct. John Swinney is a very weak leader and none of her former protégés are up to much. The party seems to have ossified.
But personally, I’d watch Lara Bird MP. She’s the new kid on the block. Suddenly a big social media presence and the right kind of background – father a military man turned St Andrews academic. For herself, London post grad studies, then into politics. So never had a proper job. Photos next to John Swinney. All the right credentials and will probably do as she’s told. Or am I being just too cynical?
It’s hard to know what to make of it.
Is the SNP going to be destroyed from without by state assets like Bird and Sturgeon, from within by the Sturgeon cabal tearing each other apart or simply by the perfect storm of 40 years of neo-liberalism catching up with them where we are seeing at the moment of increasing taxes, decreasing public services and migrant protests amongst other things.
It would be good to sneer at the SNP as it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch but there is no other party to take their place.
“It would be good to sneer at the SNP as it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch but there is no other party to take their place.”
The objective of the SNP is not to liberate the people anyway. That’s the role of other organisations who understand the meaning of independence: link to liberation.scot
The sooner the people figure this oot the sooner Scots will be free.
Who are the Office bearers, high heid yins, of Liberation Scotland, Salvo or any of their offshoots, if there are more?
I looked at their websites but it appears that it is a secret. I wonder why?
Reading some of their guff, but not too much mind you, their function seems to be to inform people, from other countries, that Scotland is a colony of England. I see very little attempt to convince the electorate in Scotland to want to support them. The continuous, repetitive, boring posts from the likes of the learned professor on Wings actually has the opposite effect.
I suppose it keeps them occupied and makes them feel important!
From memory, not many people bothered to vote for any of them at the recent General Election for some strange reason!
If ANY political party wants to change things in Scotland they have to propose an alternative to what is currently on offer and at least try to answer some of the very difficult questions that will face an Independent Scotland. Costs, pensions, defence, currency are just a few. Nobody even attempts do so.
It will all be fine, it is so unfair about covers it.
Meanwhile we plod along greetin and gurnin about everything.
No doubt, the above will have upset the romantics and dreamers. Nothing happens by magic. Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are not real.
@ Chas says: 4 August, 2026 at 10:06 am
Never underestimate the effect on a black representative of a former African or Caribbean colony of being buttonholed at the UN by a kilted Scot keen to tell her that Fanon says we colonised Scots are also black.
Particularly if the black quine carries a Scottish surname from when her great, great, great grandmother was forcibly impregnated by a Scottish colonist, and the black quine has noticed that many of the towns and villages in her homeland bear Scottish names.
The leadership of Liberate is a ragtag bunch of retirees and some cranks, as you might expect. They’ve paid a few suspicious looking NGO’s to write into the UN a couple of times, and as expected have been ignored because the claim that Scotland is a colony is both factually absurd and has no basis in domestic or international law.
It’ll bumble away in the background making increasingly extravagant claims until it either runs out of money or those involved fall out or get bored. Meanwhile the SNP gravy train will keep flowing as normal.
“All the right credentials”
Nah. White, white, white.
“am I being just too cynical?”
Naw. Not cynical enough. Peak cynicism requires photos of her modelling tea towels.
To her advantage, she does have a lot of political experience though. She’s been an MP continuously since June 2026.
“Doubtless we’ll receive the same reply as before, but in three different fonts, in around a month’s time, so make a note in your diaries, readers.”
That gives you around a month to prepare for the strongest possible legal action against the rotten to the core COPFS.
They must not be allowed to get away with it.
They are worse than the embezzlers.
“Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I will eventually get bored and go away. I will not.”
Amen.
One word of caution.
Be vigilant at all times and do not go for hikes in isolated places.
I previously said no entrustment existed in the ring-fenced SNP money case.
I was wrong… the Inner House has now made it clear that a trust did exist.
My earlier conclusion, however, still stands.
Even with the existence of a trust, the crime of embezzlement can’t be proved to the criminal standard and COPFS will not prosecute.
The Inner House ruling establishes the trust.
The Dean of Faculty’s opinion establishes that if the donors’ averred facts are proven, then the legal elements of embezzlement are technically satisfied.
None of that changes COPFS’s position.
Criminal embezzlement requires identifying the specific individual who acted dishonestly and proving that beyond reasonable doubt.
COPFS has already said they can’t identify who authorised the diversion, can’t prove dishonesty, and can’t meet the criminal evidential threshold.
Swinney’s admission that the funds were used for general SNP activities confirms a breach of trust — but it isn’t an admission of criminal guilt, and it doesn’t identify the decision-maker.
So, to be absolutely clear:
Yes, the trust was breached (Swinney’s own words).
Yes, civil claims might succeed (lower threshold).
No, COPFS will not prosecute (they can’t identify a dishonest actor).
The Dean himself in his legal opinion emphasises:
“Only individuals can be dishonest.” (para. 25)
And:
“The information before me does not disclose who authorised the disbursement.” (para. 25)
The full para 25 text is:
This is fatal for criminal prosecution.
COPFS cannot prosecute:
They must prosecute a named person.
So far, they can’t.
Therefore:
No prosecution.
My conclusion from my previous comment remains correct
“I was wrong”
But then you’re used to that.
Seriously though, Northy, even if your claim and your logic are watertight:
“COPFS has already said they can’t identify who authorised the diversion, can’t prove dishonesty, and can’t meet the criminal evidential threshold”
Yet COPFS has previous form when it comes to proceeding with prosecutions that they know in advance will get thrown out. Everybody who has been following Scottish politics in recent years knows this.
There’s a public interest argument here that says that COPFS should proceed regardless.
After all, it’s not sufficient that justice is done. Justice must be seen to be done.
If that’s the case why don’t the crown office just say that?
Does the SNP have astructure of financial authority such as would indicate who spent monies on what goods and or services and when the expenditures were made? Does the Electoral Commission or any legal provision not require financial management of that sort?
If the SNP made expenditures at a time when their funds were depleted to a level where monies in their possession were then effectively only those funds which equated to proceeds of appeals which had created a Trust then, at that point, would any expenditures be regarded as breaching the Trust? That is as far as ordinary, practical logic (and time) enable me to proceed. What is the financially qualified view? What investigation might Police Scotland have omitted?
@angus that’s exactly what they’re hoping for
Oor Stu’s well up for them
Little do they realise how many will crowdfund
Off topic..
Tomorrow is the anniversary of the 1388 battle of Otterburn.
Froissart recounted this in detail and his commentary was the source of the excellent ballad of Otterburn.
Two choice snippets;
“Last night I dreamt a dreary dream
Beyond the Isle of Skye,
I saw a dead man win a fight
And I think that man was I”
And;
“My wound is deep,
I fain would sleep,
Lead you the vanguard of the three!”
Classic stuff.
Of course Anglocentric British myth history prefers the nonsensical “ballad of Chevy Chase” falsely attributing it to both Otterburn and Homildon Hill regardless of the fact it merely recalls in ballad form some mythical local set-to over an infraction of the others hunting grounds..
Hence Anglocentric myth history has gone down the dead alley of claiming Otterburn was merely a skirmish of jealous warlords whereas the 1388 campaign was a thoroughly thought through affair in revenge for Richard the seconds unprovoked burning spree three years earlier and which old Robert II could no longer restrain.
The Otterburn raid was the east coast diversion while the much larger Scottish revenge invasion took place in the west.
Newcastle and Percy focussed on the smaller one fancying that between them and the Bishop of Durhams inordinately larger forces would mean a cake walk and haul of prisoners to ransom.
Well they sure got that one wrong eh!
Froissarts accounts, based on combatants reports from both sides caused a sensation across Europe, possibly the reason Anglocentric British history attempts to minimise if not completely ignore it.
Raise a glass to em!
Classic stuff indeed, Auld Lochnagar.
Which do you prefer for your personal re-enactments: Tesco or LIDL? What about Sainsburys? They come across as a bit “English” so well deserving of a running skirmish in the drinks aisle against superior odds.
I assume you have to tone the violence and shouting down so as to not get permanently banned. But let’s hear your side of the story.
As I recall. Tesco was the only ‘big’ supermarket who declared that they saw no reason to increase delivery charges to Scotland in the event(?) of independence.
Are M&S major shareholders, the Sieff family, continuing to donate to Israel? Mind you that’s only a paperless transaction which doesn’t cost anybody anything.
thank you for that signal historical reference. it is all too easy to airbrush history, other people’s history.
the stanza you quote «last night i dreamt a dreary dream» was used in a film called The Man Who Never Was.
It’s certainly all too easy to wonder how commemorating some not very nice boys hacking each other to bits 600+ years ago might help with the ongoing cost of living crisis.
Just as it’s intriguing to consider how even the notional “our” side – the Scots – would react to the present day people claiming the same name.
A bunch of ruthless, merciless fighters, steeped in violence, larceny, treachery and the natural law that “might is right”, coming face to face with benefits grifting keyboard warriors that would collapse weeping midway through a day of digging in soft ground.
Whilst bleating that it just wasn’t fair.
Idolators and deniers of the Divine Right of Kings too! Sentiments that if persistently uttered aloud, would likely see them meet an untimely and violent end.
The fighting Scots of the fourteenth century wouldn’t see the usual suspects in their road.
HMcH @7.53 & 10.44
Ah!
First the mouse squeaks
Then the coney roars!
Save us from these “terrors”!!
🙂
More power to you Rev but keep yourself safe.
Refusing to hand over the books to a financial audit committee must come as close to evidence of who was responsible for embezzlement as you can get.
I suspect most independence supporters have already abandoned this place.
It feels like a post-apocalyptic, tumbleweed-strewn wasteland where tattered Saltires flutter listlessly on rotting flagpoles, and shredded banners declaring Scotland’s ambition to be free again hang moribund by a single thread from the decaying facades of ruined public buildings.
Its inhabitants wander its tired landscape, zombie-like, endlessly repeating their prejudices and platitudes unaware that their lifeless words died long, long ago.
Maybe the likes of you drove them away Northy?
“shredded banners declaring Scotland’s ambition to be free”
There you go again, Northy. Appropriating to all of Scotland the democratically voiced desire of only around half of the Sovereign Scots.
And thus, by lazily assuming the battle is already over, ensuring the war is lost.
It really isn’t rocket science, Northy. Grow Indy support from 50% to 60% and then see what happens.
And if you really are congenitally unable to make that effort, think through the needed policies, assemble the rational supporters, and cut off the neanderthals who insist the only way to garner extra support is to treat Sovereign Scot soft no’s like subhuman scum, then get out of the fucking road.
Make way for the sane Scots who want to give it their best shot.
Judging by the responses a reasonable person might come to the assumption that cronies of the embezzlers are embedded in COPFS and are desperately trying to make this go away.
Do they realise it’s going to kill their careers because eventually all that is hidden comes to light?
Anybody else enjoying the wee nutcase Sturgeon noising the SNP and Swinney up? Burning all bridges, and nobody likes her, but still thinking anybody cares about her worthless views on Scottish politics, a field which she helped burn to the ground. Brass neck and mental illness don’t even begin to cover it. Oh how the mightily disturbed have fallen.