The Deep-Fried Banana Republic
It’s 18C today in Bath, readers, so after the dentist we went out to enjoy the sunshine for the afternoon. And you know what happens when we go out.
But really, what even is there to say?
Two years after she was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning, where we’re reliably informed she simply turned her chair to face the wall and didn’t say a single word for seven hours, the former First Minister will stroll away smirking to a chat-show-and-book-fair retirement as her partner faces charges of embezzling from the party they led like a husband-and-wife Mafia for almost a decade.
Even though there’s public video of Sturgeon angrily warning – some might go so far as to say “threatening” – the SNP NEC not to ask questions about the party’s finances and giving it her personal assurance everything is fine, as Murrell allegedly siphoned off hundreds of thousands of pounds and a “ring-fenced” referendum fund definitely vanished into thin air on her watch, never to be seen again, the Scottish public is expected to swallow that Sturgeon – a self-confessed micromanager who didn’t trust anyone else to do their job – simply knew nothing about any of it and never asked, even when the treasurer and half the finance committee resigned because they hadn’t been allowed sight of the books.
(Something one would have thought it was within her power to remedy instantly.)
Peter Murrell may be guilty or he may not, but this decision is in itself a sorry, crooked state of affairs and no mistake, folks. Sturgeon has been denied the chance to prove her innocence and a cloud will hang over her for the rest of her life, but she lacks the self-awareness or humility to care about that, while the public have been treated like gullible imbeciles, expected to believe the unbelievable without even getting to hear the defence’s story. (Something we at least seem to have in common with the police.)
If we didn’t already know what a farce justice was in Scotland, we might be at least a little bit shocked. As it is, we’re going back out to play with a cat, because when your country is a barefaced laughing stock that North Korea would be embarrassed about, what’s even the point?
Quite.
Brits always will look after their assets.
No comment on her ex husband!
If you believe that then you have a far higher opinion of the abilities and forward planning of the British state then I do
But, but, Rev – The National says she has been “cleared” and 1800 facebook responses are overjoyed at this “vindication”. Surely you don’t doubt this august organ and its readers?
I’m dumbfounded , but not surprised. Fucking joke of a country we’re turning out to be.
The 2 thats been cleared Audited n Signed off the accounts where the missing £600k was Surely thats FRAUD
It’s not necessarily fraud. For instance, Colin Beattie May have had the same access to the books as Douglas Chapman had. What is abundantly clear from today is that Nicola Sturgeons and Colin Beattie have admitted to gross incompetence, because that is the only alternative to out and out fraud.
The establishment certainly knows how to say thank you to a loyal servant.
Once admired throughout the world, Scottish Justice is now a joke thanks to Sturgeon and the SNP.
This will go down as a travesty of justice against the people of Scotland.
R.I.P. Scottish Justice.
Scottish ‘justice’ went doon the stank at CAMP ZEIST, this decision is only further evidence of the continuing corruption abroad in oor ain wee country!!
CAMP ZEIST – a pathetic wee pantomime – made in Scotland in the service of the planet’s leading psychopaths.
A joke.
But without any laughs.
So sad that we have sunk to this level after the joyous optimism of 2014.
But congratulations must go to MI5. Splendid work.
Indeed, but they’re about to ‘fix’ that miscarriage of justice too with their ‘new evidence’ recently discovered that will back up the American fabrication that it was Megrahi and Libya that brought down PA103 and not Iran getting retribution for the USS Vincente bringing down a civilian Iran Air flight 655 killing 290 innocent folk. Seems justice is very malleable nowadays and can be whatever the state wants it to be depending on who they’re trying to protect.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Scottish justice was once admired throughout the world?
I would have thought our infamous witch trials, and the practice of the rights of summary justice, might have dented any admiration for our ways with those accused of crimes.
Not forgetting, as others have pointed out, the more recent high profile Lockerbie shambles.
Perhaps you were thinking about education, where we did have the world’s best system at one time.
Of course, that was when we were far more thoroughly colonised and constrained by the union than we are now!
Two years of investigation and we find out that there was nothing to find, guv. Frankly it beggars belief.
Contrast the narrative in this post compared to those relating to Alex Salmond when he was found to be not guilty. You can’t have it both ways.
Alex Salmond had a trial, with evidence and a prosecution and defence case in front of a judge and jury. As the article says, Sturgeon’s been denied the chance to prove her innocence the way he did.
…and also note the police statement says that COPFS instructed them to stop pursuing Sturgeon and Beattie. They do not state that there was no evidence, nor that they have “cleared” anyone.
So then it’s Guilty until proven innocent by a court of law? That doesn’t sound right.
Who said she was guilty?
It’s not up to Sturgeon to “prove her innocence”. That’s not how the law works. It’s up to COPFS to prove she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I yield to nobody in my loathing of Sturgeon but “beyond reasonable doubt” is a very high standard and if the evidence doesn’t reach it COPFS can’t take the case to court however much we would like to see her banged up.
Well said!
Not a fan of the lady who launched the ferry with the painted windows, but innocent until proven guilty.
” “beyond reasonable doubt” is a very high standard and if the evidence doesn’t reach it COPFS can’t take the case to court ”
Well, the “beyond reasonable doubt” clearly did not apply in the case of Mr Salmond. The evidence was beyond ridiculous. Despite this, the crown office took the case to court using the moorov principle.
So the decision to take a case to court or not appears to hinge completely on a case of “if your face fits” or rather “how much the deep state needs you out of the political scene” than on actual evidence. Particularly when the COPFS actually helps to actively suppress inconvenient evidence, as we have also seen in the case of Mr Salmond and during the Holyrood enquiry.
@Dave – beyond reasonable doubt is the burden of proof the PF must meet on questions of fact in a criminal trial, it is not the standard that must be met to bring a case to trial in the first place. When you look at the facts of this case, it is impossible to see how the evidence can support a charge against the former CX and husband, but not against the former leader and wife. Unfortunately – Scottish contempt of court laws are beyond absurd and do a fantastic job of protecting criminals at the expense of the public, and therefore we need to be careful what we say, but for me the inescapable conclusion is this is another case of serious wrongdoing by the Crown Office.
@dave
The COPFS does not bring charges on the basis of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ but requires sufficiency of evidence (in Scotland that means a minimum of two bits of evidence that support the charges) & whether or not prosecution is in the public interest. It is then up to a court to decide if the totality of the evidence brought before it reaches the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
We do now need to treat NS as if she is innocent of the crimes that were investigated but that is not the same thing as believing that she is so there will always be a question mark hanging over her. She has not been found ‘not guilty’ so much as ‘not found out’ but we will almost certainly never know the truth of it.
“whether or not prosecution is in the public interest”
Ahh! The mythic and ever evasive “public” interest. One hell of a black hole, isn’t it? Every inconvenient evidence can be made disappear in it. Just as every inconvenient bill or piece of legislation in Scotland can be quickly hoovered up by that other ever growing black hole: “parliamentary sovereignty”.
It has always fascinated me when individuals in the colonial “crown office” claim to have any authority regarding knowledge of what “public interest” actually means.
How can they possibly know or acknowledge what public interest is when such undemocratic colonial outfit and imperial relic itself is as far removed from “public interest” and “public benefit” as it can possibly be?
Or how can we ever trust that they know (or give a shit about) what “public interest” is when the actual opinion of the public is actively suppressed every time that colonial outfit proceeds to dictate what that mystic “public interest” actually is?
At which point in history did the English crown’s interests become the Scottish public’s interest?
The issue is the Crown Office – protecting establishment interests but going after those it deems a threat to the established order. The clue is on the title – Crown.
True. A joke nation dream. but!! we know an awfully lot about everybody else’s problems. World leaders in self denial.
Cats are fascinating animals. So independent.
This was always overwhelmingly likely. Let’s just hope that they get the trial of Pete Murrell on quickly so we can see the evidence tested in Court.
Well the wording of Police Scotland’s statement seems to strongly suggest that lets say they do not support the decision not to prosecute.
I guess to we have now discovered that Nicola is not a regular visitor to her mother in law’s home as otherwise she might have noticed the party’s most expensive asset in an unusual location and initiated enquiries.
Even if she had called her up once in a blue moon you would have expected the conversation to turn to when are you going to get that bloody great van off my driveway, it must have cost you a fortune yet you haven’t touched it once, the tyres are getting flat, the brakes will have seized, its blocking out the sun, why don’t you sell it if you are never going to use it….
unless her MiL is very different to mine.
I wonder if there will be a ‘special defence’ of “incrimination”?
That would be interesting!
I’m really sorry to hear this but not surprised.
What can you say, it is embarrassing and of course regrettable that Sturgeon was unable to clear her name.
Michael @ 17.13.
I hate to sound overly negative, Michael, however I’m believing that Mr Murrell will more likely plead guilty, get a reduced Tariff sentence for an early admission of guilt (should he plead so, I’m not prejudging) and the adjudicating Judge will also take into account his previous good character and public service.
Probation and Community Service all round ?
A local man, who admitted embezzling more than £134,000 from the post office where he was the manager to feed a gambling habit, was jailed for 16 months. He had no previous convictions.
Beattie said the £600k was ‘woven through the accounts’. But the money is gone. I’d have expected Beattie to be charged for conspiracy at the very least.
To try and insinuate guilt from someone not talking to the police is not only wrong, it’s offensive. Nobody should talk to the police in questioning if they don’t wish to, especially not without legal counsel, and to imply that being frank and open will result in your name being cleared is so absurd that I have to believe this is some joke I’m not quite getting.
Talking about a cloud of suspicion that would be cleared by a court case is absurd, too – Salmond certainly didn’t get cleared in the public eye, because you simply don’t get cleared of these allegations no matter their truthfulness. You yourself have made posts about how the papers crudely smeared Salmond after his death, and then come up with this? I really don’t understand it.
No mention of the timing, too? A week after Sturgeon steps down from politics is pretty tight timing, considering Branchform has been ongoing for years now.
“These matters are active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The provisions of this Act protect the integrity of proceedings, preserve access to justice for victims and secure the rights of people accused of crime.
“Anyone publishing items about active cases is advised to exercise caution as material must not be commentary or analysis of evidence, witnesses or accused. Contempt of Court carries penalties of up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.””
———————————————–
People commenting about Murrell should be very careful. There will be people watching.
Comments about Sturgeon who is no longer part of an active case are allowed.
CivilLawsuit? I’d donate to a crowdfunder.
I’m more then happy to help out and to handle the accounts
>>Opens up the camper van catalogue<<
It’s really very simple. If it wasn’t Sturgeon and Murrel, who stole the money?
After such a lengthy police investigation surely they must know.
I’m missing a trick here, I should take up betting.
1. I said here a couple of weeks ago that Breathy Bain would see her right; hence her cocky attitude.
2. I said here when she announced she was stepping down from politics last week that Branchform must be getting somewhere..
Just give me a shout if you want some tips for Ascot..
Surely Nicola ‘Frankly’ Sturgeon knew this was coming, which is why she recently binned her beard?
I suspect it’s a very unfunny play on Godleys “get the door Frank”..
Laugh a minute isn’t she..
Meantime sneaky Pete’s been sacrificed and hung out to dry..
The fduck test—”If it looks like a fduck, swims like a fduck, and quacks like a fduck, then it probably is a fduck”—suggests that something can be identified by its habitual characteristics. The fduck test does not apply to non-obvious cases.
She has some level of protection.
Having destroyed the movement, garrotted the party and undermined the country she is off free.
Sure sounds like she did her job
Perhaps now opens the way for the UK state job offer/reward, principal of a University, UN envoy, something in quangoland?
“Sturgeon has been denied the chance to prove her innocence and a cloud will hang over her for the rest of her life”
Has she been denied the chance to prove her innocence or has she been spared the inconvenience of a prison sentence and the embarrassment of being publicly known she was not innocent?
If I had to choose, it would be the second option. In that way she remains an useful idiot because she will remain in “debt” to the deep state who helped her spare jail for the rest of her life. In other words, she can be called “to arms” against independence or opposition in Scotland to the theft of another asset at any point in time. Just like the relic Gordon Brown appears to be wheeled out every time the polls indicate a surge for independence.
I wonder how much of this political fraud’s disgusting betrayal of the yes movement, her continuous pissing over our mandates, installing the useless Yousaf and then the even more useless Swinney as her continuity, anti-independence successors, agreeing to the freeports, championing the theft of Scotland’s electricity and championing the U war, were part of the price she had to pay to spare jail.
I also wonder what will be M’s price for going down as the sole scapegoat.
With every move this corrupt to the core colonial outfit, so called, “crown office” makes to protect this political fraud and the alphabetes, the more convinced I become the crown has had its paws all over this and this woman is nothing but another crown useful idiot. Another Daniel Defoe, the English crown spy who was spared jail in exchange for serving the English crown by selling Scotland and for relentlessly pumping pro-union propaganda down the throats of the Scottish people.
I wonder how many more “Defoes” are there. Is Brown another one, perhaps?
History indeed keeps repeating itself.
“championing the U war”
Ah, Mia, you can never quite control yourself sufficiently to post credibly about anything.
Always the mask slips, and the tell-tale giveaway about your true loyalties shines through.
You forgot to finish that off by saying “y’all, Oi vey”..
Here I am, Old Lochinvar sah!
Ready to collect my ‘J’ badge from you, one of the self-identifying trained killers who support Indy because they expect to be the boys with the guns. And the racial theories that can only ever be put into practice at gunpoint.
Aw, that’s nice that you have ambitions and plans.
Nicest of all though, that the rest of us are forewarned of them.
The London media beckons. Home at last. Let’s see if the UN does any better with Salvo.
Cost of Branchform £2.1m
The SNP are celebrating that the Chief Exec for 20 years has been charged with embezzlement.
Nothing to see here, move along now.
Nothing to see here. Just the imperial crown, once again, circling the wagons to protect its useful idiots in the colony of the north.
Scotland is indeed a colony. I don’t think there is any doubt now. This case is further proof of it. We have this colonial outfit aka “crown office” rather than the actual prosecution service itself decrying who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t, what innocent political figure must be hunted down by the police and their reputation completely destroyed, and what criminal and immoral politician has to be spared jail for the sake of their services to the empire.
Never mind that millions of our taxpayers’ money have been haemorrhaged in the police investigation. Never mind that we were robbed of 600,000 pounds. I guess the crown office never had appetite, never mind urgency, to fabricate a “moorov case” against Sturgeon as they did against Mr Salmond. Sturgeon was never a political threat to the “union” in the way Mr Salmond was.
It was clear from the beginning that the deep state would be circling the wagons around Sturgeon. The ridiculous delay in this case was the biggest clue.
In the case of Mr Salmond, it was the colonial outfit, so called “crown office”, who actively instigated the investigation. It was obvious that the outfit and whoever controlled that colonial outfit had already decided they were going to prosecute him no matter what. It was just a matter of fabricating the evidence, never mind perjury nor how utterly stupid that evidence turned out to be.
In the case of Sturgeon, however, the evidence was carefully compiled by the police and then, when the information was completed, passed to the colonial outfit, who sat on it forever. The crown office choose to suppress the evidence, just as they suppressed the evidence from the conspiracy against Mr Salmond.
Who controls that “crown” office?
I think this proves Scotland does not have a functional prosecution system. What we have here is a corrupt colonial outfit actively abusing our courts and prosecution service as political instruments to persecute and deliver punishment to political dissenters whilst actively protecting from prosecution, never mind jail, compliant criminals.
They cannot even be arsed to hide it anymore. It really is disgusting.
Nail hit firmly on the head Mia
Care to explain why the British state opened Holyrood?
Care to explain why the British state granted indyref1 ?
If you believe the British state is a highly intelligent and massively competent entity which is happy to take over the world through force and brutality is scared of the Scottish people
Then can I have what you’re smoking?
“Care to explain why the British state opened Holyrood?”
Until the oil was discovered, under a classic colonial mentality, Scotland thought of itself unable to survive as an independent country. But the oil changed that completely. The McCrone Report not only noted that, but also noted that should Scotland become an independent country at that point, it would become a very rich country indeed.
The discovery of the oil and the real extent of the riches coming from it would have massively boosted the confidence of the Scottish people to go for independence should those be published in full. That is why, in a truly colonial fashion, the report was hidden from the Scottish people.
Politically, the SNP was starting to make inroads. This was the first party really threatening the status quo, offering a voice to the Scottish people and a vehicle to Scotland’s independence.
If you read the reports at the time, you will realise that Labour (and the status quo) felt quite threatened by the SNP at that point, suggesting they knew already then that the status quo (Scotland remaining in the union) was of no benefit to Scotland.
Through wikileaks you could see that the yanks were actively sticking their nose in Scotland’s business too and planning to intervene if “their interests were at risk”.
Add to that the disgusting policies of Thatcher and the destruction of industrialisation and manufacturing in Scotland and you have the perfect storm for support for independence to soar.
The referendums on a devolved assembly and the delivery of a devolved assembly were an attempt at distraction from independence. Exactly like Brown’s infamous “vow” was in 2014 or, more recently, the case brought by that undemocratic crown tool lord advocate to the English court, otherwise known as “UK supreme court”, or the even bigger nonsense that Scotland needs a S30 to hold a referendum. They were the attempts by the British state to stop increase for independence support, particularly at a time when the British state had seen the opportunity to really exploit Scotland’s new found resource. From the late 70’s it was the oil. Today is electricity from renewables and, of course, the opportunity to sell chunks of our country under our feet under the guise of “freeports”. Free to everybody other than Scotland, of course.
Remember that Thatcher was openly spouting that should a majority of Scottish people wanted to leave the union, no English political party would oppose.
“Care to explain why the British state granted indyref1 ?”
Because it did not have other choice. Mr Salmond won a mandate fair and square in the eyes of the world. He was in full control of Holyrood and he had stated quite categorically that Scotland would have a referendum one way or another. Mr Salmond could have easily passed a bill to ditch the Scotland Act and release Holyrood from the shackles of Westminster. If I remember correctly, Mr Salmond had even removed from the cabinet the unelected colonial crown representative, otherwise known as “Lord Advocate”, so there was no scope for the English crown to gerrymander the laws that entered Holyrood.
The British state granted the referendum and delivered Holyrood because the alternative they were facing was much, much worse.
And this is what makes the political fraud STurgeon’s work to destroy independence become so obvious. Mr Salmond had the British state by the balls using just a majority in Holyrood and his intelligence. He commanded only 6 MPs. The useless STurgeon had at one point absolute majorities both in Holyrood and Westminster and, yet, she achieved the square root of FA. She continued to command MP majorities for many years since 2015 and yet, she still continued to achieve SFA. Her complete lack of any remarkable achievement with all those majorities and a party with over 100,000 members truly defies any laws of probability, meaning it was never random. Her superlative incompetence was very much by design.
The critical part is and has always been, Westminster. Scotland’s MPs can, at any time, abandon the green seats, reconvene Scotland’s old parliament and end the union. THAT is the reason why the criminal case against Mr Salmond was fabricated. THAT is the reason why they chucked him out of Westminster in 2017. THAT is the reason why the political fraud and the hopeless Evans deployed the complaints procedure to chuck him out of the SNP. The British state needed him as far away from that absolute MP majority as they possibly could.
“If you believe the British state is a highly intelligent and massively competent entity”
I do not believe the British state are either highly intelligent nor massively competent. Actually, I think they are pretty hopeless, to be honest. They are just acting as a brute force. If they weren’t, there would not have been a bill passed to grant them the “right” to commit high crimes for which anybody else would be sent to jail, “to defend the state”.
The way they completely exposed the crown office as a deeply corrupt, undemocratic, politicised and unethical colonial outfit; they way they completely messed about with any boundaries between the judicial and executive powers; the obvious way they infiltrated the SNP and rushed to destroy its democratic structures; the way they used brute force to suppress information; the way they rigged the referendum election through the postal votes; the way they had complete idiots like Leslie Evans and her gang of hopeless civil servants cooking up an unlawful complaints procedure; the way they had people in the SNP seemingly “recruiting” potential perjurers; the way they had a narcissist like Sturgeon “leading” the charge against Mr Samond; the way Lloyd was left unscathed despite her strange “interventions”, for example in Yousaf’s campaign; the way they brought the most ridiculous criminal case in Scotland’s modern history based on evidence such as “pinging someone’s hair” or the statement from someone who was not even present on the day when she claimed to become a victim because the monumental idiot had been recorded in a video somewhere else; or having “crown agents” on a revolving door moving them out the way and public scrutiny after they completed their part in the nasty deeds, do not exactly hint to highly intelligent, highly covert, never mind competent operations. Actually, they point towards the precise opposite: a pretty useless outfit which appears only capable to deploy brute force and overt criminality to silence and abuse any democratic and judicial structure to frustrate democracy. That looks more like the colonial tool of last resource of an absolute power that thinks itself beyond scrutiny rather than the sophisticated, ethical secret service of a democratic state.
I read your fantasy and have to ask
As the English Are such blood thirsty violent stupid and moronic far right monsters who kill anyone who stands in their way
Why aren’t you dead?
The kool-aid is on full flow tonight on certain other blogs!
What he knew, she knew.
Well said Mia!
I always thought that there was “something about the night about him” when thinking about Alex Salmond, but, when the brown stuff was flying, he defended himself sufficiently in court that he was found not guilty. And then in Holyrood.
In the case of this smelly fishwife (and compared to her, Salmond was purer than the driven snow), she has not been found not guilty, she hasn’t even been tried, but in many eyes, she is nowhere near the driven snow.
What goes around, comes around.
Suffer, woman, suffer!
For the time being, unless and until new evidence emerges, (perhaps during the course of her estranged husband’s trial?) Sturgeon appears to be off the hook for embezzlement charges under Operation Branchform. She is not, however, off the hook in relation to ongoing civil procedings brought by Salmond, which I expect will be continued despite his death. In addition, AFAIK, she’s not off the hook in relation to a number of other ongoing police investigations which we are not at liberty to discuss because of potential contempt of court implications. These could be much more serious matters than alleged embezzlement.
She was never going to be charged. Ever since this investigation started she has strutted around completely unfazed confident in the knowledge that she is protected. This country is a sewer.
Correct, she wasn’t.
She has indeed.
It is.
The stench of decay and corruption is all too real.
Like walking into an abandoned mortuary when the power has been off for 3 weeks in July.
I’m not embarrassed by the total failure of our judiciary, our civil service, our elected representatives.
I’m worried by it. Concerned. Scared even.
Maybe I’m the anxious type.
I like banana fritters, with hot syrup and cold vanilla ice-cream. An olfactory delight.
Instead we have what Scotland has become under their watch, and it’s NOT an olfactory delight. It’s certainly deep-fried (as in fucked) and it’s certainly a banana republic. But, unfortunately, it’s not a republic of deep fried bananas. Now, that WOULD be tasty.
If she knew they were ‘FRANKLY! teetering on the edge of bankruptcy’ she must have had some knowledge?
It was she who decided not to hold the referendum, which was the purpose it was raised for.
Maybe it was she who could clearly see that Indy would lose.
Again.
Maybe it was she who could clearly see that Indy would win, yet that neither her nor any other numpty in Hollyrood had a scooby how to run an aspirational first-world country. Something that most of us Scots could see then and can see now, even more clearly.
Maybe we should at least allow her these considerations.
And now, maybe we need to be asking ourselves, if there was an Indy Ref tomorrow, and Yes won, WTAF would we do next? There’s no plan, no vision, fuck all in fact, and very clearly indeed neither the people, nor the institutions, to run Scotland.
Please don’t claim that magically won’t matter, because the nice technocrats in Brussels will do it all for us. The Use By date on that one has long since expired.
“Maybe it was she who could clearly see that Indy would lose”
That is irrelevant. If she decided not to go ahead with the referendum, then the correct thing to do would be to return all those donations to the donors. Payments were done either by pay pal or cards. It should not be that difficult.
The question that will never receive an answer is:
When did Sturgeon decide that she would not go ahead with a referendum? Was that BEFORE the fundraiser was closed or was it after? Was that even before the fundraiser was opened?
Team London clearly see the value in keeping their asset on the substitutes bench.
Very likely just not enough evidence to hook her, although anyone with two brain cells to rub together can surmise that she knew, given her propensity for knowing everything when she was in office. That’s not the point, though, which is that a lack of evidence and a seeming lack of mens rea (intention to deceive and/or commit fraud) means no case to bring, and it would simply be pointless.
It was always going to come to this, that he would be the only one held responsible. That the SNP never, ever, after 2014, had the slightest intention of rocking the boat again, therein lies the deception. Even for Murrell, a direct link to the money, the reason given for raising it and his knowledge or otherwise that there never had been an intention to use it for campaigning purposes re a second referendum, will be difficult to prove in court.
The defence would be that, although that was ostensibly the reason for raising it, and promising to ring-fence it, events overtook the party and the money had to be used for other things. This is exactly the reason that ring-fencing is so unpopular with any party or government, and rarely used; few politicians would hold him responsible for its dissipation on other things, I’m afraid.
Which of us hasn’t laid aside money for one thing and spent it on another as the need arose? It’s not exactly the same, because it was money raised from party members, but, if I were defending him, that’s the tack I’d take. The camper van was claimed to be of use in campaigning, so, again, hard to prove that it was actually intended for anything else. We’ll just have to wait and see.
“because it was money raised from party members”
Plenty here will testify to that assertion being simply wrong.
The Yes movement as a whole, then. Splitting hairs, Robert. The money was still raised to fight an independence referendum/campaign that never materialized and was never intended to materialize after 2014. That is the deception. Most of us on here know this things because most of us have either left the SNP or were never members.
However, very powerful evidence will be needed to prove that the money was used inappropriately by the party/persons within the party when a referendum/campaign for independence was not in sight. Murrell is the fall guy, without a doubt, even if he engineered it, to protect others.
The fact that there never was intended to be a return match for the SNP was well-established by 2016 and the failure to capitalize on Brexit, but it was actually 2015 when the rot set in, with a huge influx of ‘woke’ former Labour hard lefties entering the party under the radar along with genuine leftist former Labour people.
This was manna from heaven for certain elements within the SNP – the devolutionists, the troughers – who used the ‘woke’ influence, in all its manifestations, to corrupt and undermine the party of independence because all three elements had one thing in common: a lack of commitment to independence, and, in some, a determination to destroy it.
Who’ll be picking up the tab for Peter’s lawyers? If it’s the SNP it would bankrupt them, if he’s paying then, as the divorce isn’t finalised, will that come from their joint assets?
Absolutely guaranteed it has been discussed and haggled over. My money is on it being a shared expense. If so, would more than two people be pitching in for it?
So what actually happened to the £600k? Who knew? Who benefitted? Will Sturgeon be called to the witness box for the prosecution or defence in Murrell’s trial?
As I have said repeatedly on here and elsewhere, Number 1 the donors were NOT all members of the Scum Nonce Party , some were just supporters of independence, what right had the party to misuse their donations for furniture or computerware in their offices , surely the ring fenced statement constitutes misrepresentation of the appeal and as such is DELIBERATELY defrauding donors
If I were a non party member donor I would be outraged that my donation which I gave towards a referendum on independence was used for other means only beneficial to members of the Scum Nonce Party
As I have said numerous times non party members and party members who donated should be looking for a solicitor (Gordon Dangerfield anyone) to take out a civil action against sturgeon and beattie individually and sue them for misusing their donations, as party leader and treasurer they were RESPONSIBLE for funds donated to the appeal to be used in accordance with the appeal
I for one would be crowdfunded donor to ensure sturgeon and beattie suffered financial penalty
To claim against the leader and treasurer you would have to demonstrate a loss. Didn’t the party pay back anyone who requested it in the hope that it didn’t go any further?
Just in time for a book launch.
YEP
She will have influence in certain areas
And the timing is just too good
Excuse me while I die laughing at those that claim that Sturgeon was a asset of the British state
As for that to be true then the following facts also have to be true
1:- That the British state had the foresight to recruit Queen Nicola over 20 years ago and to keep her onside for that long…………….Do you really think that they are that competent?
I certainly don’t
2:- That no one in the SNP spotted she was a British agent….Do you really think that the SNP are that stupid……..?
Okay I’ll give you that one
3:- That the absolutely BRILLIANT performance e of scotland over England that you ALL told me about was down entirely to an agent of the British state……….Do you REALLY want to explore that?
A far easier and believable sernario is she is like the vast majority of politicians in the western world and she is a not very bright, ego driven bully who believes their own BS that they can get away with anything.
To remain in politics you need to be thick
To succeed in politics you need to be a bully
To be a bully you need to have a massive ego
Do you want to disagree
Yeah the idea Sturgeon is some kind of British secret service agent is risible.
I get where it comes from though – real anger at her reign.
No need to detail all of that here but just to say I remember when I first became fully aware of her as an England resident, during one of the GEs and she was a prominent figure in TV debates. People in England were generally impressed with her as she spoke so well in them – incredibly articulate, logical, polished, righteous and convincing. It was kind of refreshing and people were saying why can’t we decent politicians and politics like that in England?
Except it did not take me long to think yeah, but is this not ‘all talk’? Can you walk the walk with all these promises and visions and get beyond the clever take-downs of opponents (and the usual blaming of everything on Westminster and the Union)? I quickly realised the answer to that was ‘no’, followed by an almost skin-crawling loathing for her that I found hard to justify in my mind but still felt. As time went on, that feeling grew in being justified and finally confirmed – she is a lying, vindictive, dictatorial snake but with a deep insecurity complex who actually achieves very little as a politician (funnily enough this happened as my support for independence for Scotland grew).
As for this dropping of charges, boring as it sounds, I suspect they just don’t have enough evidence against her to think a prosecution will be successful. Her marriage to someone who is a very high level party colleague who is being charged, and her micro-management autocratic style, would make most sensible people think she is implicated too, but that does not mean that can be proved.
Don’t forget she is a clever woman and knows how to wriggle out of stuff as we have seen again and again and she is shameless in, if not exactly outright lying, then not telling the truth. I remember during some of the Salmond business she would say things like ‘to the very best of my knowledge, that is not how I remember it happening’. This is brilliant in a way as even if she was shown to have been wrong in her ‘remembering’ she could say ‘I did my very best to remember accurately but we all have fallible memories, so I never lied’. She will have covered her tracks very carefully and used her gift of the gab to to go into full sly slithery snake mode, and with clear success.
She was largely given a soft time in interviews my a media sympathetic to her lefty statist woke agenda, and she always had the Westminster bad but I am doing my best angle to fall back on.
It was only ever Andrew Neil that challenged her strongly and she collapsed in front of it.
Title of Sturgeon memoirs: ‘I CAN’T REMEMBER A THING’
Possibly the smallest book in the world.
If Sturgeon is back in the family home where is Murrell living?
Is he living in the mobile home battlebus?
Does he have a passport that could take him beyond extradition with the money?
Will SNP open their accounts to reveal where the money was spent?
Why would using an accountant to investigate the SNP accounts cost £2.1 million.
HMRC do it for free when looking for tax avoidance.
This outcome was entirely predictable and the whole saga something of a sideshow – albeit an absurdly protracted ( and expensive ) sideshow .
The real , ie gravest event was/is the conspiracy to politically assassinate Alex Salmond – which , though failed in court , succeeded in mortally damaging the man’s reputation and political standing and unquestionably contributed to the shortening of his life .
This is where the real evil lies and the bloody footprints lead unmistakably to Sturgeon/Lloyd/Evans et al’s door .
If she walks from this – as I’m almost certain she will * , there will no longer be the slightest doubt she’s a State asset and will be protected for as long as she can be used to damage the cause of Scottish Independence .
And still no sign of the * Covid Enquiry * bringing her/them to account for the homicidal incompetence of , eg sending infectious OAPs to * care * homes : and their deaths . Nothing can be allowed to detract from the nauseating/utterly false ” Saviour of the Nation ” narrative .
* the only scenario I can envisage the conspiracy being exposed is if it was calculated that such exposure would be another dagger in the back of the SNP/Independence
” the only scenario I can envisage the conspiracy being exposed is if it was calculated that such exposure would be another dagger in the back of the SNP/Independence”
Actually, Robert. There is another scenario. And that is when whoever/whatever is at the very top of that conspiracy, and I do not mean the useful idiots that deployed it, but rather the entities in London or at the other side of the Atlantic/Mediterranean that concocted it, feels threatened. At that point, the rope that keeps the low hanging fruit of useful idiots dangling will be cut and the names of those useful idiots thrown out to the public as bait.
I wonder how many of those MSPs who are no longer standing for 2026 and how many of the SPADS who left their posts since Mr Salmond died, took part in the disgusting conspiracy against him. I also wonder how much of our taxpayers’ money these corrupt bastards squandered to concoct and deploy that conspiracy. Will we ever know?
Quite so , Mia , though the difficulty at this point is envisaging a situation in which the ( ultimate ) puppet-masters you refer to would feel sufficiently threatened they would cut the strings and let those no longer useful marionettes collapse . Not that they would have a moments hesitation in doing so if judged expedient
When we consider the mind-numbing lies & genuinely shocking moral degeneracy * they’ve * been perpetrating on us , ie ” ordinary ” people , these last few years in particular , I seriously doubt they feel any jeopardy to their continuing , seemingly unassailable , power to do WTF the like , whenever they want , to whoever they want .
I include the civil case being proposed by Alex’s family/friends in that category . In fact , I’ll be surprised if that ever gets to a court . And astonished if it does and the culprits are exposed/charged/prosecuted .
This is all great book publicity for Sturgeon’s shitey book ‘Frankly’ (a hilariously appalling generic title, especially given her notoriously unreliable memory), when it comes out in August. She’ll be getting cult-wanked over by middle-aged crazy cat ladies at the Edinburgh Book Festival, no doubt, ecstatic that somebody who has a vagina, just like them, caused such damage to Scotland. Trashing a country? Girl power! How can these fucking idiots, or the twisted wee nutcase herself, look in the mirror on a daily basis?
If you have evidence for your vagina claim, we’d all (ahem) like to see it.
Maybe in an hour or so, when we’ve all had our breakfast.
Mr Swinney believes the SNP are the victims.
Mr Swinney is wrong. The victims are those of all parties and none who donated to the “ring-fenced” independence fund in the expectation that it would be used to conduct an independence campaign.
Sadly I no longer believe in the justice system , police or politicians. I do believe we now live in a point in history where all are complicit in narratives controlled by the powers that be . It’s sad when this foundation shifts .
I don’t know about Alex Salmond ‘s behaviour but I do think the “ make him fight on several fronts “ was by design to bring him down to the point it threatened his liberty . That I find totally unacceptable and at this point my own beliefs came crashing down .
Nicola may think she is home and dry and I doubt she will look over her shoulder to see the damage she has created . But you can only run from reality for so long . Her need for an audience is unstoppable. But eventually you have to face yourself .
Like you I have no belief in any of those compromised institutions. And I cannot take part in an electoral system that is bought by others – those who gain political office then use it to act on behalf of external actors or other nation states entirely!!!!! Taking part in electoral politics brings legitimacy and credibility to a corr-upted system. I can’t do that anymore.
Is this ‘news’ really a surprise to anybody?
Nothing is ever certain in a Court of Law. However a case has to reach the Court in the first case. St Nicola of Sturgeon was never going to appear there to be judged.
I will be surprised if he full details of what did actually happen will ever see the light of day. Meanwhile the canonisation of Saint Nicola is proceeding at full speed in the Vatican.
Was this ever in doubt, NO. Its time to move on from Sturgeon and Salmond and entirely get behind Liberation and the C-24 application.
Once we get our Decolonization petition passed it doesn’t matter if the UK ignores it, our biggest worry is will the SNP/Government block it at the UN, because as we all know the SNP are working for the UK government.
She’s out of politics and YES the SNP is rotten, but nothing will change that and we can talk until our ears bleed about the SNP and Sturgeon.
The best thing and the only subject we need talk about is the Special Committee on Decolonization for Scotland, once we have this and we can then pursue a route to Independence. We can sort out all the problems in Scotland once we have our country back.
If Sara or Liberation are reading this are you in talks with Wales and Northern Ireland about these country’s submitting their applications to Special Committee on Decolonization as the Union never existed, because Wales isn’t even in this fake Union.
The SNP can do what ever it wants provided it doesn’t break up the Union.
Sometimes, the timing of things is as good a source of information as the “thing” itself.
On the 12 March 2025, Sturgeon announced she would stand down as an MSP candidate at the next election
Exactly one week later, on the 19th March 2025, it was announced by The Sun and others that Sturgeon’s book would hit the shelves on the 14th August 2025
One day after this, on the 20th March 2025, it was published that Sturgeon’s husband had appeared in court and granted bail. On the same day, the colonial outfit “crown office” cleared Sturgeon.
Did those events above happened randomly or were synchronised by design? If I have to choose one option, I will choose the latter.
Let’s look at the “clearance” of Sturgeon for a minute. It is almost exactly a year before the next Holyrood election date, isn’t it? According to Google, that election has to happen no later than 7 May 2026. But more importantly, this clearance is 5 months before the date Sturgeon’s book hit the shelves. 5 months is enough time to canonise Sturgeon, to let the dust of all her wrongdoings settle and to distance herself from Murrell.
According to google, election spending limits apply from the day after a person officially becomes a candidate. Sturgeon herself has now openly declared that she will not be a candidate. Hence her book can not be considered as part of “her” personal campaign to be elected.
Ahh! but could still be a useful campaigning tool for the SNP (and more importantly the status quo), could it not?
The 14 August is over 8 months before the next Holyrood election date. Sufficient time to reach a significant number of voters, but not enough time for those who read it to forget its contents.
So here is my hypothesis:
1 Sturgeon’s book will be used as an indirect campaigning tool
2.That campaigning tool will be favorable to the status quo, otherwise Sturgeon would be facing the same fate as Murrell right now.
3.For that campaign tool to be effective, there has to be an interest from the public to read it- Sturgeon has to be seen as innocent and somewhat as “a victim”. We will soon see the strategy of “Sturgeon’s canonisation” deployed in earnest by the British state propaganda mouthpieces and Sturgeon’s SNP praetorian guard.
4. For that campaign tool to not be immediately seen as a campaign tool by the voters, Sturgeon has to be seen as no longer having an interest in elections – hence her stepping down. In that way, the book cannot be included as part of the expenditure for the campaign.
5. My hypothesis is that this book is going to be the mother of all hatchet jobs on Mr Salmond and very actively used to discourage voters from choosing Alba at the next Holyrood election.
The timing of her stepping down as MSP, the timing of her “clearance”, the timing of her book release and the logical inexplicability of how on earth someone who could not remember something in more than 50 occasions when questioned as the Holyrood enquiry could ever be capable of writing a book based on her “memories”, “frankly” makes the idea that those events above were not deliberately timed and not done so with a specific purpose, impossible to believe.
If you add up all the numbers in your post, convert the sum to octal, then break it into digit pairs, and look up the ASCII character for each pair, it spells the word “pootin”.
Random, or design?
I choose the latter.
Why don’t you promise us all that when none of what you predict comes to pass, you’ll come back on here to say “sorree”?
Are you worried we’re going to start to call you Grassy Knoll?
I just LOVE that Mia’s excellent posts get under your skin!!!
Well, Marie, I’m just happy you’re getting some LOVE.
What with you working 17+ hours a day, I worried that door would remain forever closed to you.
I’m not going to read Sturgeon’s book. But I’m not going to read it at a time of my choosing. So that will be when it gets remaindered – probably a couple of months after publication.
That long?????
Bargain basket , do not pass go , do not collect £200!
It always puzzles me as to why any publishing company is happy to waste money on these politicians and their drivel.
It’s difficult not to conclude that the lumpen Scottish electorate is not just unutterably dense.
link to x.com
Given recent events both domestic and international I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that independence, however much many of us will always want to see it realised, is probably off the table for a “real” generation due to a combination of political cowardice on the part of a majority of Scots voters, and the (sadly) execrable quality of Scottish political leaders.
The real question is what to do in the interregnum?
“It’s difficult not to conclude that the lumpen Scottish electorate is not just unutterably dense”
Why?
I actually think the result was expected and the voters in those words are actually very smart. That those two SNP candidates “were declared the winners” does not mean they actually are.
Have you taken a look at the actual turnout of those two by-elections?
Unfortunately that piece of information, which is the crucial part of the result, was not included in the article you linked.
Let’s see, the number of people who voted in Ward 8 Southside Central was only 3,749. The electorate in that ward was almost 18,000. So that number of votes represents roughly 21%.
The number of people who voted in Ward 21 North-East was2 a meagre 1,998. The electorate in that area is over 13,000. That is very roughly a 15% turnout.
How can you ever consider yourself a winner when 80% or more of the electorate in your ward have actually rejected the whole process?
These elections are no longer democratic, never mind “representative”. The only reason they continue to get away with it is because they are no longer mentioning the turnout.
I wonder how far down that turnout has to go for the deep state to start to accept the election “result” is not valid or representative: 5%? 1% 0.1%? 0.01%?
What the absolute majority of the electorate in those wards has said is “none of the above” loudly and clearly, which sounds about right, to be frank.
Well said.
Sara Salyers discussed this with Roddy MacLeod on the recent TASP. Voter engagement is heading through the floor.
People shrug and say ‘Ach well, it’s just council elections, no big deal’, but Michael Shanks in Rutherglen got elected on something like 22% of the possible votes. So, if he was standing in the Main St, only about 1 in every 5 locals walking past actually voted for him. That’s outrageous. Is he bothered? Is he fuck.
People will get out and vote if they feel engaged. The referendum proved that. But there’s no logical reason to expect the SNP to express concern about disengagement so long as they’re still getting gigs for the likes of Hairy Munter and Sturgeon’s other pals.
Why? Because they appear not to have learned from their own history. Not content with voting slavishly for “Scottish” Labour for decades to no appreciable end, they have moved apparently seamlessly to voting SNP with the same result.
Local election turnouts are never that great. Even if this turnout was particularly low, absent making voting compulsory or imposing a minimum turnout threshold, I don’t see much changing. Folk can of course campaign to introduce such measures: I’d definitely vote for them, but who knows if others would?
Those bumping their gums about the terrible state of our representation and democracy are oftentimes the very ones who can’t be arsed to vote, or do anything about it. “Twas ever thus I fear.
If we get the representation we deserve, we are apparently truly fucked if folk are either so dense they think voting SNP is still a good idea, or simply stay at home because they’re too scunnered to put an X on a bit of paper.
Doubtless the prospective Reform candidates for Holyrood will be smacking their lips with anticipation at the prospect of gaining seats in 2026.
What a sad state of affairs.
“Not content with voting slavishly for “Scottish” Labour for decades to no appreciable end, they have moved apparently seamlessly to voting SNP with the same result”
No, they are not, A. Ellis. They are moving away from voting for anyone. This is precisely the point of my mentioning the turnout in my comment above.
In one of those two wards turnout was roughly 15%. This means that 85% of the electorate did not even approach the polling place. It also means that the results of “elections” are no longer democratic because they are no longer representative. When you have above 70% of the electorate not bothering to even cast a vote, you have massive disenfranchisement and total rejection of the political and electoral system. It clearly indicates that the options the majority want have not been included in the ballot, so people is left with nothing to vote for.
This is still peddled as “valid” because this is Scotland, a colony of the English crown. But I very much doubt such result would have been accepted as valid in England.
Did you actually read the article you linked to?
It says this:
“1,998 people turned up to vote in North-East and Donna McGill took the ward with 689 votes for the SNP”
This means that in the North-East ward the SNP got 689 votes out of an electorate of over 13,000*. In other words, the SNP was only endorsed by a ridiculous 5% of the electorate in that ward. And yet, they consider it “a victory”. It is laughable.
* I calculated the electorate figure from the information contained in the polling scheme pdf file you can access from the glasgow city council website titled “Local Government By-Elections: 20 March 2025”, accessible via
link to glasgow.gov.uk
Mia, folk who don’t vote, don’t count. Nor do they get to whinge about the outcome. It you want to effect change, vote. Or at least do something to change the system.
Sitting on the sidelines throwing rhetorical rocks at those who do participate will achieve precisely zero.
Putting misguided faith in cunning extra parliamentary means or direct action will similarly achieve SFA, because there isn’t a scintilla of evidence there’s any significant support for them: indeed there’s probably even less support for them than there is for the poorly attended votes just held.
“folk who don’t vote, don’t count”
When over 50% of the electorate approaches the polls and cast a vote validating the electoral process, then, absolutely, you are completely right. They do not count.
But we have gone well beyond that point now, Andy Ellis. We are already in a situation where, at least in council elections in Scotland, less than 50% of the electorate is approaching the polls.
Actually, in these last two council by-elections it has been less than a 25%. This means the electoral process itself has not even been validated by a majority of the electorate, therefore the result cannot be neither democratic nor representative. It cannot possibly be seen either when what you have is simply the largest share of a 25%.
In an scenario when less than 50% of the electorate approaches the polls, non-voters do indeed count, potentially more than the voters themselves. And that is because the larger the number of non-voters, the larger the level of disenfranchisement, the larger the number of people who is actively rejecting this entire political system and the less democratic validity for the election.
I agree with you that the deep state and its political arms (including the SNP and Greens) is going to continue peddling these results as “valid” and pushing for them to be seen as democratic. The deep state will continue to trumpet that less than 700 votes in a ward of 13,000 is “a landslide victory” if we continue to let them. But the question for us as voters is, until when are we going to let them get away with this undemocratic shite if already over 75% of the electorate has been disenfranchised? How many more have to be disenfranchised until we realise we are being taken for fools?
Yet when you apply your same rule to the Brexit vote in Scotland, your forever wanged oan aboot “overwhelming support for Remain” turns into a less than 50% vote for Remain.
Let’s see if I can guess what’s going on here.
It’s you choosing whichever interpretation of what has happened to support your pet preference on a case by case basis, and logical consistency can simply go and do one.
It’s only the “unutterably dense” who are taken in. Sorry, Mia.
“I wonder how far down that turnout has to go for the deep state to start to accept the election “result” is not valid or representative: 5%? 1% 0.1%? 0.01%?”
I’ve wondered this for years.
I’ve mused over what ‘national security’ protocols might be in place in the event of a mass NO SHOW . . .a dribble of voters . . . there would have to be some kind of protocol in place, right?
Does anybody know what it is? At which point it is triggered?
Is it military activity?
The promise of more euthanasia?
Financial incentives to actually vote?
Threats of making all the (SEZ/Freeports)compulsary purchase orders come true?
The mind boggles.
“when you apply your same rule to the Brexit vote in Scotland, your forever wanged oan aboot “overwhelming support for Remain” turns into a less than 50% vote for Remain”
I know you are much smarter than this, Hatey, so why do you pretend otherwise?
Let’s see. What was the turnout in Scotland during the EU referendum?
That would be 67.2% according to the Electoral Commission.
Right then, that 67.2% is bigger than the 50%, is it not?
It is, therefore a majority of the electorate in Scotland validated with their votes that referendum process.
Once the referendum process was validated, we move to the next stage, which is to select the option that won the largest support from the electorate. Let’s see:
41.7% of the electorate supported remain
25.5% of the electorate supported brexit
32.75% of the electorate rejected the whole process and did not vote.
What do you see?
Remain still represents the largest share. It is larger than the number of people who voted for the other option and it is also larger than the number of people who chose to reject the whole process and not cast a vote.
You can therefore say that “remain” was representative.
Now lets compare it with the recent result in North-East mentioned above:
Total electorate: 13,111
Total number of votes: 1,998
Total number of votes the SNP got: 689
So, first hurdle, proportion of voters vs non voters:
That would be 15% vs 85%. In other words, the election already failed at the first hurdle because much less than 50% of the electorate actually validated that election with a vote.
Now, second hurdle, proportion of options:
Proportion of the electorate endorsing the SNP: 5%
Proportion of the electorate endorsing others than the SNP: 10%
Proportion of the electorate rejecting the whole thing: 84.6%
Do you see it now?
Neither those who voted for the SNP nor those who voted against the SNP considered together represent the largest share of the electorate. So, how on earth can anybody claim that declaring the SNP as the winner in that election is in any way or form democratic, never mind representative of that constituency?
What to do in the interregnum, Andy?
For how much longer can the denial that there’s a war on continue?
I have a lot of respect for you as one of the saner regulars on here, but on a day when every indication suggests our critical infrastructure is now under direct attack, I’m thinking what we’re going to do in the interregnum must be bleeding obvious.
It’s going to be lead, follow, or get out of the way.
And however much your typical Indy buff is going to stick his head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening, there will be enough leaders and followers to ensure the reluctant remainder stay well out of the way.
That’s just how it goes in wartime.
“One of the saner regulars on here” is damning with faint praise in all honesty. BTL here now exhibits many of the same symptoms as the movement as a whole: dead in the water and infested largely with hard of thinking fringe nutters.
Sadly I’ve come to agree with the view I’ve seen expressed elsewhere: an independent Scotland ruled by the people most seem happy to elect would be a dystopian nightmare. That isn’t to say remaining part of the British nationalist state is objectively better, at least in my view.
We lost a golden opportunity in 2014: I fear we won’t have another one in a long time. I’d love to be proven wrong. As to where we go from here, I’m at a loss. I hope recent events will lead us back to EU membership, or at least close association. Trump and his MAGA followers may just make it possible.
I’d rather take my chances with a revivified Europe free of US domination. That seemed fanciful before Trump suicided NATO, but now I reckon a European confederation or at least a central security association of some sort linked to a core of EU states and a few others is more likely to happen than an independent Scottish state.
The world is changing. It’s not even safe to travel to the US anymore. I certainly wouldn’t do it, even on business.
So…..as for the interregnum, I dunno. Keep the faith and support independence (not that it appears to be going anywhere fast) but accept that there are other more pressing issues. The Scots seem to have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. There’s other stuff to do.
If the Holyrood parliament is nothing more than a sop then we have not had a democratic government in Scotland, ever.
It’s a logical fallacy to claim that the embarrassing ineptitude of the current crop of MSPs ‘proves’ our inability to govern our own country. It does no such thing and anyone deploying such an argument should be viewed with great suspicion.
Your post from 9am is spot on Mia. Superb!!
will we hear the intricacies of the embezzlement at court?
This needs to be brought to court very soon. It’s a public interest case.
i also find it incredulous Sturgeon knew nothing about Peter’s handling of the finances. But enough to convict? Who knows.
I’m reminded of Confused’s past comments, when he mentioned that so-and-so felt very sad and took a lot of pills.
It would appear that Murrell has been hung out to dry – those who love him (for real) should keep a very close eye on him.
There is little or no chance of there being a trial.Peter has agreed to take one for the team.
He will plead guilty, to avoid any possibility of the examination of the facts, and cross examination of witnesses at court. He will receive a short custodial sentence, suspended for as long as has been already arranged.
Nicola and Colin will walk, without a stain on their character.
If only we could all be friends of Dorothy.
Indeed.
100%yes,
Devi Sridhar, professor of Public Health at Edinburgh uni, has been on STV saying that the Coronavirus pandemic showed that, in international comparisons, Scotland is an unhealthy nation. This provided some good evidence to support SALVO’s arguments to the UN Decolonisation committee.
Sridhar is covering for her own advise that tortured and killed the elderly, and messed up kids, for nothing.
Another day, another cushy sinecure to push preferred social engineering on others;
Maggie Chapman voted in as rector of Dundee University.
What can go wrong..
Sheesh….remind me which plague was first again: was it rivers turning to blood or raining frogs?
I mean, I know it’s Dundee but come on….! Maggie Chapman?
Rev, this line “she simply turned her chair to face the wall and didn’t say a single word for seven hours” is possibly one of the most shocking things I have ever read on here. (Forgive the hyperbole) To say that she knew she had “done nothing wrong” while being married to the CEO but then play dumb with the cops. She knew exactly what she was doing. Words fail me.
It’s nice to know that following Mr Murrell’s arrest on 5th April 2023 Ms Sturgeon stated that she would “fully co-operate with any Police investigation” right up until her own arrest for questioning on 11th June. At which time “full co-operation” appeared to take on a new and previously unknown definition.
Even if there was ‘never a scrap of evidence’ against her, it was her responsibility to assist the police with their inquiries. She also had the audacity to say, “I have the utmost respect for the police.”
People who believe Scotland has always had a just legal system need to think again.
It only works for the Establishment. Think about how it worked for the victims of the Clearances. It took outrage in England before the Napier Commission looked into the travesty and applied a few Band-Aids.
She has all the traits of a narcissist.
Grandiose sense of self-importance
An excessive need for admiration
A sense of entitlement
An inability to handle criticism
Self-centeredness
Manipulative behaviour
Struggles to trust others (hence the micromanaging)
“The First Minister publicly spoke out about Mr Murrell’s court appearance on Thursday, suggesting for the first time that his party could be the victims of an alleged crime. And he has also pleaded with members to back them financially now that Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie have been cleared.”
—————————————
Poor SNP victims!
@ Mia: turnout was even worse than you thought. I googled Glasgow by-elections and opened the city council site.
Ward 21 Northeast – turnout 13.6%. Donna McGill SNP got most votes – 689, Labour 573, Reform third 472, everyone else got <100. No Alba.
Ward 8 Southside Central – turnout 18.7%. Ghastly Mhairi Hunter SNP got most – 1126, Labour 1027, Greens 805. SSP 4th 271. No Alba.
People know that they don’t live in a democracy, freedom is an illusion and that voting is simply a waste of time.
Thank you for that Sarah.
Wow!!!
We are in unchartered territory now. 13.6% has to be a record low. It really is crazy that they still consider the result as valid and, laughably, they even trumpet it as a “victory”. They clearly take us all for fools.
I guess it is down to us, the electorate, to reject this farce that passes for democracy in Scotland. And it is about time we did.
In 2015 and 2016 we were continuously gaslit with the mantra that the referendum had to be “legal” because, otherwise, the no voters would boycott it and it would not be seen as valid internationally.
Well, no voters represented a 55%, if you believe the official figures, in 2014. Here we are talking of near 87% of the electorate, including yes and no voters, boycotting it. Yet, the deep state still peddles it as “valid”.
Internationally, who would consider “democratic” the official result of an election where 87% of the electorate refused to participate because their favoured option had not been included in the ballot? Or is it that international recognition and boycotts only matter when they happen during Scotland’s independence referendums?
Mia, that is an interesting point you make about the validity of an election when the turnout is way way below 50%. Is it time to make voting compulsory?
And what of that 40% rule back in the day…
‘A post-legislative referendum was held in Scotland in 1979 to decide whether there was a sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate.
This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland.
A majority (51.6%) of voters supported the proposal, but an amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted in favour.
As there was a turnout of 64% the “Yes” vote represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate, and the act was subsequently repealed.’ (Wikipedia)
You can imagine the mandarins had the auld slide rules out before getting that Labour MP to propose such a change at the last minute.
They get animated about minimum turnout when it suits, eh?
link to en.wikipedia.org
Sorry sarah, but the only “validity” we can find in a minuscule turn out is that most people want a continuation of the status quo.
If people wanted change, they would vote for it.
You really do need to stop claiming that no change is possible.
FFS, the biggest political changes of the 21st century are ongoing right now.
It’s just not credible that our Scottish Exceptionalism renders us immune, when changes are happening at warp speed throughout the western world.
The novel, ‘Seeing’ by José Saramago.
Despite the heavy rain, the officer at Polling Station 14 finds it odd that by midday on National Election day, only a handful of voters have turned out. Puzzlement swiftly escalates to shock when the final count reveals seventy per cent of the votes are blank. National law decrees the election should be repeated but the result is even worse. The authorities, seized with panic, decamp from the capital and declare a state of emergency. When apathy and disillusionment renders an entire democratic system useless what happens next?
Read it! And find out! It’s where Scotland is going!