The Aims Of Justice
Wings has today sent the following letter to the named recipients.
—————————————————————————–
The Chief Constable
Police Scotland
5 Fettes Avenue
Edinburgh
EH4 1RB
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1LA
4 June 2026
.
Dear Chief Constable and Crown Office,
RE: REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION — ALLEGED
MISAPPROPRIATION OF RING-FENCED POLITICAL DONATIONS
I write to request that Police Scotland/COPFS open a criminal investigation into the alleged misappropriation of funds donated to the Scottish National Party (SNP) on the basis that those funds would be held and applied for a specific, designated purpose.
THE FACTS
Between 14 March 2017 and the summer of 2020, the SNP solicited donations from the public, representing — expressly and repeatedly — that the funds raised would be ring-fenced and applied exclusively for the purposes of a future independence referendum campaign.
Those representations were made through two dedicated websites (ref.scot and yes.scot), direct mail, press statements, social media, a video from the then-First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and so on, and were a material inducement to donors. The SNP insisted in 2017 that this money would “only be used for the specific purpose of a referendum campaign”.
It is now clear — and, given public pronouncements by the current First Minister over the last few days, not seriously disputed — that the funds so raised, totalling in excess of £600,000, were not applied for that purpose (ie a referendum campaign).
They were instead used as, to quote the current First Minister, “part of the ongoing activities of the Scottish National Party”. It goes without saying, I should have thought, that there is a material difference between a referendum campaign (which might be the aim of many people, regardless of political affiliation) and “the ongoing activities of the SNP”.
GROUNDS FOR INVESTIGATION
I respectfully submit that the following offences fall to be considered:
- Fraud (Scots common law)
If those responsible knew, at the time of soliciting donations, that the ring-fencing representation was false or that they did not intend to honour it, then the donations were obtained by fraud. The elements — a false pretence, made to induce a practical result, which did so induce — are plainly engaged. It is clear that a false representation of present intention will suffice for fraud: Richards v H. M. Advocate 1971 JC 29.
- Theft by Appropriation
Even if the original intention to ring-fence was genuine, the subsequent deliberate decision to divert the funds for an unauthorised purpose may constitute theft by appropriation under Scots law. The donors’ proprietary interest in the application of their money to the stated purpose survived donation. The decision to override that interest without donors’ consent constitutes the necessary appropriation.
The law is clear that “the appropriation of goods by the person to whom they have been entrusted for a limited and specified purpose constitutes theft”: see O’Brien v Strathern 1922 JC 55. It does not matter if the appropriation is temporary (ie it is no defence to say that the ring-fenced funds will be paid back): as soon as appropriation occurred, the crime was complete. A repentant thief who returns stolen property remains a thief, liable to be convicted as such: Carmichael v Black 1992 SLT 897.
- Embezzlement
I am not here talking about the actions of Mr Murrell, which have been fully aired of late. Rather, I am talking about the disposal of the “ring-fenced” funds, which can now clearly be seen to have been used for purposes other than those for which they were donated.
Scots law is clear that the ingathering of funds for an express purpose will result in the creation of a trust consisting of those funds. In the very recent case of Harper Macleod LLP [2026] CSIH 26, the Court cited with approval the comments of Lord Deas in Connell v Ferguson (1857) 19D 482 at 487:
“Where parties join in a subscription to effect a particular object, and place the money subscribed in the hands of certain persons to carry out that object, I think the quasi trust, thereby created, is for the alternative purpose of either carrying out the object of the subscription, or, if that cannot be done, of paying back the money.”
Those responsible for the custody and management of donated funds thus occupied a position of trust in relation to the donors. If there was a deliberate and dishonest decision to apply trust funds to an unauthorised purpose, that constitutes fraudulent breach of trust, which in turns amounts to the offence of embezzlement under Scots common law: see Moore v HMA [2010] HCJAC 26.
The same case shows that, once more, even temporary appropriation will suffice (as the fact that some of the money had been repaid in that case was held not to amount to a defence).
- False or Misleading Statements
If, following the decision to divert the funds, responsible persons continued publicly to represent that the ring-fence remained intact, those continuing representations may themselves constitute fraud by false pretence, with the relevant mens rea attaching at the point each such representation was made.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SWINNEY, FIRST MINISTER OF SCOTLAND, 3 JUNE 2026
Yesterday, 3 June 2026, Mr John Swinney, leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister, publicly confirmed for the first time that the ring-fenced referendum funds had been applied to the general ongoing activities of the party.
Swinney says £660,000 independence fund used on SNP ‘objectives’
This admission post-dates the conclusion of the prosecution of Mr Peter Murrell and constitutes new evidence directly bearing on the questions posed above.
I draw particular attention to the distinction between Mr Murrell’s personal embezzlement — which has been the subject of prosecution — and the separate question of whether those responsible for SNP party finances deliberately and dishonestly applied the ring-fenced donations to purposes outwith the stated purpose, without donors’ knowledge or consent.
Mr Swinney’s statement yesterday confirms the latter occurred. Whether it was dishonest, and who bears criminal responsibility, is a matter for investigation.
.
KEY EVIDENTIAL QUESTIONS
I respectfully draw the following matters to investigators’ attention as central to any inquiry:
— The precise date on which a decision was made to apply the funds otherwise than for the ring-fenced purpose, and who made that decision;
— Whether any public statements affirming the ring-fence continued to be made after that decision was taken;
— The party’s accounting records for the relevant period, and how the funds were recorded and categorised;
— Any internal communications — emails, messages, minutes — bearing on the decision to divert.
.
I appreciate that the question of if and when criminal intent crystallised is a matter for investigation and, ultimately, for the Crown. However, the public facts as presently known are sufficient, in my submission, to warrant a formal investigation.
If I were to “crowdfund” money on the basis that I needed it to pay for legal expenses to defend a claim which I said was threatened against me, that would be fraud if there was, in fact, no such threatened claim. And if there was such a threatened claim which, once crowdfunding was complete, was then abandoned, it would have been theft (certainly) or embezzlement (probably) if I had then used the money to go on holiday.
The situation of the SNP is no different from that imagined scenario. Police Scotland would have no difficulty in investigating me in such circumstances, and by parity of reasoning they should have no such difficulty here.
I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter and advise me of the reference number assigned to this complaint.
Yours etc
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Oh, boy, that is going to set the cat among the pigeons. Well done, Stuart.
Brilliant!!
Well done Stuart and thanks. Thanks for establishing the facts, applying the logic and morality. It would not surprise me if a further criminal investigation is now launched, charges levied and in due course sentences applied.
The criminals will attempt to wriggle out of the accusations with lies, but in due course, the facts will convict them.
Ref.scot now hosts a gambling page. How ironic.
Even stranger than that it has a copy of the pledge page which has obviously been downloaded from the wayback machine and is not the original Nationbuilder site
link to ref.scot
Ouch!
A wee bit of pee dribbled out. Brilliant Stu.
Well done Stu, it will be very interesting to see when and if you receive an answer to your complaint.
I actually pray that this complaint gains traction and results in a proper grown up investigation
Hats off to you, Stu you are not letting this go and I am fully behind you
Same.
WoS, thank you.
Unfailing, unflinching, unfaltering, true to every carefully chosen word and analysis.
If only there were peeps capable of the same within the SG.
Instead we get lies about lies, and more lying about the last lie told, like a mille feuille of lies.
Masquerades and lies, sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors.
It’s all we get.
I’m disgusted by them.
Bravo!
However, I hope your representations are not met with the same high-handed dismissal by Police Scotland earlier today as that of Sean Clerkin’s complaint regarding SNP the referendum campaign fundraisers.
What was that? I havent seen anything? Are they dismissing it?
Do you have a link to the high handed dismissal please?
agentx
link to bbc.co.uk
Try this and see if it works:
link to msn.com
The first police response Clerkin is quite positive, but later he’s given the brush-off.
You’ve posted your own I see but here’s The National report:
link to thenational.scot
Thanks for your replies guys.
I saw Sean Clerkin being brushed off and was furious. Thank goodness we have Stu to get right in there and demand some answers…
The only reason that I can think of that the Police would not reopen the investigation is because they had already passed details to the CPS and they decided not to charge the person responsible.You could imagine the Police being quite angry about that.
Robin McAlpine has stated on the record that three separate sources have told him the police are unhappy that only Murrell was charged. So here’s hoping they will open an investigation based on your submission and indeed Sean Clerkin and potentially others’ complaints as donors to the fund(s).
You may find stonier ground when it comes to COPFS but that in itself may be instructive…
Stony ground?
Indeed.
Good luck we’re right behind you and if you need a crowd fund keep us informed
We dont need that party
Let the mothafuckas burn
Burn muthafuckas BURN
Nice to hear from you have.
This is a thing of beauty
OMG Thank you so much!
Nice one ??
Perfect.
Thankyou for doing this.
It’ll be discarded out of hand, the Crown doesn’t jail it’s own.
Well done. I hope this is the stake through the heart of the vampires in the SNP.
Though I’m stuck as to how this plays out with the SNP just voted back in. This is new political territory. If the Sturgeon clique lose power who takes over? Will the party remember its reason?
You’ve done an exemplary job for your country. In an independent Scotland we should put your face on a bank note. Obviously one of a large denomination so that we seldom see it.
Well done Stu – I believe the Electoral Commission should investigate the submission of fraudulent accounts.
They will go over this for days till they find an obscure excuse not to investigate
As we know they are all in it together
Corrupt to the core
I think they have already declined to investigate further, saying it has already been done
Yet again I stand amazed and admiring.
If a crowdfunding effort is required I doubt not that it will be well supported.
Bravo.
I’m not sure if this suggestion would have a material impact on the investiation, but after the resignations of those tasked with looking into SNP finances, there surely could not (in a fair balance of probability) be any defence for anyone who made the assurances to the donors that the money was still in the SNP coffers. The insinuation or claim by all the assurances was that those like Sturgeon or Swinney had sight of the finances so could assure everyone that the money wasn’t there.
If evidence shows the money wasn’t there, they are part of a conspiracy to commit fraud. theft.
There is a reference above to Sean Clerkin’s renewed complaint having been dismissed already by Police Scotland. If this is true how dare they? This is as blatant a theft/fraud/embezzlement as you are likely to see. Moreover Sean was restating his original complaint from several years ago re the disappearing ring-fenced funds. The police have had a ridiculous period of time already to investigate this. In the process they have identified the theft of SNP funds by Peter Murrell but have not dealt with Sean’s complaint. Why not?
Unless the Police respond quickly and positively to Wing’s formal complaint, much as it pains me to say, Westminster should be asked to step in and instruct the complaint to be properly investigated by a police force from south of the border. In the meantime they should second senior officers from other forces to man the key positions at Police Scotland and suspend the present occupants of those positions until this is resolved.
As far as COPFS is concerned. Dorothy Bain should be sacked now, no waiting for a fancy pension laden retirement. The police file on Sturgeon should be independently reviewed and in all probability charges laid against Sturgeon. The performance, or lack of it, of the other senior staff of COPFS should also be reviewed with a view to weeding out the corruption which obviously pervades that organisation.
This matter is also going to have to be investigated by the Electoral Commission and an enquiry at Holyrood.
Donations over a certain amount to political candidates/parties – the name and address of the donor has to be obtained to ensure Britishness, can’t remember if it was £50 or £500. Helping yourself to a ringfenced fund – even had it been for the correct reason – should really be identified in the accounts, and, it cannot be lawful for a party to fund a GE using stolen money.
Getting a bit ahead with this but interesting nonetheless. From AI –
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can refuse to take a case to court if there is insufficient admissible evidence to prove the crime, or if prosecuting is not in the public interest.
In Scotland, saying a prosecution is “not in the public interest” means that even though a crime was committed and can be proven, taking the case to court would do more harm than good to society, the justice system, or the individuals involved.
Stu, you seem to be doing a rotweilers job on the essenpee,
keep it up…
If you want something done, then best do it yourself, as they say.
You really are the only journalist worth their salt in Scotland.
Mega congratulations! We shall soon all see, indeed.
? Perfect.
The fundraiser was specifically publicised for everyone who wants independence, not just for the SNP.
That’s why people from Labour for Indy and Greens for Indy, and those with no political affiliations, donated to it. It was for indy, and not the SNP.
Popcorn at the ready…
Kudos, Rev, for your attempts to clean out the swamp that is the Scottish Government.
All right-minded individuals desire a Scotland free of all who would seek to gain personally from the political institutions with which we have been lumbered.
Let’s start with the SNP…
The SNP confirmed there was 2 referendum funds one for SNP members and another for independence supporters not aligned to the SNP. Whatever happened to the second funds money ? Has it been emptied into the SNP account.
Great work and good luck. BBC and others are reporting Police Scotland say they are not going to do anything more on the donation money. They do say they will consider new information and maybe your quote of Swinney’s admission will be taken as such.
At least it will force them to state publicly they are not going to do their job by upholding the law.
A class action suit by donors might succeed in getting money repaid to all who can show they donated. Trouble is, most of the donors are likely cultists who actually like being lied to / having their money misappropriated by SNP.
“Political Party Doesn’t Do What It’s Supporters Want”
“Political Party Breaks Its Promises”
Just try to imagine these as newspaper headlines to understand why the police might be unwilling to act. If they were to start in with the SNP, where would they stop?
Some of them will be dead
Rev, I can’t help wonder it would have a been better Idea to ask Joanna Cherry to write this letter.
I have every faith in you, but no faith in any of the institutions run by the SNP.
link to bbc.co.uk
The SNP has been turned into a Ponzi Scheme. Run by a criminal gang headed by Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon and helped by a group who offered false claims to cover up the fraud.
I think Wings has done a big favour for everyone in Scotland.
Good luck Stu! I hope you receive a timely response.
Typical of the Sturgeon clique to see everyone & everything as their personal fan club. They did the same with the Indy rallies despite not everyone being an SNP supporter.
How dare they use public fundraising for “the ongoing activities of the SNP”
What a fucking liberty!
It wasn’t an SNP fundraiser & Wouldn’t we all love to know what exactly those activities were considering they’ve done fck all since Alex Salmond stepped down.
Rev…
Suggestion for your next crowdfunder!
Depending upon the outcome of your letter…
Raise money to deliver 1 Tonne of bananas to 5 Fettes Avenue, 25 Chambers Street and the Scottish Parliament, each! Every month, for a year!!!
If we’re going to have to live in a Banana Republic, we might as well tell the world all about it!
1 Tonne of bananas is approx. £1,400.00
A year campaign for the “Banana Rebellion” approx. £60k
I hereby pledge £200 to the banana fund!
It seems a perfect set-up for Flynn to take over as FM.
And what a bigger shit show that will be!
Yon Flynn, he of the lean and hungry look, to be Cassius to Swinney’s Caesar…
Rev. Stu: Brilliant!
I am wondering how the State Official (in several organisations, initially Police Scotland) will respond to this well-devised strategem. Whoever (Headquartered in London) is handling Scotland might now discard their SNP ploy as dispensible. If this is terminal for the SNP, it will be interesting to see who moves where (retirement, academia, other government posts etc) and inferences can then be drawn.
When the so-called journalist Gilligan revealed his source, I thought that David Kelly needed to keep safe but next day the news was of his death. We cannot afford to lose you, Rev.
The ‘operatives’ in Scotland are probably all dispensible with the implication that the threat (obviously not from me) level is probable not critical but please do maintain vigilance.
Your work is marvellous! Very best wishes. If you prefer to moderate this to oblivion, your judgement is fully accepted.
You’ll be one of the loose ends to be tidied away, just for that post.
It’s not too late to start binge watching Hollywood Deep State conspiracy movies.
That’s if you want to bring your wild fantasies up to par with the best.
John Swinney is a bloody fool. He’s admitted the money isn’t there. If I were the SNP I’d be keeping to the line that Murrell stole most of the ring-fenced/woven money, especially if you count the whole amount stolen, not just the amount in the indictment. There is then a semi-plausible excuse that the escapade headed up by Marco Biagi took up the rest. But that’s not what Honest John said.
To quote from Churchill, “If he trips he must be sustained. If he makes mistakes they must be covered. If he sleeps he must not be wantonly disturbed. If he is no good he must be pole-axed.”
More power to your elbow, Stu. Go get ‘em.
Police Scotland have already stated that it will not be investigated according to BBC news
That was Sean Clerkin’s request re Branchform, this is a new complaint on new evidence.
It would beggar belief that Police Scotland after nearly five years have not already investigated your complaints and reported all facts to the Crown Office. If your complaint is taken as new then some police officers need the sack and the CC should resign. This is basic police work and most police officers would be able to identify these offences whilst still in their probation. To miss them and not investigate them would be inexcusable. Time will tell but I will be very surprised if Crown Office is not aware and decisions on who to charge (or not charge) will have already been made. The real question if that does transpire is why?
Haven’t the police already said, earlier today, that they were not going to investigate the matter further as already looked at during operation Branchform?
That was a request to reopen Branchform. This is a new complaint on new evidence.
Yes, I saw your tweet shortly after posting my comment. Let’s see what they say.
Slightly OT, assuming that the current SNP leadership will be sent packing, who is going to be left to run the party? No one who was in the Scottish Parliament last time surely (especially the lovely Mhairi and Jenny). I suppose there is now Flynn, but is he untainted?
Apologies for being off topic:
“Primary school’s unisex toilets breach girls’ rights, judge rules
A primary school breached the rights of a five-year-old girl by forcing her to use unisex toilets, a judge has ruled.
The pupil, identified only as C, avoided using the lavatories at school because boys were “too noisy”. She then regularly came home in pain after waiting all day to go to the toilet, a court heard.
Her parents brought a legal challenge against West Lothian council after complaining that the school did not provide proper single-sex toilet facilities.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh has ruled that the council acted unlawfully and that the arrangements amounted to indirect sex discrimination.”
link to archive.ph
————————————————-
Yet another example of Sturgeons shit policy.
And her piss policy too.
I could stretch a point and include her “Huey” policy but that mostly only affects adults.
Hatey – I was going to pull you up for not mentioning Sturgeon’s “Boab” policy, since “Huey” and “Boab” are a long-established double act.
However, on reflection, it is common knowledge that Sturgeon doesn’t like the Boaby.
LIB DEMS ‘BETRAYING WOMEN’ BY OPPOSING SINGLE-SEX SPACES GUIDANCE
The Liberal Democrats have come under fire for calling on the Government to withdraw its guidance clarifying the use of single-sex spaces.
Party leader Ed Davey wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, criticising the long-awaited guidance for not being compatible with “British values”. The move has been criticised internally and externally for prioritising transgender ideology over women’s rights.
The new statutory guidance published last month has been updated to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex and not gender identity. It confirms that people should not be allowed to use facilities designated for the opposite sex, regardless of how they identify.
Bridget Phillipson, who received the draft Code from the EHRC in September last year, has now laid it before Parliament for a 40-day period. If unopposed, it will be enacted at the end of that period.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
Davey wrote: “We do not believe that the new code of practice is fit for purpose. It does not provide clear and workable guidance, and it does not do enough to protect everyone from discrimination, harassment and victimisation.”
The letter continued: “We do not believe that this guidance is compatible with the long-standing British values we hold dear: tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law.”
However, Dr Zoe Hollowood, Chair of the Lib Dems’ women’s rights group Liberal Voice for Women, said: “By focusing on trans inclusion, the Lib Dem leadership has actively chosen to ignore the vast majority of women who rely on single-sex spaces when they are vulnerable”. She added: “Ignoring this reality is a betrayal to women everywhere, including in our own party.”
Baroness Sarah Ludford, a Lib Dem member of the House of Lords, posted on X: “To say I am upset & bewildered that the leader of my party @EdwardJDavey – who last year said ‘we’ – the @libdems – ‘entirely accept’ the SC judgment – has now put his name to this nonsense is the understatement of the year. Totally contradictory.”
‘RULE OF LAW’
David Campanale, who took the Lib Dems to court for religious discrimination, commented: “It is a stretch to say the party ‘holds dear’ values of ‘tolerance and decency’.
“Just weeks ago, the court sealed the Lib Dems admission of multiple breaches of the Equality Act 2010 in my successful claim for discrimination.”
Lord Wolfson KC explained on social media: “You can agree or disagree with the Sup Ct judgment (but the law must be followed). But to say you agree with the judgment, and then to attack the guidance is simply unprincipled.
“That’s not upholding the rule of law. It’s trying to secure your preferred outcome *despite* the law.”
(The Christian Institute, 3 June 2026)
link to christian.org.uk
Wow Stu that’s taken the case right to them. Well done. Will look forwards to the follow up.
They’ll just do another phony “investigation” that will take forever.
And in the meantime the SNP bigwigs will use the “investigation” as an excuse to refuse to comment on the case.
Has it been established if Nicola Sturgeon was ever formally charged by Police Scotland. The normal procedure is, as I understand it, the police believe you’ve done the crime so they’ll charge you then submit the paperwork to COPFS for their decision whether to proceed?
When Swinney came out with the statement about the money being spent, I did get the impression that he said it in a manner that suggested he already knew the Law would not be onto him and the SNP.
duncanio says:
4 June, 2026 at 8:07 pm
You’ve posted your own I see but here’s The National report:
link to thenational.scot
The picture The National showed (shit newspaper) of swinney is showing as if he’s won.
It is the time for Scotland to bite the bullet.
They are colonial bullets.
Karmic Bullets.The ones with your name on it.
Don’t worry about the colonials. They’re all dead.
The national is reporting:
POLICE Scotland have confirmed that there will be no new probe into the SNP accounts.
link to archive.ph
—————————————–
There is NOTHING confirming there will be no new probe into the SNP accounts in the article at all.
Very good. But isn’t this exactly what Operattion Branchform was meant to be about when it started. I can understand that when they uncovered other crimes by Peter Murrell the police had to investigate those. But did they stop working on the initial investigation? If so, who gave the order?
Well. In December 2022 Swinney was pompously lecturing Holyrood about the sanctity of ring-fenced funds.
link to x.com
I can’t help thinking that this will fail on the instructions of Westminster in order that we have to appeal to the Supreme Court yet again. This will further the belief that Scotland’s government systems are now so corrupt that we have to rely on England to solve our problems and therefore erode the desire for Indy. I hope not. But can’t help thinking it.
Kevin, you’re right to be concerned about Scottish corruption, any sensible person would be, but it’s better to sort it out properly now, while we have a ‘higher authority’ to appeal to, rather than wait until the only government you have is as independent but possibly corrupt Scottish one. There’s obviously something horribly wrong with the present set up, but it doesn’t matter who fixes it, as long as it gets sorted. It’s too important for Scotland for this to be ignored. Let’s not be too proud about this. If the authorities in Scotland don’t want to grasp the nettle, get someone else to do it.
Kevin, you’re right to be concerned about Scottish corruption, any sensible person would be, but it’s better to sort it out properly now, while we still have a ‘higher authority’ to appeal to, rather than wait until the only government you have is as independent but possibly corrupt Scottish one. There’s obviously something horribly wrong with the present set up, but it doesn’t matter who fixes it, as long as it gets sorted. It’s too important for Scotland for this to be ignored. Let’s not be too proud about this. If the authorities in Scotland don’t want to grasp the nettle, get someone else to do it.
On BBC Debate night programme 27/5/26 SNP MP Alyn Smith
“ the questions that were asked initially were about a 600 thousand ringfenced independence fund , when the cops looked into it They found a lot more stuff than that , and ‘that money hadn’t actually gone missing ‘ it was money and the other stuff that came to light “
Sincerely I wish you the very best in this.
I don’t want to rain on your parade but I can see the legal establishment circling the wagons on this and perverse outcomes are not unknown.
I have experience of one lawyer, not a million miles from this WHOLE mess, soliciting a bribe – presumably to be passed on to a judge or prosecutor, I declined the offer/request.
While there are many fine, honest lawyers in Scotland, there is a corrupt vein running through Scotland’s legal community.
I have heard it observed that the 90% of lawyers who are of negotiable honesty give the other 10% a bad name.
Excellent submission laying out the case for the prosecution. I think the weakness is in this point. “This admission post-dates the conclusion of the prosecution of Mr Peter Murrell and constitutes new evidence directly bearing on the questions posed above.”If I were COPFS my response would be along the lines of “While this information is newly in the public domain it has been known to the investigation since – name your date.This information was taken into account in the COPFS decision not to prosecute in this case as it was deemed not to be in the public interest. Now do fuck off and allow us to carry on being the corrupt organisation we have always been since devolution.”
Correct.
COPFS is completely captured by SNP.
Stu has zero chance of success.
More’s the pity.
Sturgeon is being protected. COPFS and by Swinney seem to be seeing things her way regardless of the reputational damage incurred. They even dropped the purchases from Murrell’s conviction that would have pointed in her direction. If the Salmond stitch up wasn’t enough. . She is either working for people with the power to corrupt the most powerful people in Scotland or she had an outstanding talent for corrupting others herself.
I expect the recipients would now be in urgent need of some of those stolen toilet rolls.
And the super glue. Stolen goods stuck fast to an immovable object will presumably be irrecoverable.
Murrell did only buy one wee tube, though.
The purchase which really intrigued me was listed as “S’well unisex roamer stainless steel growler”. If anyone could be so kind as to Google it and then report back… 🙂
John Swinney – Let me run your comments by the Lord Advocate.
– What do you think, Dot?
Lord Advocate – F *uck him, Honest John. Does he really think we’re here to do right by the people? Pathetic!
John Swinney – And they say having a legal adviser in the cabinet is a bad thing. Actually, what is a Lalique Pepper Grinder?
Lord Advocate – All that matters is that it’s expensive and that the sheeple pay for it.
Great. Will be kicked out quickly by the polis and the crown. If we could have an independent police force looking at this we would all feel less suspicious.
If the polis don’t follow through, could there be a crowd funded private prosecution/
I don’t know about that but, according to Robin McAlpine, “ in Scotland the victims of crime have a right to call publicly for the prosecution service to reconsider a failure to charge and prosecute. That means any SNP member from 2010 until the present day could make a formal complaint about Sturgeon not being charged.”
link to robinmcalpine.org
I just checked back through my old cheque books & my first payment to the “SNP Referendum Campaign” as noted, was dated 2/12/2016. This cheque was cashed from my account on 28/12/2016. I have other cheque stubs for SNP donations & SNP raffles.
I believe the Referendum Campaign was first mentioned in the SNP Christmas appeal 2016…..otherwise, why would I have written a cheque specifically for it, seperate from my other SNP donations/raffle cheques?
There seem to have been several shop-fronts for this.
You encountered one in 2016.
I (a non-member) donated to one that started on 13/03/17.
There was another under the yes.scot label.
Because the 2017 one was advertised as ref.scot, I was surprised that my receipt came from the SNP. I should have been more suspicious about that straight away.
Can we appoint Joanna Cherry or Fergus Ewing as the new Lord Advocate to take hold of this complaint and act on it?
Tsk… London appoints those.
“Swinney says £660,000 independence fund used on SNP ‘objectives’”
Really? Is this possible? Consider if these funds had never been raised. Would Peter Murrell have been able to spend £400,000 of normal balance sheet funds comprised of SNP donations on personal purchases without incurring the collapse of the SNP? Of course not. The corollary is that the £400,000 came from the ring-fenced funds. The two cannot sensibly be uncoupled. The fact is, Indyref2 funds – those £5 and £10 donations folk could ill afford but gave in faith and hope – went on cars, coffee machines and condiment set bling.
These are quite disheartening times to live through but it brings joy to see good people fighting nevertheless. Get ’em Stu.
“In the United States, the Organized Crime Control Act (1970) defines organized crime as
“the unlawful activities of a highly organized, disciplined association”.
Criminal activity as a structured process is referred to as racketeering.
In the UK, police estimate that organized crime involves up to 38,000 people operating in 6,000 various groups.”
I don’t think that 38,000 includes those working on parking enforcement and speed cameras.
The 20 mph laws have opened up an entire new lucrative income stream and that must be attracting hundreds of new recruits to the gangs preying on ordinary Scots.
.
Well done Stuart,
There is severely reduced respect for the current chief constable incumbent at Police Scotland. She has difficulty telling the difference between what she owns and what the taxpayer owns. It is a main element of the job as a police officer to tell the difference. Especially when the boss of a police force is unlawfully using public money for her own personal use. So having such an incompetent pretendy chief constable investigate similar legal differences as you (Stuart) report in your letter above will be beyond her skillset.
The currentbover-promoted police constable Farrell was barely 11 days into her new job as chief constable, when a proper police officer blew the whistle on “Jo’s Jollies” and the new WOKE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF POLICE SCOTLAND GAVE A HUMILIATING APOLOGY.
Fact: link to bbc.co.uk
Many officers in the rank and file have had no confidence in Police Scotland Chief Constable Jo Farrell ever since. Many members of the public shared the view that she should have resigned as she was only 11 days into the job and clearly unfit for purpose.
However, like all the brass-neck brigade that pollute these high offices, political and civil service nowadays, she STUCK TO HER GRAVY TRAIN. Or in this case, she kept her personal taxpayer funded cash-car.
The Point?
Stuart, you are likely to receive a “nothing to see (or do) here” letter from the Janitor at Maryhill Police Station in response to your very forensic and well written formal complaint at the head of this page.
A]. Ways To Tackle Police Job Constipation:-
The re-emergence in popularity of “Malfeasance in Public Office” in England just now is NOT competent in Scots Law. So you may need to report an allegation under: “Neglect of Duty” in order to get your letter treated lawfully and with respect. Most written complaints are now sent to the big shredder at the back of the polis station or used as emergency bog-roll in the custody suite.
B]. If Keystone Cop Jo Farrell keeps telling you to “fluck orf” then it may be an idea to dust off the old “THEFT BY CLANDESTINE POSSESSION” crime (if it is still on the statute books).
Stuart, you’ll probably be way ahead of me on this, given the legal scars on your back…
If your complaint letter is returned NFA (No Further Action), then just ping-pong it back. Each time ADDING a new statute infraction (or breach of a common law crime).
Eventually, even the worst example of a uniformed Amadan will get the message and take this matter with the gravitas it merits.
But it is now a lottery whether the police take an interest. Housebreaking has been reclassified as a lower ranking crime, eg: “vandalism to patio doors.” More serious matters such as muddrrr end up with: “Slipped on a banana skin and fell on a knife 24 times, NFA,”
Stuart, I just cross-checked this subject you raise today4th June 2026 and YOU were discussing these matters with Wingers back in 2020. Six ruddy years.
More years if we go back to the first warnings that Alex Salmond might be stitched up via the MOOROV DOCTRINE. Sadly that is what happened with Murrell throwing (and encouraging others to throw enough) excrement on Alex. Amazingly NONE stuck and Murrell is now in prison.
None too shabby a result from an eccentric video-games journalist in Bath.
Well done Stuart.
P.S. The link to what is now quite a disturbing Wings article….
link to wingsoverscotland.com
I say “disturbing” because if Stuart Campbell had not put his head above the parapet and endured horrendous abuse for his time and effort reporting crime, Murrell would be walking free with his £2,000 hairdryer (I near pi55ed masel’ at that baldy gormless grinning hamster buying expensive hair products for women with stolen money).
For sure, there would be NO consequences to the damage inflicted on Scotland by the likes of Swinney, Sturgeon, and the wee green PIE man, along with yon Beth Picklebee supporting Lib Dem frontman Cole Hamilton.
Right now… this week, the RECKONING of the SNP cabal and its enablers has really started.
“what she owns and what the taxpayer owns”.
Funny you should say that.
We will see. A huge thankyou.
Rackateering is such a 1920’s word. Let’s bring it forward a hundred years. It’s now called Ringfencing.
Blind eye to telescope for further investigation.
If investigated and Swinney carried the can and had to step down
who on earth remains in the party that could act as a First Minister.
No doubt applications would be limited to disabled Trans single Mothers from an ethnic minority. It wouldn’t be fair to select a political visionary from an economics background.
Well known names have all gone, Salmond, Sturgeon, Yousaf, Blackford, Russell, Cherry, Forbes, Black, McCaskill etc with Swinney next to disappear into the sunset.
Suddenly the meteoric rise of Q Trannimanni starts to make some sense.
Could this be evidence there is some forward planning at HR?
Cometh the hour, cometh the … erm, further clarification awaited.
It will be Flynn, or CryptKeeper 2 as he is known in this house.
As inferred above, is the senior management of the SNP now confirming that the are an organised crime group?
That might help focus Police Scotland’s efforts.
But you have to remember, old Ma Nic spent a decade putting malleable incompetents into every position of authority, from politics to justice, from education to healthcare, from transport to trans-gender.
I included two video from youtube worth watching. One of the video’s is from Sean Clerkin interviewed and how he and others intend to peruse Sturgeon and the SNP for the missing money.
The other is from Scotland channel, Why the SNP won’t deliver independence, speaker Leah Gunn Barrett.
youtube.com/watch?v=Cip6_O6oLQU
youtube.com/watch?v=HTe9hvFxGnc
I sincerely hope that your letter is given some credence, and that you are treated as what used to be referred to as ‘an apparently credible witness’ and your complaints are looked into. I would hope that, among evidence considered, the recent statement by Joan McAlpine, former MSP, between 2011 & 2021, that a monthly sum was deducted from MSP’s salaries to go into party funds. The sum mentioned by her was £250, which over ten years, is a fair wee nest egg.
Over that ten years, two electoral terms, 132 MSPs sat for the Scottish National Pauchlers. That deduction would net around £3.9 million! I don’t imagine the practice has been discontinued, so what’s happened to it? I know this practice goes on with other parties, at every level of governance, which amounts to clandestine taxpayer funding of political parties (a topic for another day) but it potentially gives the lie to the repeated claim that no taxpayer money was embezzled.
God speed.
There should also be a tip put in to the HMRC hotline that Nicola Sturgeon seems to have received a lot of goodies from Amazon and other online retailers that ought to taxable benefits in kind.
Neither the COPFS or the SNP seem to consider these as stolen, so they must have been provided to her as part of her roll as leader.
Sixty grands worth perhaps at 45%.
I wonder why these goods were dropped from Murrells charges- perhaps because he denies personally purchasing/ordering them.
Thank you Stu
You’re a diamond
@Minceheid
It is, alas, an insulated bottle, that keeps beverages cold for 24 hours or hot for 12, and costs about £50.
Like a bad dinner – it needs to all come out. Thanks Stuart!
If they don’t want to do it, they ain’t going to do it. They will try and sit this out until it all blows over. Close ranks seems to be the latest order. Clear evidence (if any more was required) that the SNP is now well and truly part of the British establishment.
It will, however, be interesting to watch the legal and procedural gymnastics performed by the powers that be, in order to justify their latest display of intransigence and lack of concern for ordinary folk (donors).
well done Stu!!
I don’t believe much will come from this WoS letter, not directly, anyway.
I do, however, believe the complaint is a clever tactical move positioned within a broader strategic objective.
For those who don’t know, the broader strategic objective is the *complete dismantling of the SNP as Scotland’s national party.
But why would Scottish independence supporters want to destroy their movement’s major political asset?
The answer is that the SNP was ‘turned’ against the Scots some time ago and has been Westminster’s primary asset used in the obstruction of Scottish independence ever since.
The SNP is now a block to Scotland’s liberty, not its facilitator, and must be swept aside by the Scots as an urgent priority.
Separately, and only as an observation, this complaint has the feel of a move supported by Game Theory called a ‘Constrained Decision Space’ – a technical term used in strategic interaction models.
I can’t know for sure, of course, but I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that the Rev. Stuart Campbell knows exactly how CDS works… and the game theory behind its use in trapping an opponent.
*(My view is that the complete dismantling of Holyrood’s devolved government would benefit the Scots even more… in the long run.)
Kicked the wasps nest.
Something to look forward too.
Well done, Rev. They’ll fight tooth and nail NOT to do anything, methinks.
Very well done, Stuart. Might I suggest (and I know it sounds ‘out there’) copies to the Scottish Secretary and the shadow Scottish Secretary? The latter at least might fancy getting his teeth into it.
In case no one else has suggested this, on the assumption that the polis and the Crown Office don’t want to know about the breaking of the ring fence, you could try for a private prosecution. On what grounds could the Lord Advocate possibly oppose it?