The Promise
This is the letter the SNP sent donors to the ringfenced 2017 fundraiser.
The terms are right there in the first sentence, and repeated several more times. The money will be “ring fenced for a future referendum”. It’s to “build up a sizeable war chest to fight the campaign when the time comes”. It’s to “ensure we are not outspent in the referendum campaign”.
There is no ambiguity in the email. There’s no mention of the SNP anywhere except in Jim Henderson’s email address. No suggestion whatsoever that the money could be used by the SNP for anything but a referendum campaign.
The terms were the same in the 2019 fundraiser.
That’s not just a bit of semantics. Spending in referendum campaigns is regulated entirely separately by the Electoral Commission to normal party spending. There are limits both for campaign organisations and, distinct from those, political parties (and others).
(In the 2014 indyref the allowances were based on each party’s share of the vote in the preceding Holyrood election – the SNP wouldn’t be allowed to spend as much now.)
So there are all kinds of reasons in law why the SNP isn’t allowed to just raise money for a referendum campaign but then fold it into its normal bank account and spend it on whatever it likes.
And after this site revealed in 2020 that the money had been blown, some angry donors asked for their contribution back. One of them was former SNP NEC member Allison Graham, who resigned in March 2021 on the basis that the party’s Finance & Audit Committee wasn’t being allowed to see the books and establish why the “ringfenced” cash was gone.
As you can see, she had the SNP bang to rights. And she got no argument.
The very same day, party fundraiser Jim Henderson (now retired), emailed her back to arrange repayment of the donation, which was duly done.
She was lucky. Previous refund requests had been refused on the basis (ironically) that the money was in a ring-fenced referendum fund and about to be used.
But the party seems to have realised after the balloon really went up in October 2020 that that kite wouldn’t fly any more.
Once again, this is rock-solid prima facie evidence of a serious crime, committed by those at the very top of the Scottish establishment and openly admitted, for which nobody has been held accountable. The BBC this week released extended interviews with both the Deputy Chief Constable of Police Scotland and Crown Agent John Logue of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (which we’ll cover this weekend), but in over an hour of footage neither man came close to offering an even semi-coherent explanation for why nobody has been charged over the fundraiser frauds.
Our quest for answers, and for justice, continues. To that end, we would like to request that any readers who donated to either fundraiser and have not had their money refunded drop us an email via the Wings contact form. It’s time for action.
Very persuasive article-however I believe that a more fruitful area for investigation would be the millions which the Editor advised were set out in the SNP accounts as having been for ‘I.T.’ If that were the case then surely some at least of the hardware should be available still for inspection. Or were some or all of those sums trousered ?
A further area must surely be Misfeasance/Misconduct. It was strongly represented-and backed up with implicit threats-that the SNP was financially in apple-pie order. If (say) someone was in highest authority in a governing party and was a signatory to the accounts- and that person held out all was well when it was very much not- then that could only be through dishonesty or a wilful statement made in ignorance; either way the result was to mislead the party and the public with a view to future fundraising. At the very least an Inquiry should be set up outwith the Scottish legal system.
If theres a movie of the rise and fall of Nicola Sturgeon it should be called Hardface.
I joined the SNP after the 2014 referendum and quickly got a bad feeling after attending one of their branch meetings in Edinburgh. So Inever renewed my membership and thank goodness I never parted with any more money towards these thieving criminals.
I will never ever join a political party and go issue by issue.
Thanks Stu for exposing and fighting this. They simply cannot get away with this.
Anyone who said that the ring-fenced money was ‘woven through the accounts’ should be brought up on charges.
Agreed. It’s almost the opposite of a tautology. This statement is false by virtue of the meanings of the words involved.
My husband was ruing the other day that we both had applied for, and received, a refund. But if a fundraiser is needed for legal action, we are in.
Why were you rueing the day?
When Johnston Carmichael (who were both the SNP’s accountants and my own company accountants) refused to endorse the SNP’s figures, I knew the writing was on the wall. Four years on, the writing is still there, but it needs to be read by someone with a higher authority than the Scottish COPFS. Does such an entity exist?
It appears to me that the 9 March 2020 email is more legally damning. The others say that the money “will be” put in a ring-fenced fund. That one claims it “is” in a ring-fenced fund. The fraud had already been carried out by then, but that email appears to be incontrovertible evidence of a deliberate intention to maintain the deception.
Bang to rights!
Just a minor point – the first email seems to be from Jim Henderson to Jim Henderson?
Agents, I clocked that as well.
Any explanation anyone?
Typically used when an eMail recipient list is kept secret, usually for GDPR or security.
If you don’t have a mailing list and want to email a large group of people, but don’t want to expose everyone’s email to everyone else, you can email yourself and blind carbon copy (BCC) everyone in, so the email goes to yourself and everyone is copied in, but individual recipients can’t see the whole list you copied in.
As Spartan 117 says, it’s for security. When I sent out messages to everyone on our Yes group mailing list, I used the address I was sending it from as the first recipient and then “bcc” for everyone else. There has to be one address visible, or it won’t send.
It’s damming. And conclusive. I suspect they’ll get away with it but they shouldn’t.
Whilst there is a clear case of maladministration by the SNP leadership they also have a fiduciary relationship in respect of finds solicited to be ring fenced for a specific purpose. There is a “Duty of Loyalty” where the fiduciary (the SNP appointed individuals) must act unselfishly and cannot use their position for personal profit or let their own interests conflict with their duty to the principal (the donors). There is also the “Duty of Care” where the fiduciary must manage affairs or funds with reasonable skill, prudence, and diligence. Neither of these fiduciary duties have been carried and it is impossible to say whether they are being carried out today.
A breach arises when a fiduciary fails to act in good faith or acts in a way that benefits themselves or their business at the expense of the donors. If a breach is proven, the injured party can pursue legal action for damages, removal from the position, or the forfeiture of any illicit profits made by the fiduciary.
The stance by Swinney and others involved in what is clearly a breach that probably has them shitting their pants if found guilty and having to repay the losses plus any costs.
There are certainly rules governed by statute for the disposal of ring-fenced funds in the charity sector and local government, etc., but not specifically for political parties, out would appear. I believe the SNP would have had to have found monies for a referendum had one been in the offing, and this would have been regulated strictly by the Electoral Commission as being distinct from party funds per se.
What the SNP did was use the phrase, ‘ring-fenced’, in a very loose manner, never having set up a ‘ring-fenced referendum fund’ as such, separate from party finances. Had they done so, Murrell’s actions would have been obvious sooner as would the shortfall in funds after the donations because the Electoral Commission would have inspected the monies supposedly laid aside for a referendum.
I’d bet that the SNP is not the only party to have done such a thing (albeit not in connection with a referendum, of course). The real problem for the SNP was in not allowing the accounts to be looked at by the various people who resigned, eventually, from the NEC/party over the refusal to open the books to them and the fact that the whole machinery for overseeing the finances was so lacking in efficiency and accountability. It was here that the whole edifice fell and that allowed Murrell to go undetected for so long, and, of course, for the donated missing funds to remain undetected.
The fact that another referendum never actually arose to put the donated monies to the test (they would automatically have come under the stewardship of the EC in the event of another referendum being granted/held) is another fundamental factor in the whole equation. Indeed, it is hard to see how another referendum would, in present circumstances lead to independence, in any case, but the promise of one in some dim and distant future would have allowed the SNP to use its short money from Westminster, for example and, without close inspection of the accounts, the shortfall might never have become evident, leading to both Murrell’s activities and to the lack of a ‘ring-fenced’ fund/donations for a referendum.
That the NEC did not do its job or allow others to do theirs in relation to the finances goes without saying, and the Sturgeon tape betrays the whole attitude, ‘nothing to see here, guv’, whilst, very probably knowing that there was a shortfall, a gap which could have been, and was intended to be, plugged by short money. Quite how you go from there to proving fraud, I’m not sure.
If there is no legal requirement to use ‘ring-fenced monies’ for the purpose proposed to members and no mens rea (intention) to defraud the donors out of their money in the event of a referendum when the shortfall would have been covered, and the referendum fought, using the short money – which, I can only assume, was the intention, the short money not having been earmarked for any specific function, and accumulating. Had this not been done in the event of a referendum being held, and no monies at all made available for fighting the referendum, leaving the independence movement high and dry, that would have been fraud and even theft, but that is speculation since no referendum has been forthcoming, let alone fought.
I would think that there would need to have been prior intent to not fight the putative referendum using the donated monies for the purpose(or any available monies the party had at its disposal at the time), but, as I always say, I could very well be wrong here. Knowing full well that a referendum was very, very unlikely to be granted – and in light of the UKSC decision – is a different kettle of fish, as is not actively demanding a referendum, from not fighting one because there are no monies to fight with because they have been spent elsewhere, and while promising that there would be monies available from donations ‘ring-fenced’ for the purpose.
Whenever joint and several liability comes into play, triggered by this or that situation, it is very lax and stupid not to understand what you have signed up for, and I believe that the NEC members who backed the high head yins without thinking through the consequences for them, as individuals, have shown a level of irresponsibility to both the party and themselves to be astounding, and a lack of intelligence and logic to be even more astounding.
However, as many women’s charities have shown recently, some of their governing committees have changed fundamental founding principles to allow men access without being cognisant of these very penalties. This lack of legal standing through deliberate stupidity and a shrug of irresponsibility is so prevalent throughout institutions that the legal system will crumble under the pressure of the court cases – if they are brought to court. In this instance, too, the women who have challenged have lost donations and membership fees.
So few institutions these days, government institutions included, obey the law or even bother to acknowledge its existence. The SNP and SG have been more lax than most in this area and we can see where it leads: to an attitude of profligacy and total irresponsibility, not to mention harm. Not exactly the qualities necessary for bringing independence to fruition and the establishment of a decent Scotland.
Agreed. In fairness, the system imposed on the Scottish assembly by Blair’s lot involved mixing law officers and politicians to a dangerous extent. If you seek his monument, look around you
If Police Scotland and Crown Office decline to take any action with regard to the (missing) Indyref2 funds then that will be confirmation, if it were needed, that the NuSNP is a creature of the British State whose sole purpose is to stymie efforts to regain Scottish Independence.
And if Police Scotland and the Crown Office charge various Scottish SNP names, and levy fines and other punishments on Scotland’s democratically elected government?
You’ve been overdoing it in the sun, haven’t you.
What’s that stock response employed by other contributors to BTL in similar circumstances?
Ah yes, I remember now…
“Prick”
That’s right Bob, amaze and inspire Scotland and the rest of the world with your profundity, erudition and scintillating wit.
BTL readers on Scotland’s most read Indy web site need to know we’re more than capable and ready of running Scotland’s independent future.
Well, I guess we could be, if we keep people whose intellectual development got arrested in the primary school playground well out of the way.
They might charge a couple of ‘sacrificial lambs’, who would probably go on to be cleared anyway, but they will not charge the SG which would become bankrupt and, to put all those names in the dock would be ‘detrimental to public interest’. For the same reason, they probably won’t charge SG with lack of duty of care or even criminal harm to the female prisoners housed with murderers and rapists. It would not be in the ‘public interest’. Two-tier legal system. Nonetheless, the Rev is doing sterling service by not letting the matter drop and giving it widespread publicity. In the end, that may well be the only ‘justice’ available. Westminster has probably used ‘ring-fenced’ funds for other matters, too. What might happen, at best, is that all those who donated will get some compensation and the women housed with men will get a paltry sum. The ‘public interest’ is always the crucial factor in situations like these.
Quite possible, but I think Occam’s Razor would dictate its more likely they are just a bunch of corrupt degenerate bastards on the take who got a taste of the high life once in power and didn’t want to do anything to risk derailing their troughing.
Politics seems to attract that sort across the political spectrum.
Yeah, but ‘No true Scotsman…yada, yada, yada.’
False logic in spades, there, I think.
If it walks like a duck…
Logic, Confounder?
No way.
When you start with a conclusion and then interpret everything that happens as proof of your conclusion, that’s not logic.
It’s a twisted obsessive monomania.
It’s striking how Bob omits any working that could demonstrate how the SNP morphed into his NuSNP “with sole purpose to stymie efforts to regain Scottish Independence”.
Perhaps, if pressed, he’d opine that “a partan-faced closet carpet muncher put the frighteners on tens of thousands of dedicated, determined, patriotic Scots and then ran away”.
But hey, I’m putting words into Bob’s mouth. Maybe he could dictate his own reasoning to a grown up and get them posted on here.
See reply at 10:09pm
It would set a legal precedent, I think, Robert, for governments to be forced to use promised ‘ring-fenced’ funds only for the promised function. Anything else would become fraud and even theft. I cannot pin down examples from Westminster, but I know they exist.
I understand why it is comforting to believe that the British State is always behind everything that hampers Scotland, and you are very likely to be right that the BS does have a hand in many frustrations and deliberate blocks, but the past ten years and more have shown us that Scotland is more than capable of stymying itself. Almost every adverse issue and element recently have been home-grown.
For me, and I speak only personally, I cannot find it in me to trust any party in Scotland to bring us to independence, let alone run a competent country thereafter which is fiscally competent and which runs all public services and institutions efficiently and within budget for the good of the whole population.
It angers me hugely that this should be the case, but, then, I look across the water to Ireland and see the utter shambles that has resulted there from the idiocy of ‘woke’ politicians, particularly the nationalists ones, who have condoned it all for the sake of looking good and betrayed and destroyed Irish independence, so hard-fought-for, along the way.
I have tried, time and time again, to get across that it is ‘woke’, with all its off-shoots of ‘trans’, net zero, open borders, fiscal roulette, lack of obedience to the law, etc., which has brought us to this pass, but so many close their ears and their eyes to reality. We should be rooting out this ordure from all public services and institutions by now, but we haven’t yet learned the hardest lessons – but we will. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism and penury all go hand-in-hand with post modernism, queer theory and cultural Marxism but, hey, what do I know?
Why would Jim Henderson be sending a email from himself to himself?
When you’re sending the same email to a whole raft of people who don’t know each other and therefore don’t want their email addresses open to view, you bcc them and put your own name as the recipient.
Standard computer generated email response I suspect issued to anyone making a donation, with in this case, Mr Henderson being a donor himself.
Thank you to you both, I never knew that.
Stuart Campbell’s Scottish Sun interview from 2 weeks ago is freely online here:
link to youtube.com
Wee Baroness Bully has a moan, not a Michelle one, about some bad greedy politicians selling off nursing homes which means she can’t pocket the sale of her family home when Mum needs 24/7 in a private nursing home.
Wee bonuses for the elite like a few hours per annum in the boardroom of Royal London at £80K and Russian ladies who want to give her £12K for a lunch meeting just doesn’t go far enough to care for your elderly loved ones these days.
The working class could maybe chip in to help her.
link to facebook.com
Wee truthless the Baroness requiring her neck re-brassed.
“It’s time for action.”
Those even more condemnable than the criminals are those who have deliberately failed to bring the criminals to justice – Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
All the bastards and bitches involved must be put behind bars, very soon.
I think you are doing a great job exposing a huge scandal o am therefore reluctant to pick fault. But you say there is no reference to the SNP except in the email address.
But right at the top it says “Subject: Thank you for your donation to the Scottish National Party.”Doesn’t this count?
Just to say another excellent article exposing the absolute scandal at the heart of the SNP and the supposedly hypothecated second independence referendum campaign donations.
The Ian McCann email of 9th March 2020 appears to be part of a smoking gun that shows fraud.
Ergo –
” donations are in a ring fenced fund to fight the next referendum whenever we are in a position to call that ”
That no prosecution action has been initiated this very much shows what an utterly rotten corrupt and biased justice system that exists in Scotland.
Scotland is an utterly lawless cess pit where innocent get prosecuted and guilty go free. Glasgow gangsters don’t have a look in when it comes to the police and the COPFS.
Good stuff again Rev for assiduously exposing this. You do the poor hapless citizens of Scotland a service. But of course you too know about malicious unjustified political police harassment.
Hats off to WoS and your summary also excellent. The SNP need this to go away or they will be bankrupted. The legal obfuscation is deeply depressing, as it was one area I took pride in as a Scot, that distinguished us from the rest of the UK – now for all the wrong reasons. To an earlier post, I don’t believe the SNP are a UK state agent, simply a self destructive example of what happens when the wrong people get their hands on State power. For the sake of Scotland, in or out the UK, there must be due legal process in all this
The wrong people got their hands on the power because the right people were too nice, too innocent, too tolerant and too trusting.
Or maybe too lazy and too unfocused.
Perhaps even too dim.
I see no evidence that Scots yet recognise that fact and have considered what guard rails must be put in place to prevent a repeat. If Scotland became Independent tomorrow, we’d have the dubious distinction of having the worst government in Europe.
Ultimately though, I think Scottish politics is too factional and too essentially tribal for a lasting national consensus to ever develop that would result in an Independent Scotland emerging on the world stage.
Not that I don’t think the UK will eventually break up. But when it does, Scotland will too. Probably into four smaller states.
It’s an ironic proof of Professor Baird’s colonialism theory that even he won’t acknowledge, despite the numerous examples provided by history.
Remove an imperial power’s grip over a colony and that colony will eventually break up along ethnic, religious and linguistic lines.
“The wrong people got their hands on the power because the right people were too nice, too innocent, too tolerant and too trusting.
Or maybe too lazy and too unfocused.”
How about all six at once?
Not just limited to Scotland by any means – albeit I can’t think of a more glaring example offhand.
Oh, probably add “too indoctrinated”, “incapable of critical thought” and “too left wing” to the mix as well.
Yes, H McH, the UK is going to fall, and, yes, Scotland, Wales, NI and England will all become independent states. Each country might break up into smaller parts, but will they? Turmoil will ensue in the circumstance that the UK does fall. I fear that the exact same people will grab the power vacuum and fill it with the same nonsense, whether right or left. It might be a comfort to you to imagine that Scotland would break up into constituent parts of Highlands, Islands, Central Belt, Borders, etc., but that would depend hugely on whether the constituent parts were viable or otherwise on their own, but what you suggest is not impossible. Shetland, for example, has said in the past that it would remain with rUK in the event of Scottish independence, but that would be utter folly if the UK break up itself.
When the Iron Curtain fell, yes, Yugoslavia broke up into several warring factions, Czechoslovakia broke into two, but amicably, small breaks-away did happen in states around Georgia and, of course, the Soviet union broke up into separate states and forming the Russian Federation. However, the Baltic States broke from the Soviet Union but remained solid, despite having large ethnic Russian populations. Poland remained intact, too, and the two Germanic’s reunited. So, there is no cut-and-dried answer.
“the UK will eventually break up. But when it does, Scotland will too. Probably into four smaller states.”
Jings, Hatey, split Scotland into four parts? You’re showing your true colours there, for that reflects the colonizer tendency for ‘partition’, as in numerous ex colonies such as Ireland, India and Palestine. And we can all see how well imperial partition worked out there.
Which means it is important to ensure England’s parliament has no say in what sovereign Scots do with our own territory, which must remain as it was at the time of annexation, or what you call ‘union’.
This is the meaning of ‘independence’ efter aw, i.e. nae mair external interference and plunder by ither fowk and culturs.
Haha, Alf, but I’ve noticed before that to be a fully paid up member of the tonto Indy faction that it’s necessary to believe that some big, bad English cants running away forced the Muslims of Pakistan to slaughter millions of the Hindus of India (and vice versa). And, of course, to have been in a mutual nuclear stand off ever since.
Isn’t it wonderful, though, the cul de sacs where a cast iron certainty of victimhood can lead you?
Got to say, Alf, that for somebody forever wanging oan aboot colonialism, the trope about colonialists drawing arbitrary lines on the map and expecting them to be sacrosanct national borders in perpetuity seems to have passed you by.
HMcH
So your logic is that it’s only the good ol’ UK that’s is keeping Scotland from fragmenting into parts.
What a load of Tory baloney, based on years of insidious Tory councillors pedalling such tripe – in areas in the borders and fancy bits of the Isles and those waters ever voracious eyes view on the revenue fields around the northern isles.
We got into this mess unified and inviolate, with a bit of luck we’ll get out of it, unified and inviolate no matter how much you Unionist wordsmiths desperately wish it otherwise.
Yer the bl00dy Balliols all over again you fresh air thiefs..
Honestly. Who’d be Hatey (other than the other Tories and tax dodgers on here ?)..
@ Lorncal says: 27 June, 2026 at 12:17 pm
“there is no cut-and-dried answer”
Precisely.
The forced juxtaposition of Highlands and Lowlands has been a feature of Scottish literature for centuries.
More recently, we can see in the political voting patterns how the Borders differ from the Central Belt, which differs from the Highlands and Western Isles, and the Northern Isles. The Northern Isles being more Scandinavian than Scottish.
That’s before we start to look at possible English enclaves already established in Scotland – Edinburgh, Perth and parts of Fife.
It’s instructive to observe how some of the people quickest to rail against the idea of democratic self-determination for, for example, The Northern Isles, are the ones railing loudest against supposed denial of democratic self-determination now. That clearly arises from the very real fear that more favoured parts of Scotland will leave the shitholes to sink, taking their resources and superior economic outlooks with them.
And why not? Scotland has always been a shifting set of boundaries, with massive areas removed or added by conquest or royal fiat. The idea that Scotland alone will remain preserved in aspic since 1707 whilst the rest of the world is in flux is just more of the tiresome Scottish Exceptionalism we see so much of on here.
If I was lucky enough to live in Orkney or Shetland I’d be gung ho for returning to the Norwegian control from which the islands were cruelly wrenched by a fickle monarch.
The arbitrary, unaccountable actions of monarchs being just another idea the Indy boys are supposedly hostile to, unless the end result suits them!
NI CIVIL SERVICE IMPOSES STAFF ‘PRIDE’ PARADE BAN
The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) has halted its participation in LGBT ‘Pride’.
Head Jayne Brady told staff that “in the current legal and case law context, the NICS is not in a position to participate in Pride events this year in an official capacity, where colleagues would be identifiable as representing the organisation”.
However, she added, the decision did not reflect any wider change in NICS “commitment to LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion”.
‘IDEOLOGICAL CAUSES’
The Christian Institute’s James Kennedy said: “It is a simple fact that Pride parades are political events. From waving flags for controversial new policies to welcoming or banning political parties based on their stances, everything about them shouts ‘politics’. Their proponents call them protests and they give a platform to outlandish ideologies and identities. There is nothing neutral about them.
“In that light, it is not surprising that Northern Ireland’s Civil Service has told its staff to put away their specially printed ‘NICS at Pride’ t-shirts this year. What is outrageous is how the supposedly ‘impartial’ Civil Service has continued to support Pride for so many years.
“Last year’s Pride event campaigned for puberty-blocking drugs to be given to teenagers, amidst financial support from the PSNI, Translink and NICS. At least this year, we know a little less of our public money will be thrown at these ideological causes.”
DUP MLA Jonathan Buckley told the Belfast News Letter: “The Civil Service exists to serve everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of their background. Its role is not to align itself with overtly political events or campaigning causes such as ‘Pride’, but to deliver public services in an impartial and professional manner.”
LEGAL ACTION
The Institute is currently pursuing a legal action to challenge the decision of the Civil Service in Great Britain to ‘permit and/or authorise’ the participation of civil servants in Pride marches under the banner of the Civil Service.
Under the Civil Service Code, all employees are expected to carry out their roles with “integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality”. They must also “ensure individual personal and political views do not, and are not perceived to, influence our advice or actions”.
Deputy Director Simon Calvert explained: “The law is clear that civil servants must maintain impartiality on controversial political issues.”
The legal threat followed a High Court ruling that Northumbria Police’s participation in Pride marches breached its impartiality duties.
To challenge Civil Service practice, the CI has instructed Conrathe Gardner Solicitors and Tom Cross KC – the same legal team that led the case against Northumbria Police.
(The Christian Institute, 27 June 2026)
link to christian.org.uk
A large part of current issues are the fact that the Civil Service isn’t politically impartial.
A sensible ruling that should be repeated across the UK.
Worth noting here that a “state of exception” regarding impartiality was in play during the 2014 referendum campaign. When the survival of the United Kingdom is at stake there can be no Neutrality. Being parsimonious with the truth is deemed honourable when on behalf of a threatened United Kingdom. It is very much sanctioned and rewarded.
We saw this principle operative at the highest levels in the bestowal of Better Together knighthoods, lordships etc, and in the guise of Sir Nicholas Macpherson and the hitherto “non-political” Civil Service with its emotional award ceremony following eventual “success”. (And we could hardly miss those post-referendum London, American, and global advancements for a swathe of BBC Scotland personnel.)
On Jan 21 2015, the online news sheet ‘CSW Civil Service World’ carried the following article by Sarah Aston (extract) —
« The Scottish National Party (SNP) has slammed the Treasury permanent secretary Nicholas Macpherson for suggesting civil service impartiality does not apply in all circumstances.
« Presenting his speech, ‘The Treasury and the Union’, at the inaugural meeting of the Strand Group on 19 January, Macpherson said that in “extreme” cases, such as last September’s Scottish referendum, the rules of civil service impartiality “do not apply”.
« Macpherson also defended the significant role the Treasury had to play in the referendum: “Her Majesty’s Treasury is by its nature a unionist institution. The clue is in the name.”
« Responding to comments made by former cabinet secretary Lord O’Donnell, who congratulated the civil service for remaining independent throughout the referendum, Macpherson stressed that the civil service was not independent, as it serves the government of the day. […] »
link to civilserviceworld.com
Then, of course, quelle surprise indeed when on 9th July 2021 there appeared this article in the Herald by Tom Gordon headlined:
‘SNP turn to Treasury boss who helped sink Yes campaign, Sir Nick Macpherson, for help with economy’.
The piece begins:
« A former Treasury mandarin who became a hate figure for independence supporters in 2014 by sinking the SNP’s currency plan is to advise Nicola Sturgeon’s Government on the recovery from the pandemic.
« Sir Nick Macpherson has joined a new advisory council drawing up a 10-year national strategy for the “economic transformation” of Scotland.
« While most of the new names are uncontroversial, Sir Nick’s inclusion is bound to raise hackles in parts of the Yes movement, given his publicly-stated opposition to independence, and fuel doubts about whether the SNP leadership truly believes independence will be part of the recovery. […] »
link to heraldscotland.com
“the Civil Service isn’t politically impartial”
Of course its not; the main political and ideological purpose of all (UK) civil servants and state institutions is ‘to ensure the survival of the (Anglo-British) state’ (Mearsheimer).
All those who desire independence and thereby the end of the Anglo-British state need to work back from this basic fact.
Subtle difference in first sentence of each email. I wonder if this was a prompt or just one of those things…
It’s time for another warning.
First, in Scots:
Ther scarce be a wird pit doun here fae colonialists (unyonists if preferryd… baith be alike) that’s onythin’ ither than abuise, threit, lie, errure, afftak, diveesion, diversioun, distractioun, logicale fallace, or hatesome antiScot rethorik.
And again in English:
There’s barely a comment posted here by colonialists (unionists if preferred… same thing) that is anything other than insult, threat, lies, error, mockery, division, diversion, distraction, logical fallacy, or hateful anti-Scots rhetoric.
Good Lord, Northy!
Are you claiming that the hyphen (“-“) is an alien imposition forced on the Scots by the hated English coloniser?
Thats because their busy still working in desperation at trying to make the union a reality for Westminster in 2026.
Civil servants acting as the government, make a mockery of Westminster parliament, but then Englands parliament has no written constitution, unlike Scotland, where the people are Sovereign and it is the people that have gone forward to the UN, not the pretendy Scottish parliament.
That being said, it is notable out of the four nations in these isle’s, three of them that I am aware of are now holding conversations party politically as well as amongst the the people , that the Civil Servants have over stepped their bounderies in governance,
It will be interesting to see the future outcome. And possibly the demise of Civil Servants authority in political interference and relevance.
As with the SNP, politics in America or Britain its good to remind civil servants when the time comes, there is always the fall guy, or gal, the ones who takes the rap. Get thrown under the bus, And quite deservedly so.
Call me a cynic but did the SNP canvass for IndyRef funds in the full knowledge Sturgeon’s case for one would be defeated at the SC? That case was paid for by us as taxpayers and NOT the SNP. That would leave them with the Indy Ref donations at their disposal. I probably am a cynic I doubt Sturgeon was intelligent enough to come up with such a wheeze.