The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

What we’re told and what we know

Posted on October 06, 2015 by

We apologise for another post on the subject of The Wright House, everyone, but we do love getting our teeth into a puzzle, especially when it comes with a side order of lots of juicy evidence of the Scottish media telling people outright lies.


This should be the last one for the forseeable future, and we’ve actually got some solid info to impart this time rather than just a confused expression, so buckle up.

Armed only with Google, an inquisitive nature and an army of alert readers, the first thing to note is that we’ve discovered the exact location of Douglas and Jacqueline Wright’s former home. It was 28 Wigtoun Place in Cumbernauld, and you can see it here on Google Maps:


It’s clearly the same place STV did an outside broadcast from last night:


If you search the location on property website Zoopla you get this:


This tallies with what STV News told viewers last night, and blows a huge gaping hole in what was printed in two newspapers in the last 48 hours.

The idea that M&F Property Solutions (MFPS) resold the house “months after” the Wrights sold it to them (as claimed by the Daily Mail) appears to be flatly and categorically untrue. And the Sunday Mail’s claim that the Wrights “were stunned to discover [M&F] sold it on within a year for £75,000” equally seems untenable.

The S-Mail also told us that MFPS paid the Wrights £21,000. This also seems to be an unarguable falsehood. The D-Mail and STV are united on the fact that MFPS sold the house to a third party for £75,000 and paid the Wrights £51,000 from the proceeds, having signed an agreement to keep anything over that amount in return for selling the property quickly.

The Wrights told the D-Mail that they “raised two children” in the house, so had clearly lived in it for a considerable period of time. Mrs Wright also told STV that it was a former council house that they paid £21,000 for.

That figure seems plausible – if they’d lived there since before 2002 and for over 15 years (the sort of time it takes to raise two children), they’d be entitled to a Right To Buy discount of 70%. A purchase price of £21,000 on a 70% discount would mean the house had been valued at £70,000 in 2007, which seems in the right ballpark.

The Right-To-Buy scheme also stipulated (same link as above) that part of the discount had to be paid back if the house was sold on within three years. But by waiting four years – 2007 to 2011 – the Wrights would avoid having to return any of that £49,000 premium on their purchase price to the taxpayer.

The D-Mail’s contention that £30,000 of the money paid by MFPS to the Wrights went to pay off their mortgage, then, is hard to explain, unless the Wrights had borrowed more money on the house in the intervening time. After four years, and presuming a modest deposit, the outstanding sum should otherwise have been well below £21,000.

We also still don’t know how much MFPS offered initially. According to the D-Mail the starting bid was just £17,000 but Mrs Wright told STV News that Michelle Thomson “came in, looked about the house, and she went ‘£40,000, that’s all I would gie for this’, and I thought ‘You cheeky bitch’.”

However, a source very close to Ms Thomson told Wings Over Scotland this morning that Ms Thomson had “never met” Mrs Wright, and had “no idea” who the woman Mrs Wright allegedly met was. So there’s considerable doubt over both accounts of how the final agreement came to be reached.

All we know for certain is that Mr and Mrs Wright were subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of £49,000 to buy their house, and made a 143% profit when they sold it on, pocketing £30,000 for simply living in their home for four years.

They’re nevertheless very angry about “losing” the additional £19,000 they feel they should have made (despite the fact that they made no apparent attempt to sell the house through more conventional means in the hope of realising a higher price) and hold Ms Thomson responsible for that loss, as “she is meant to represent equality”.

We’re not sure which definition of “equality” is being deployed there.

We also know beyond reasonable doubt that the Sunday Mail’s shrieking front-page “HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?” headline is based on a complete untruth, namely that MFPS paid just £21,000 for the house.

“Wright, 61, and husband Douglas sold their flat to Thomson and business partner Frank Gilbride for £21,000 because they wanted to sell quickly.”

The only time it’s changed hands for that sum was when the Wrights bought it in 2007, with the taxpayer effectively picking up over two-thirds of the tab.

It remains to be seen whether Michelle Thomson is eventually implicated in the failure of Christopher Hales to notify mortgage lenders of the circumstances surrounding the sale of the Wrights’ house and others.

But what we can say is that the avalanche of howling press and political outrage about Ms Thomson allegedly “taking advantage” of “vulnerable” people seems to be, to put it very mildly indeed, on shaky foundations. Although still not as shaky as the media’s grasp of basic facts.

We look forward to the Sunday and Daily Mails correcting the enormous and serious inaccuracies in their reports. In our experience, readers should expect a brace of postage-stamp-sized “clarifications” sometime in early January.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 06 10 15 14:58

    What we're told and what we know | Politics Sco...

151 to “What we’re told and what we know”

  1. RogueCoder says:

    Brilliant Stu, absolutely brilliant.

    I look forward to the defamation suits.

  2. Lesley-Anne says:

    I’ll second Rogue Coders thoughts! 😀

  3. Capella says:

    Another possible timeline:
    I wonder if Council House sales are actually registered as sales?
    The Wrights may have bought the property much earlier and sold it to MFPS in 2007 for £21,000. MFPS cleared the outstanding mortgage payments.

    MFPS may then have renovated, then let out the property before selling in 2011 for £75,000.?

  4. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Stunning forensic journalism. Puts the corpmedia to shame.

    Well done Rev Stu!

  5. Embradon says:

    £30K looks like a handsome return between 2007 and 2011.
    During that period house prices tended, if anything, to fall after the banking collapse.
    The Wright’s profit is likely, as you say, to have been at the expense of the public rather than inflation.

  6. manandboy says:

    For consistent excellence, Stu, there’s no one to beat you.
    You really should have your own newspaper and the Scottish Government should set it up.

  7. Taranaich says:

    This should be the last one for the forseeable future, and we’ve actually got some solid info to impart this time rather than just a confused expression, so buckle up.

    I dearly hope so. No slight against you, Rev, your posts have been invaluable in deflating this nonsense, but it absolutely fries my nut people are making all sorts of pronouncements, judgements and conclusions about this issue when, as shown here, nobody can even agree just what the hell’s going on.

    Meanwhile, there are other things that I think are rather more newsworthy happening. Like a political conference having steel walls erected and defended with snipers on the rooftops, when the only threats are disabled protesters and angry workers. Or Conservative think-tanks suggesting we need to be more like China. Or Theresa May’s speech on migrants being so repulsive that even Tory delegates are calling it “disgusting.” Or an EU country pulling out of the Transpacific Partnership because of US bias.

    Our press have a great and noble responsibility to enlighten, inform, and scrutinise on behalf of the people. I had hoped they would consider political issues like the above far more consequential than this “story.”

  8. KEU says:

    Man! Like a terrier with a bone; once again thank you for sifting your way through all that dross.
    Has all this been a convoluted attempt to keep the masses from thinking too deeply of the implications of what is being dished up in Manchester this week?

  9. FiferJP says:

    The house sale information can also be found on if you want to spend ages searching – it only searches for periods of a maximum of six months.

    The house sale in 2007 doesn’t seem to come up, but the one in 2011 does. They got a better price than number 12 Wigtoun Place which sold for £69,500 at the beginning of the year.

  10. Marcia says:

    Capella said;

    ‘I wonder if Council House sales are actually registered as sales?’

    They are.

  11. steveasaneilean says:

    And I hope if questioned again on Thursday the FM quotes you verbatim Stu.

  12. Dr Jim says:

    Pay the Unionists back at the ballot box

  13. mikewr says:

    Stu, Investigative reporting like that is worthy of a seasoned main stream journo in the mould of a Paul Hutcheon type?

  14. Angus Anderson says:

    I might be being a bit thick here but should there not in fact be a record of 3 sale figures ie:

    1) when the Wrights bought the house from the council
    2) when the Wrights sold to MFPS
    3) when MFPS sold the house on

    If 2) is not recorded anywhere then we can’t know how long elapsed for MFPS to realise any profit. In any case as the Rev has already pointed out, we don’t know why the Wrights did not simply put the house on the open market like anyone else especially as it ended up selling for what would appear to be market value.

  15. One_Scot says:

    The problem is, the Daily Record, Sunday Mail, STV and the rest of the unionist flag wavers can say and print whatever pish they like, there is no recourse.

    Until there is some way of controlling their lies and deceit they will just continue to spew their batshit, and they will carry on conning and manipulating the public.

  16. Richie says:

    I hope you have put this to the Daily Record. We really need to start shaming these rags, or alt leat let the general public know of their lies.

  17. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Defamation Central

    It couldn’t happen to a better bunch of crooks, the inky fingered press in Scotland and their Cheerleader, BBC Sweatyland News.

  18. Robert Louis says:


    What RevStu has brilliantly done here, is what the supposed ‘journalists’ who are currently writing utter p*sh regarding this matter, should have done.

    It is wholly disgraceful, that it takes a website funded by voluntary donations, to uncover the glaring truths of this whole non-story.

    But, of course, the lurid headlines were not run for truth, or to establish facts, oh no, the media hysteria over this, has been for one reason, and one reason alone, to smear the SNP.

    The media in Scotland are a disgrace and an affront to democracy. Every last one of them should be run out of town. They deserve NOTHING but contempt from the people of Scotland. Malicious liars, one and all.

  19. Tinto Chiel says:

    “Meanwhile, there are other things that I think are rather more newsworthy happening. Like a political conference having steel walls erected and defended with snipers on the rooftops, when the only threats are disabled protesters and angry workers. Or Conservative think-tanks suggesting we need to be more like China. Or Theresa May’s speech on migrants being so repulsive that even Tory delegates are calling it “disgusting.” Or an EU country pulling out of the Transpacific Partnership because of US bias.”

    The MT frenzy keeps our minds off the above, at least for most people, Taranaich. We would never have been shown the numbers of demonstrators in any event, of course. Apart from a display of the usual SNP-baddery, I remain hopeful it is to somehow deflect from the Carmichael case. Has the Press already calculated he is toast and this constitutes their Whitabootery Defence?

    Another forensic dissection, Rev. Thanks.

  20. Chitterinlicht says:

    Superb feet to the fire holding Reverand.

    Makes me mad the MSM reaction to this event.

    You are not allowed to stop (except holidays )

  21. In 2007, if one borrowed the entire £21,000 in return for a mortgage, it would have cost around £150 per month (capital & interest), assuming an average standard variable rate (SVR) of around 7.7% over a term of 30 years.

    This assumes the closing/conveyance costs were also paid up front & no additional insurance policies were purchased.

    Thus, by 2011, the debt outstanding would have been around £19,900, assuming the interest rate had stayed fixed at around 7.7% over the 4 year period.

    Meanwhile the house would have appreciate in value & we know that the Wrights sold the house in 2011 for £51,000.

    If no additional mortgages or loans had been taken out against the property, then the actual gain would have been £51,000 – £19,900 = £31,100 less any closing/conveyance costs.

    Meanwhile, MFPS later sold the house to a third party for £75,000 which means it made a gain of £75,000 – £51,000 = £26,000 less any closing/conveyance costs.

    So in 2007, the Wrights bought a house valued at £70,000 for just £21,000 but made a gain of £5,100 more than MFPS.

    Interestingly, if we assume an average annual price inflation of 3%, the house in 2011 should have been worth £78,800. But MFPS sold it for only £75,000 which means they “lost” a further £3,000 of potential profit.

    Meanwhile, the most recent purchaser of the house appears to have enjoyed a discount of around 5% when they got it for £3,000 less than what it was probably worth.

    In summary then, the house changed hands three times & everyone made a financial gain, including the estate agents, banks, solicitors & conveyance agents.

    When someone has discovered the defect in any of this free market process, would they be so kind to point it out please?

  22. Luigi says:

    mikewr says:

    6 October, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Stu, Investigative reporting like that is worthy of a seasoned main stream journo in the mould of a Paul Hutcheon type?

    I have never seen a single piece of “investigative reporting” by anyone in the corporate media that comes close to Rev Campbell’s analyses (even in less divisive, non-constitutional topics). He puts them all to shame.

  23. Betty Boop says:

    @ KEU, 3:09pm

    <blockquote?Has all this been a convoluted attempt to keep the masses from thinking too deeply of the implications of what is being dished up in Manchester this week?


    It is also an attempt to neuter the Scottish Government and Scotland. We have SG elections next year, so, what better than ramping up the smears and shouting SNP Baaaad through the megaphone of MSM.

    Of course, we might not even notice those snipers on the roof in attendance “somewhere near you…” (pick any place where there are lots of real people with real concerns).

  24. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Angus, since the last sale appears to be in 2011, my guess is that it is now used for letting by whoever bought it in 2011. Had a quick check of similar properties in the G67 postcode area and a typical rent is in the order of around a hundred quid a week(in a range of 70 to 125 or so). So a return of around £5K per annum minus any outgoings.

    Unless MFPS are the letting agent, they may just have been the agent sourcing properties for the letting agent, and that is the current owner.

  25. Luigi says:

    Dr Jim says:

    6 October, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Pay the Unionists back at the ballot box

    I so enjoyed contributing to the excruciatingly painful kick in the nads those dirty barstewards received in May. I cannot wait until the next opportunity. 🙂

  26. Ben says:

    Pound to a penny they weren’t carping in 2008 when the arse fell out the property market.

    They’d have been thanking their lucky stars they managed to “get out” when they did.

  27. Proud Cybernat says:

    Dear CorpMedia,

    How you must hate the the ordinary people of Scotland, using only Social Media, can get access tot he actual truth of the matter and can see you all for the scheming, mud-slinging gits that you are.

    Well done, Stu! Another nail in the coffin of CorpMedia.

  28. Hamish100 says:

    A nice wee diversionary story to steel us away from the right wing Tory policies, labours confusion of trident aye and trident naw stories and the lying lib dem Carmichael taking the stand to confirm he lied.

    Next time the SM or DR editors are on BBC Scotchland they could be asked about their inability to get their facts right. Maybe not.

  29. Grouse Beater says:

    Am grateful for the stream of clarification, Stuart.

    As you say, all that’s left is solid verification Michelle Thomson was aware of how her lawyer operated, and if she did, did she condone or condemn it.

  30. Dr Jim says:

    Paul Hutcheon is neither a Journalist or an Investigator

    He’s a wee girl who runs up behind other wee girls and pulls their hair (and he jist pure hates they SNPs so he diz)(stamps feet and greets)

  31. George S Gordon says:

    I’ve verified all Wings observations at (registration required).

    In 2007, it says this was the First Registration and the Deed Type is “Disposition (burdened property)”.

    Burdened property seems to usually mean the Feu has not been removed, which could be correct at the point of sale of a council property to the sitting tenant; however, a legal mind might be required to interpret.

    This site also verifies that the £75,000 paid in 2011 is the highest price paid in Wigtoun Place.

  32. Angus says:

    “When home owners are struggling to pay their mortgages and going through a period of despair along comes SNP MP Michelle Thomson and screws them into the ground, purchases their homes for knock down prices and trousers the profits.”

    Labour councillor Terry Kelly (on his blog)

  33. Lesley-Anne says:

    Wee Ruthie openly answering questions put to her by member of the public, not BBC. Oh no wait a minute I think that is wrong sorree! 😉

    Wee Ruthie in queue to enter the pig pen being asked questions by member of the public, not BBC, and refusing to answer whilst showing off the most amazing imitation of a glakit face known to man … or woman for that sake. 😀

  34. Mchaggis says:

    Whats really easy to see here is the Wrights got themselves into trouble with mortgage repayments.

    They bought the house at a massive discount (fair enough that was the law at the time), but clearly then borrowed additionla sums of money based on the equity in the property. Again, perfectly normal… However, most people only borrow what they can afford to repay. The Wrights hocked themselves beyond what they could afford.

    Stu, could you maybe see where the Wrights stay now? Are they still in privately owned property, or have they sucked the teat of the right to buy discount, spent cash they couldn’t afford to repay, sold the house and now moved back into council or housing association housing, trousering whatever was leftover from the taxpayer subsidised purchase they bough into?

  35. Angus Anderson says:

    Thanks Alan,

    To put my question another way, who paid whom the £75000?

    If it was MFPS to the Wrights then they have no complaint.

    If it was someone else to MFPS then we don’t know how much of the £54K profit (minus costs) was passed by MFPS to the Wrights.

    I’ll take a guess that what happened was this:

    1) Wrights read an advert in the Record (or other shady MSM publication) to wit that MFPS would sell their house for them for a fee.

    2) That duly happened and the Wrights were happy with their pre-negotiated profit.

    3) Someone in Labour circles has recently seen the opportunity to fuel the ongoing SNP smear by having the Wrights now complain that the terms of the agreement were not in fact agreeable.

    4) The confusion in MSM reporting does not matter because the primary purpose of smearing the SNP has been served.

    Of course this might all fall down if it turns our Michelle Thompson is entirely blameless in which case the MSM defence will be that they were misled by the Wrights.

  36. Ronbon says:

    The media are indeed a disgrace and like many others I feel really angry that they continue to churn out misinformation and blatant lies.

    Was considering making complaint to IPSO but I have as much confidence in that organisation as I do the BBC!

  37. Bob Mack says:

    Would it have been better for the bank to repossess,sell and give the Wrights zero? Take your pick.

  38. Fiona says:

    Do we know there were three sales?

    Only two are recorded. Why is that

    Is it possible that there were only two? Say MFPS was acting as agent for the Wrights, rather than as purchasers. That would fit with the deal which gave MFPS any balance over £51,000. MFPS would then not have bought the property, but rather would have found a buyer. as an estate agent does.

    In that case, the commission is very high, but in a difficult market, which Ms Wright said it was, there may have been risk to the agent which is covered by the apparently very high return

    I am not defending that, but presumably the Wrights went to this company rather than a conventional estate agent for a reason and we are not told what the reason was.

    I don’t feel very much better informed about this than I did before. despite the sterling efforts here. The info just does not seem to be available, or not yet.

  39. Lesley-Anne says:

    If it was someone else to MFPS then we don’t know how much of the £54K profit (minus costs) was passed by MFPS to the Wrights.

    I can’t remember which thread it is exactly Angus but I believe it is true to say that the Wrights received £51,000.

  40. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Seems quite clear Angus(at least as clear as anything could be in this mess). MFPS and wrights signed contract that they would get £51K for their house, and any sum acheived above this would be retained by MFPS, OR at least that was the inference from the interview and the piece of paper that STV were waving about. So that implies a third party handed over 75K and the wrights got their 51K out of that with the remainder going to MFPS. Now whether there was a third party or it was someone else in MFPS… who knows.

    Incidentally I guess the initials of the company are Michelle Frank Property Solutions. Its gone very quiet regarding the Frank part of the company, a certain Frank Gilbride, brother of a journalist in the corpmedia(Express I think).

    I seem to recall last week or so that this was about a collection of houses which were buy to let properties so it may be that this flat is part of that group,

  41. The incompetence of the Scottish Mainstream Media, print and broadcast, has been of scandalous proportions as far as this whole issue has been concerned. John McKay was trying to justify STV’s actions on Twitter yesterday. I am sure he has read today’s articles on WoS. What is your opinion today Mr McKay or are you too ashamed to try to justify it now?

  42. NodBruce says:

    @Angus Anderson:

    “… who paid whom the £75000?”

    As it was the price paid at the last sale, the current owner of the property paid this sum.

    “…we don’t know how much of the £54K profit (minus costs) was passed by MFPS to the Wrights.”

    Yes, we do. The Wrights received £51,000 in total. As I understand your usage of “profit”, that’s £30,000 to the Wrights, 24,000 to MFPS.

  43. Democracy Reborn says:

    Is there one iota of evidence to suggest that Mr and Mrs Wright were induced by Michelle Thomson personally, or any business she was associated with, to enter into a contract of sale by way of fraud, error, or negligent/innocent misrepresentation?

    Do Mr and Mrs Wright consider it “moral” that they received a subsidy – by way of price discount – of £49,000 from the taxpayer to buy their council house?

    Do Duncan Hothersall, David Clegg and the other whiners in the MSM and social media consider it “moral” or “socially just” that they did so?

  44. tombee says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again now, Mr Campbell. Your capacity for forensic journalism leading to exposure of deceit, obfuscation and downright pathological lying is outstanding.
    To compare your standards, against those of the so called professional journalists, of the UK MSM, would be to insult you, by such a comparrison.
    We are extremely lucky to have you around at this time.

  45. heedtracker says:

    Cant beat actual journalism like WoS.


    How British propaganda works everyday of the week in their Scotland region

    “The people of Edinburgh West have been badly let down and deserve better. Justice must be allowed to take its course but it would be preferable if this whole business is concluded swiftly as until then, the people of Edinburgh West are being poorly served.”

    Thompson still been charged with anything but its a really dirty business UKOK politics, really dirty.

  46. mikewr says:

    Luigi, 3:19 & Dr Jim,3:50

    Apologies, I had obviously forgot to use my ‘sarcasm font’ when posting my comment re: Mr Hutcheon. The rev knocks these journos into a cocked hat. There is no comparison.

  47. Scott Shaw says:

    I don’t just feel angry about this. I feel really bad for Michelle. She’s being made to feel guilty for doing what most other adults in the Yookay were begged to do by Maggie. Own your council house then keep moving up the housing ladder. It wouldn’t be a very good housing market if everyone were to make a loss instead of a profit.

  48. Proud Cybernat says:


    There was a big discussion yesterday discussing the use of the term ‘Mainstream Media (MSM)’. Many will have missed it so I’ll take this wee moment to reiterate my thoughts on this.

    The term ‘Maisntream Media (MSM)’ should be dropped as a moniker for the media in Scotland. The word ‘mainstream’ affords it an authority that is wholly undeserving. It is a word that suggests any source of news/information outwith ‘mainstream’ sources is seconf-rate, fringe and not as trustworthy as the ‘mainstream’.

    Let us now STOP affording these shitrags such gravitas. We are in a major propaganda war with the media (all of it) in this country and we need to ensure the less politically aware can see our media exactly for what they are and who they serve (and they do not serve the people of this country).

    I proposed the moniker ‘Corporate Media’ (CorpMedia for short or just ‘CM’) as this immediately imparts to the reader information about the news source i.e. it is funded and processed through the filter of big business interest; something that is usually contary to the ordinary person’s interest.

    Perception is everything in a propaganda battle and each and everyone of us can make this small but important change in every post, article or paper that we write. We need people to question the ‘MSM’ and labelling it ‘Corporate Media’ is a starting point.

    Let’s call them for what they are. And let us also give the BBC its more accurate moniker of ‘State-Sponsored Broadcaster’. People pick up on such things just in the same way they picked up on the ‘Red Tory’ moniker.

    Presently in Scotland the Corporate Media and State Sponsored Broadcaster are a clear and present danger and serious impediment to Scotland achieving its independence.

    Let’s fight back. Let’s call them for what they are and who they serve. Let’s STOP using neutral terms such as ‘MSM’ or ‘BBC’.

  49. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Dem reborn, Rev tweeted earlier that he has been informed by a well placed source that Michelle Thomson has never met Mrs Wright. So that puts STV in the firing line after that interview last night.

    Echo Jim’s comment. Come on John Mackay, do you still stand by your report of last night? If so, come on and discuss.

    Fiona, I saw a comment which explained the potentially high commission last night. It was that the risk of selling passed to MFPS, once they had offered a guarenteed 51K to the wrights. That risk turned out to give a profit to MFPS in this case, but if the sale had been for £50K then a loss would been incurred.

  50. Greannach says:

    Apart from the obvious candidates in the east, are there any other countries in Europe with such pitiful print and broadcast media? Thanks for showing journalists how to do their job.

  51. manandboy says:

    In Scotland, our right to be independent is denied us by England which refuses to accept that we are a nation. England is incapable of respect for other nations because they believe everyone is beneath them. This applies, but with additional contempt, to Scotland.

    But we are surely witnessing a major political and cultural shift, as the ground of credibility crumbles beneath the UK newspaper industry in Scotland. IndyRef has forced almost all of Scotland’s well known titles to ‘come out’ as hard core Unionist. Everyone of them has needed no encouragement to print screeds of very hostile material against the Yes campaign and the SNP.

    In so doing, they have not only blown their cover as propaganda agents for the Westminster government, but they have destroyed the relationship of trust which they have built up with their readers over decades. They are now on shaky ground.
    To have spoken about this five years ago would have attracted only ridicule. Yet here we are.

    It is not that they have only newly turned against Scotland. They have always been like this ; we just didn’t know it. And now there is no going back. What the Unionist papers say, will soon be a thing of the past.

    So also with the BBC and ITV – their days are numbered as more and more people come to realize that they are actively plotting to undermine the legitimate Government of Scotland. Severe penalties await such treachery.

    If major change to the mass media, as well as to the political Establishment, is par for the course of gaining Independence then bring it on. Scotland is no longer asleep; no longer compliant or docile or subservient to ‘our English masters’. All we need now is a patient resolve to do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to gain Independence.

    At that point, the ground we will then be standing on will be solid for sure, for it will no longer be ruled from Westminster but from Holyrood. On that day, we will be standing in a country, not a colony, and we will be a nation again.

    Just like all the other nations.

  52. Andy B says:

    A two minute search of (a subscription is payable) reveals:

    28 Wigtoun Place
    Sold 05/07 by North Lanarkshire Council to D&J Wright for £21,000
    Sold 05/11 by D&J Wright to S Weir for £75,000

    That same search reveals, by way of comparison, that a house at 12 Wigtoun Place also sold in 2007 and again in 2011. Those sales are recorded as:

    12 Wigtoun Place
    Sold 03/07 by McBride to Shaw for £59,159
    Sold 01/11 by Shaw to Fraser for £69,500

    The 2011 sale figures suggest that the two houses may be very comparable in nature.

    Mr & Mrs Wright appear (if they received £51,000 in 2011) to have made a £30,000 profit over 4 years, ie almost three times more than the £10,341 made by Mr/Mrs Shaw on the property at 12 Wigtoun Place.

    Seems to me that Mr & Mrs Wright have done ok. They could, of course, have done better if properly advised. Perhaps the questions should really pointed towards whoever acted for them in the 2011 sale transaction.

    I am no apologist for Ms Thomson, but it does seem to me that she is being targeted unfairly, and completely misrepresented by the media ( no surprise given her SNP connections).

    All this information is openly available. One wonders why the press haven’t bothered to include it accurately in their reports?

  53. Soor Ploom says:

    The Cumbernauld hoose?

    Try the link below which is supposed to detail all property sales between January 2000 and the last reporting period in 2015.

    Note that whilst the sale of 28 Wigtoun Place is recorded as £21,000 in May 2007, there is nothing recorded for any subsequent sale.

  54. Gerry says:

    Nailed it Stu. What you have performed here with regard to this story and the varying coverage of it is quite simply the due diligence that these publications should have. The fact that you have managed to do this, and the clear way that you have set the case out could quite easily form the basis of a complaint to the PCC.
    These publications have a reasonable duty of care to be accurate with respect to the subject of their articles which clearly has not been discharged in this case.
    If Stu can perform due diligence in order to prove the veracity of these specifics, then the question has to be asked why these publications clearly did not perform a similar process.
    The series of articles examining this issue illustrates just how easy it would have been to fact check this story before committing to print. Disgraceful that they didn’t check this, and fortunate for us that we have sites such as this one, who will unpick the tangled webs that the disgrace of an excuse we have for a media continually weave. Thank you.

  55. Andy-B says:

    And they wonder why we’ve stopped buying their papers.

  56. Sinky says:

    o/t but time to remind voters of Iain Gray’s involvement in the Edinburgh Tram scandal

    As TIE’s role is not being examined the inquiry will be a whitewash.

  57. Fiona says:

    @ Alan Mackintosh

    Thanks for that. I wondered if that might be the case. I am having some trouble reconciling that with the “back to back” transactions reported. There should be three sales registered if that is what happened, but there don’t appear to be.

  58. manandboy says:

    Alan Mackintosh :’It was that the risk of selling passed to MFPS.’ From googles’ Street View, the risk of selling was considerable – more so in early 2007.

  59. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Over the last 20-years, the newspaper publishers, such as Trinity-Mirror, who own the Record and Mail have systematically taken-out their more-experienced journos, on a regular basis.

    At the start of that cycle, around 1995, legend has it, the HR department at Anderston Quay got two sheets of paper, on one they listed the journalists in descending order of age; on the other, they were listed in descending order of years of service, their entire editorial staff.

    A line was drawn across both pages, at a specific point. If your name was above the line on both sheets of paper – you were “persuaded” to take a severance package and leave.

    This has meant that, today, after four or five such exercises in getting rid of the older, experienced journalists, we have the situation, whereby young, wet-behind-the-ears kids are running desks, at a time when, years ago, they would not have been allowed near decision-making posts.

    I used to work for a T-M title. I took one of the severance packages when I was 55, basically because I was fed-up with the pish decisions a too-young Editor, promoted way above his abilities, was making.

    It’s all about, if not defending circulations, which are falling across the board, attracting “click-bait” to the newspaper websites.

    So, a combination of desperation, lack of experience and lack of numbers – the papers no longer have big-enough staffs to proerly research stories – and, their refuse to pay or give sufficient resources to freelances, who could take-up the slack, is leading to total fuck-ups such as the confused reporting of the Wright case.

    It’s the old story – pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

  60. Robert Peffers says:

    @Rev Stu – That was a real masterpiece in exposing cant and the best one from you for some time.

    What now remains is identifying which, (special), branch of the Establishment was behind co-ordinating it. That, though is never going to happen.

  61. James Dean says:

    Long time listener, first time caller here 🙂

    I just wanted to thank Wings and the Rev for all of the time and effort put into this site. It is probably very tedious, but every new article so so SO appreciated.


  62. heedtracker says:

    Meant to type Gruan attack goes

    “Called to answer opposition questions about the unfolding scandal,”

    Reality though, Thompson not charged but even so – this from a LibDem of all people.

    “Whether or not fraud has happened, it is perfectly legitimate to question these practices and Michelle Thomson should be prepared to state her position. There is a moral case to answer.”

    Rancid Graun not that different smear attack than Sunday Mail’s, just more sneaky/creepy, as they do-

    unfolding scandal, involved in criminality and fraud, moral case to answer, Justice must be allowed to take its course but, serious organised crime division, moral and ethical questions raised etc. It all there.

    Quality stuff from that shower of bullshitters alone but holy fcuk do they want to get SLab back in.

    Serious organised crime division, massed ranks of howling UKOK hypocrites, liars, slandering shysters, Libby Carrell, BBC etc…

    That poor woman will need to dig deep now.

  63. michael diamond says:

    Manandboy 4.34pm. Great post.

  64. scottieDog says:

    The wrights seem to have done better than me. I lost 15k on my house

  65. Valerie says:

    RT has posted a great little vid clearly showing the snipers and their rifles at the Conference, then it cuts to disabled people seated in wheelchairs!

    Really strange how the RT journo has a powerful enough vid to show real detail, yet the Manchester police declared the snipers ‘not there to shoot people’ but that the rifle scopes were very powerful for watching.


  66. Training Day says:

    You should embarrass the shills and paid-for propagandists in the ‘Scottish’ media with articles like this Rev.

    But they are beyond shame, and have been for a very long time. Alan Cochrane’s cri de couer to the No side – ‘What does journalism matter, this is more important!’ – sums up the whole sorry, rotten bunch of them.

    We can’t even ascribe much (any) of this to laziness or incompetence – it’s driven by their paymasters’ malicious design, and that design is to undermine Scotland as a nation. That these ‘journalists’ acquiesce in that design all too happily says everything about their character.

  67. Legerwood says:

    Fiona @ 4.41 pm
    The Weight transaction does not appear in the Law Society report and,bgiven there are only two sale dates, it does not appear to have been a back to back transaction of the type covered in the report.

    There was a back to back transaction detailed in the report and it involved similar sums of money but it was Ms Thomson’s husband who was involved. If memory serves me correctly the people selling the house were not referred to as Mr and Mrs W.

    The media seem to have dug this one up all by themselves.

    Since there does not appear to be any sale post 2011 then the house still belongs to Ms Thomson’s company and as Alan McIntosh said it is probably rented out.

  68. sensibledave says:


    Please note that anyone who knows the “facts” surrounding this case is keeping pretty Shtumm. We haven’t heard anything of any substance from Ms Thomson (other than her irrelevant quote to Wings earlier), the Police or the relevant regulatory authorities – and yet Ms Sturgeon was quoted as saying “that the allegations against Michelle Thomson would be “completely unacceptable” if true”.

    “Completely unacceptable if true”? What allegations that have been made are “completely unacceptable if true”?

    I don’t think you know Rev. Loyalty is wonderful thing but circumspection is needed sometimes Rev. I enjoy my interaction with other “wingers” and the political debate but this issue is beyond politics – and it is why I have tried to urge caution in “wingers” jumping to blind faith positive conclusions – regardless of whatever sleuthing you and other wingers do – and think you have uncovered as the “truth”.

    Does your distrust of the institutions in Scotland really extend to the point where the Police, the regulatory authorities and the SNP leadership are all in some sort of conspiracy to do an SNP MP down – when you know the “truth” – or is it that you don’t know what they know?

    You wrote ” All we know for certain is that Mr and Mrs Wright were subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of £49,000 to buy their house, and made a 143% profit when they sold it on, pocketing £30,000 for simply living in their home for four years.”

    … and yet you criticise the press for skewing a story to their own ends. With the greatest respect, your paragraph regarding the Wrights is pretty “loaded” – but in the opposite direction and appears to paint them, the people that lost their home in all of this. as the greedy, feckless ones.

    I honestly think that Wings should shut this topic down for a while – until you know what is alleged, what are the “facts” and what the authorities are going to do – if anything. Then, based upon that knowledge, take a position.

  69. yesindyref2 says:

    @sensibledave “Completely unacceptable if true”? What allegations that have been made are “completely unacceptable if true”?

    Mortgage fraud, and unethical and immoral behaviour. The media is full of it.

    But yes, which part of that is completely unacceptable? All of it, or just the potentially criminal part?

  70. Proud Cybernat says:

    @Sensible Dave

    “…the people that lost their home in all of this.”

    They did not “lose their home”. They SOLD their home.

    “…and yet you criticise the press for skewing a story to their own ends.”

    Skewing a story? Suggest you go back and read your own skewing words.

  71. john king says:

    “I enjoy my interaction with other “wingers”
    OTHER Wingers?

  72. seanair says:

    Just a small point, but I don’t think a woman with Michelle Thomson’s background would say to the owner “I’ll gie ye £40,000 for it”!

  73. David Wardrope says:

    @ sensibledave

    These articles are written with the intention of showing the ineptitude of the mainstream media and their inability to report facts (or even report absolute pish consistently between each other), as Rev. has pointed out previously.

  74. gordoz says:


    He’s been trying to. Its the media that are hyperventilating via aspersions and innuendo.

    Lets all see where the cards fall.

  75. Cadogan Enright says:

    Maith thú a Shagairt

  76. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Dave, you made a mistake there. “…the people that lost their home in all of this.”

    Think you should have said “… the people that SOLD their home in all of this.

    There, fixed it for you

  77. deewal says:

    ‘No need’ for inquiry into handling of property deals case

    Blob of lard asks Lord Advocate.

  78. Kevin Evans says:

    I can guarantee ya if you find any of there friends or folk who know this couple they will confirm that they were probably bragging about selling three home for £51k at the time after buying it for £21k.

    It seems pretty clear to me this shit storm has been stirred up and they went out to find arseholes willing to go on tv and bitch with the idea they might get more cash. Greedy scum in my opinion.

    I really hope that in no way the SNP go down some pay off compensation route to try Nd pacify these types.

  79. ClanDonald says:

    Legerwood: didn’t the Wrights say that it was a 3rd party who bought the house for £75,000?

    If it was Ms Thomson who bought it then how come she only paid £51k and sold it on for a profit? Did she sell it to herself? I’m confused, none of this makes any sense.

  80. Looks like BBC News going to jump on the bandwagon. Jaqui Burd saying the the Michelle Thomson investigation is expanding.

    I hope she sues a lot of people when this is over.

  81. The whole thing has the stench of the Establishment attack on Tommy Sheridan,

    where it turns out perjury is not an actual crime unless you are fitted up like Tommy.

    Post Truth Politics,

    Post Truth Journalism,

    Post Truth Justice.

  82. crisiscult says:

    not my position to defend, or otherwise, the blog writer but I think the story and his coverage fit what I understood the role of the blog was e.g. holding media to account, providing critical commentary on the media, its activities, its methods. That would appear to be what this is. The story is now, so the blog commentary on the story is now (i.e. before we know the facts).

    On a broader level on whether it does damage to the ultimate aims of Rev Campbell and the visitors i.e. Scottish independence, my view is that damage to the SNP prior to next May is damage to chances of a future referendum, seeing as the main alternative parties are all against independence and are UK parties. Promoting critical tools to use when accessing MSM is positive and Rev Campbell has been careful to repeat that the guilt or otherwise of Thomson is not the point of his investigation and critical gaze.

  83. Gordon Smith says:

    Looks like the D-Mail justifying £21K “Paid” as £51K – £30K Mortgage (probably settled by MFPS as well) = £21 K. No mention either of legal (Buyers and sellers side), Stamp duty, Land registration or advertising fees. I suspect this was exempted, the £51K eing “NET”. So was not paid for by the Wrights, but from the the profit of MFPS)

  84. Valerie says:

    sensible Dave @ 5.06

    How do you figure it’s irrelevant that MT has said she has never met Mrs Wright?

    Mrs Wright has claimed some serious stuff about MT, calling her a cheeky bitch on national TV. I would be furious if a woman I’d never met was name calling, and claiming she was the victim of my scam!

    IMO Mrs Wright was an easy target to manipulate, but she fair played along.

  85. Chic McGregor says:

    Whatever happened to singing from the same song sheet?

    Where has the indyref1 choir master gone?

    I suppose Gareth Malone is a bit busy with his acapella choir series. Which is singing without musical instrument accompaniment.

    The really need a choir master who can whip them back into shape, preferably one who can do a similar party trick but in this instance, no logical accompaniment.

    Have they forgotten their slogan, Better Together?

  86. Now's the Hour says:

    Brilliant analysis.
    Given how much time the MSM spend on Wings looking for material to throw back in our faces, I’m sure they’ll hasten to bring the FACTS to the attention of their readers.


  87. John Walsh says:

    Cough, cough I hope Jackie Baillie reads this before making an arse of herself defaming Ms Thomson.

  88. Chic McGregor says:


    Stuart has made it abundantly clear on several occasions the HE DOES NOT KNOW THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

    His articles have specifically only been about the standard of press coverage on show.

    This current article clearly depicts that their ‘facts’ are all over the place and that most or indeed all of them must therefore be wrong. Which is in itself, one of the few clear facts which may be stated.

    You are projecting erroneous claims of fact made by the SMSM onto the Rev when all he is doing is pointing out the inconsistencies and other lackings in professionalism by them.

  89. Ninja Penguin says:

    Since the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal’s report stated the purchase and re-sale prices for all of the property transactions where Ms. Thomson’s solicitor failed to comply with the CML handbook, I checked through the report to see which transaction related to the Wrights’ house, and surprise, surprise, NONE of them involved the figures given in the STV or Sunday Mail reports (purchase at £51,000 or £21,000 and re-sale at £75,000).

    I can only assume that either the transaction involving the Wrights’ house is not one of the dodgy ones being investigated or someone has “mis-spoken” concerning the sums of money involved.

  90. Morgatron says:

    Stu, thats why we love you. This and all your previous articles on this bull fest have been fantastically constructed and informative. I really do hope their is an avenue of recourse over these blatant lies from our gutter media and Theo Bailey.This particular incident just shows how low these shites will go to smear and destroy with no shame in ruining peoples lifes. Hang your heads in shame.Thanks again Stu.

  91. G says:

    no idea what happened here but generally speaking back to backs wouldn’t show on the register. As far as the lenders are concerned there would be two sales but only one recorded on the register. It’s a bit of jiggery-pokery, hence why people get struck off for it, and not necessarily the person that instigates it.

  92. Capella says:

    @ Marcia
    I checked one council house sale that I knew about. House in Edinburgh was sold to a very long term tenant at a substantial discount in the early noughties. There was no record of that sale in Zoopla. However, there is a record of the subsequent sale some years later (2008). Haven’t looked at other house price sites.

  93. Flower of Scotland says:

    STV,s first story of the day, above everything else, is the Lord Advocates appearance at Holyrood.
    It seems that STV seem excited that there might be further questioning of OTHERS in the Michelle Thomson case!

    Then story about Fiona Hyslop and T in the Park.

    That’s me done with them. That’s STV. I started watching them when the BBC in Scotland became unpalatable. Well RT,s very good and so is euronews. Pity there’s no Scottish TV news that I can sort of trust.

  94. Rock says:

    STV and the rest of the media know that Thomson has not done anything illegal.

    They are lying to discredit the SNP.

    And they are being total hypocrites about the ‘morality’. Why did they not hound house flipping Darling when he was leading the No campaign?

    Thomson’s firm kept £24,000 out of the £75,000 proceeds as per the speculative agreement between the Wrights and Thomson’s firm where both were trying to make a quick buck.

    The problem for me is after independence we will not get a fair and just society if the likes of Thomson, “Business for Scotland” and “Lawyers for Yes” have any influence.

    We don’t want their type of capitalism in Scotland.

    I want the SNP to be centre left and to steer right clear of the likes of Thomson.

  95. Gary45% says:

    Nice one Stu,
    Scotland is in safe hands with you on the Indy side.

  96. Alex Waugh says:

    sensibledave @ 5.06pm

    ” …the people that lost their home in all of this…”
    (sigh…don’t you people read?)

    They didn’t lose their home. They bought it for 21K and sold it for more than 50K, making a profit. If they did have mortgage arrears and had hung on till foreclosure THEN they could be said to have lost their home. I really don’t understand why some folk are having trouble following the chain of events here. It’s simple:

    1.Seller needs a quick sale. Contacts a “We buy any property” company.

    2.Company tells them “We’ll take it and sell it on and guarantee you x pounds. This may be below market value because you don’t have time to do it up/wait till the right buyer comes along but no estate agents’ fees/percentage, no advertising costs, no having it on the market for months”.

    3.Seller agrees. No-one holds a gun to their head. Seller could have told company to stuff their offer and gone elsewhere. Don’t all properties in Scotland have a logbook showing their value now?

    4.Company sells property, gets lucky (or has a buyer lined up) and makes profit after passing agreed sum to seller.

    5. Company’s profit is their pay-off for assuming the risk – they could have been stuck with it. Unlikely because company will have done its homework, but still possible.

    I apologise, Rev, for repeating what you have already, and clearly, set out but it appears that the hard of understanding are among us.

    I also sold my home for less than I could have probably got for it but I needed a quick, uncomplicated sale and didn’t have time or resources to maximize the resale price. I still made a profit that allowed me to get on with my life.

    Now, it could be argued that the sellers were out of their depth and that the company makes its money by ‘rescuing’ people from financial problems caused by naivety, misfortune or fecklessness – I have no idea which (if any) applies here – but isn’t it a paradigm of the capitalist, property-owning democracy pushed by our lords and masters for so long? Buy an asset (created with public money) at a vast discount; sit on it for a few years (just till you don’t have to pay the discount back); sell at a profit.

    The only actual loser here is the public purse..and the family that cannot get that council house because it was sold in 2007 and not replaced.

    Livin’ the dream, man. Livin’ the dream.

  97. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi sensibledave.

    Are you thinking about joining the OTHER Wingers at our get-together, “Wings Over Invergowrie 3”, on Saturday, 24th October?

    Dundee is a stop on the main London-Aberdeen railway line and Invergowrie is an 8 minute taxi trip from Dundee Station.

    See ‘off-topic’ for further info.

  98. K1 says:

    Yes Nana, welcome light and less heat as ever from Andrew Tickell (Lallands Peat Worrier). Well worth reading.

  99. Training Day says:

    Neat bit of dissembling from John Mackay there. On Scotland Tonight ‘Labour defend their continued pursuit of Michelle Thomson’.

    STV are an innocent, impartial bystander y’see.

  100. Sinky says:

    Unbelievable BBC Scotland still running with rhe Wright stuff complete hiuge Snp backdrop just in case missed fact that Michelle Thomson was an SNP MP

  101. Valerie says:

    Rock @ 6.20

    Quite right, we can do without forensic scrutiny of the Tory jibber jabber about how wee, poor and stupid we are, without Business for Scotland bringing their intelligence to bear!

    Let’s take back everyone’s bought council house off them, and the profits they have enjoyed, at the taxpayers expense, that sounds a winner.

    Let’s go forward with a property sector built on losses and charity.

    Let’s not talk shite, eh?

  102. Grouse Beater says:

    John King on Sensible OTHER Wingers?


  103. Angela Connor says:

    She said in the video that she was happy with the price then, funny how 5 years on she’s peeved, what’s up ? your profit all been spent and your looking for compensation, well I’m a tax payer I want compensation on you cheating me and everyone else

  104. Ninja Penguin says:

    @Capella 2.55 and 6.07
    Council house sales are registered just like any others. If they weren’t, the purchasers would have difficulty proving their title to the property.

    If you searched for a property sale in Edinburgh from the “early noughties” it quite likely that you wouldn’t find it. Most of the online house price websites only cover the Land Register and it wasn’t introduced in Edinburgh until 2001.

    IMHO the information from Zoopla quoted by the Rev suggests that when the Wrights sold their house the purchaser’s solicitor did something which is quite common in same-day purchase and resale deals, and, rather than registering 2 Dispositions, one to Purchaser 1 and the other to Purchaser 2, registered a single Disposition to Purchaser 2, with the details of the sale to the “middle man” narrated in the body of the deed. This saves money on registration fees and is perfectly legal. The Registers of Scotland would register Purchaser 2 as the new owner, and the price Purchaser 2 paid would be the price shown on the Land Certificate (and picked up by the house price websites). Purchaser 1 would never appeaer on the land certificate (although their name would be mentioned in the registered Disposition if you ordered up a copy from Registers of Scotland). This would explain how the £55,000 doesn’t show up on Zoopla.

  105. Grouse Beater says:

    Alex Waugh: The loser here is the public purse, and the family that cannot get that council house because it was sold in 2007 and not replaced.


  106. David McDowell says:

    Let me see if I’ve got this straight: “a source very close to Ms Thomson” says Ms Thomson had “never met” Mrs Wright, whom everybody heard on TV describing Ms Thomson as a”cheeky bitch”?
    We are moving into The Twilight Zone now.
    If it’s true that Ms Thomson has never met Mrs Wright, and Ms Thomson can prove she wasn’t the one Mrs Wright spoke to that day, then you really are looking at at “slam dunk” defamation case.

  107. call me dave says:

    @Nana Smith & K1

    Beat me to it again. 🙂

    Worth a read right enough. Jackie Baillie comes out of today’s proceedings with little credit.

  108. Valerie says:

    When the Labour party did NOT repeal the Thatcher Right to Buy legislation, that’s when I knew the country was in trouble. I know, because I spent a large part of my career in managing council housing.

    No one knows better than me the misery, and financial burden that law has placed on the country. There was a lot of talk that the SNP would repeal the law, and that’s when I really started listening and watching them.

    IMO, repealing that law has been one of the more hugely significant improvements they have made to Scottish society.

    The loss to the rented sector will never be recovered, but the losses of public investment have at least halted.

  109. Lesley-Anne says:

    Oh look NO inquiry required!

    The Lord Advocate has said he does not believe there should be an inquiry into the legal proceedings against a lawyer who was struck off over property deals involving MP Michelle Thomson.

    No doubt every member of The Frozen (see my first comment in the next thread for explanation 😉 ) are scrambling for their keyboards, as we all sit here, to write their full page apologies to Michelle Thompson. 😀

    Never mind members of The Frozen there will be another smear along any second now. 😀

  110. galamcennalath says:


    …. and the SNP are building new council houses. Those lost houses will never be replaced, but the policy is heading in the right direction.

  111. Mor says:

    The sad fact is that once you set a “Gold Standard” for political behaviour here in the UK, you become a No.1 target for the MSM to try and destroy.

    Its also very much apparent that the MSM in the UK “never lets the facts get in the way of a good story”.

  112. Nation Libre says:

    From BBC’s report today:

    “Ms Thomson is linked to 13 transactions Mr Hales conducted in 2010-11 where properties were said to have been bought cheaply from clients looking for a quick sale and then sold at a huge mark-up on the same day.
    Complicated “cashback” deals were said to have been used to artificially inflate property prices in order to secure bigger loans from lenders”

    So which one is it? It’s either sold on for a huge mark-up or it’s artificially inflated to secure bigger loans. FFS, do these people even read the pish they write

  113. Colin Rippey says:

    Pop quiz – who is the current owner of said property?

    It’s been established by the “forensic analysis” on this article that the last time the property was sold was in May 2011 for a sum of £75,000.

    I wonder what evidence we can find of this property in the SSDT report on Christopher Hales (where all of this started, emphasis mine):

    Property 7 – (“Transaction 5”)
    On 17 May 2011 the Respondent wrote to Mr D in
    connection with the purchase of Property 7
    in the following
    terms “We refer to your recent telephone conversation with
    our Mr Hales and are pleased to confirm that we will be
    acting on your behalf in connection with your proposed
    purchase of the above property”. Mr D is Mrs A’s husband.
    The seller Mr I executed a disposition in favour of Mr D on
    2 June 2011. The purchase price was £75,000. On 24 May
    2011 the lender Northern Rock sent a letter to the
    Respondent enclosing an offer of loan together with related
    documentation. The lender’s letter stated “Please refer to
    your instructions in the CML Lenders Handbook and our
    Part 2 replies concerning the submission of the [Certificate
    of Title]. You should not submit your certificate unless it is
    unqualified or we have authorised you to process
    notwithstanding any issues you have raised with us.” The
    offer of loan stated that that purchase price was £75,000.
    The loan required was stated to be £52,500. On 1 June 2011
    the Respondent completed a Certificate of Title to the lender
    in which he certified that he had complied with the
    instructions set out in the CML Lenders Handbook for
    Scotland and any special conditions of advance imposed by
    Northern Rock plc. The loan funds of £52,500 were
    transferred by Northern Rock to the Respondent’s firm on 2
    June 2011. The balance of the purchase price of £23,365
    had been transferred to the Respondent’s firm by Company 3
    on the previous day, 1 June 2011. The Respondent
    transferred the total purchase price to the seller’s agents on 3
    June 2011. On 21 June 2011 Registers of Scotland
    acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s application for
    registration on behalf of Mr D, and provided a Title Number.
    At the date of instruction (24 May 2011) the 1 December
    2010 edition of the CML Lenders Handbook for Scotland
    applied to the Respondent. The Handbook contained the
    following instructions:-
    “5.2.1 If any matter comes to the attention of the fee earner
    dealing with the transaction which you should reasonably
    expect us to consider important in deciding whether or not to
    lend to the borrower (such as whether the borrower has given
    misleading information to us or the information which you
    might reasonably expect to have been given to us is no
    longer true) and you are unable to disclose the information to
    us because of a conflict of interest, you must cease to act and
    return our instructions stating that you consider a conflict of
    interest has arisen.
    5.9.1 You must ask the borrower how the balance of the
    purchase price is being provided. If you become aware that
    the borrower is not providing the balance of the purchase
    price from his own funds….you must report this to us if the
    borrower agrees…failing which you must return our
    instructions and explain that you are unable to continue to
    act for us as there is a conflict of interest.”
    The Respondent did not inform the lender that the balance of
    funds was not provided by the purchaser. The Respondent
    did not withdraw from acting. The Respondent proceeded to
    pay the loan funds to the seller.

    Property 7 “looks like it’s the same house” but we can’t be sure about that can we.

    Mr D is the current owner? Mr D purchased the property for £75,000, he used a mortgage from Northern Rock for £52,500 and an additional sum of £23,365 (must be some loose change somewhere).

    I wonder who Mr D is then? The SSDT states he is Mrs A’s husband. Who is Mrs A again?

    Mr D and Mrs A must be reading this thinking to themselves “hey, that Michelle Thomson only paid £52,500 to those people and we had to pay her £75,000, what’s going on?”

  114. Rock says:


    “Quite right, we can do without forensic scrutiny of the Tory jibber jabber about how wee, poor and stupid we are, without Business for Scotland bringing their intelligence to bear!

    Let’s take back everyone’s bought council house off them, and the profits they have enjoyed, at the taxpayers expense, that sounds a winner.

    Let’s go forward with a property sector built on losses and charity.

    Let’s not talk shite, eh?”

    No one is forcing you to talk shite.

  115. Valerie says:

    And, the announcement a few months ago, that the Tories would extend the Right to Buy to Housing Associations, should leave no one in any doubt how serious they are about ripping society apart, so that it’s survival of the fittest/wealthiest.

    The professional body said they would contest the move with legal action, and it seems to have went quiet again.

    It was a heinous move, and a direct attack on those who require specialist housing,and those who want to rent.

  116. NN says:

    Since when were the mostly right wing leaning media and its backers and journos AGAINST the property ladder, rentier economic behaviour and all that goes with it? They actively celebrate the whole thing. Those who make their money in such schemes are seen as great capitalist heroes and no criticism is ever levelled at politicans or businessmen who make their money doing far more morally dubious things than this simple affair.

  117. Barbara McKenzie says:

    A nasty smear campaign based on lies.

    I hope Wrights are pleased with their 15 minutes of fame …

  118. Ninja Penguin says:

    @Colin Rippey 7.31
    I think you’re barking up the wrong tree there. The Wrights were quite clear that their house was the subject of a back-to-back transaction (bought and sold on on the same day). The details you have quoted do not relate to a back-to-back transaction, as there was no second purchaser, so it cannot be the Wrights’ house. The dodgy element of “Transaction 5” was that the solicitor did not tell the lender where the balance of the purchase price came from. Different situation entirely.

  119. gus1940 says:

    The first para of The Scotsman’s report on Mulholland’s appearnace at Holyrood is nothing short of outrageous.

    RE inflated valuation of properties to get larger mortgages since when did Lenders accept the purchase’s valuation and stop insisting that purchasers paid for the Lender’s own surveyor to set a value.

  120. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The Wrights were quite clear that their house was the subject of a back-to-back transaction (bought and sold on on the same day).”

    The Wrights are adamant about a lot of stuff that’s turned out to be pish, though. As far as I can establish there was only one sale of their house – to an “S Weir” in April 2011. Michelle Thomson’s husband is Peter Thomson. “Mrs A”, as far as I can follow, is Michelle Thomson.

    So this doesn’t look like it’s the Wrights’ house, but not for that reason.

  121. Colin Rippey says:

    @Ninja Penguin
    I think you’re barking up the wrong tree there. The Wrights were quite clear that their house was the subject of a back-to-back transaction (bought and sold on on the same day). The details you have quoted do not relate to a back-to-back transaction, as there was no second purchaser, so it cannot be the Wrights’ house. The dodgy element of “Transaction 5? was that the solicitor did not tell the lender where the balance of the purchase price came from. Different situation entirely.

    Interesting. So you think that there was *another* property sold in May 2011 that had a purchase price of £75,000 and that a mortgage was taken out on it for £52,500? And that it is this other property that is detailed on the SSDT report?

    You think that this couldn’t the case that “maybe” the Wrights were told “look, here’s the details of the mortgage the buyers have taken out, look it’s for £52,500 so that means we owe you £52,500“.

    You don’t think that perhaps that’s where the Wright’s confusion lies, that they had this belief that their house was sold for £52,500 only?

    I wonder if we’ll find out who the current owner of the property is, it could be quite a revelation.

    What is clear is that the sale of the property was registered as being for £75,000 and that any future sale will have a capital gain against that purchase price, that’s what we do know.

    Based on all the investigations by the Wingers on this thread it doesn’t appear as if the property is likely to fetch much more than £75,000 in the current climate so whoever the current owner is I’d recommend that they sit on the property “for now”. Or they could cut their loses and sell up, at least they’d be unlikely to incur a capital gain eh?

  122. Tim Wpod says:

    You appear to have made (almost as) many assumptions as the media, which I guess shows that you are just like them really. Whatever the rights and wrongs – and i have to say I doubt very much if there’s any huge evidence of illegality on Ms Thomsons part, however it is the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. You can’t say one thing in Parliament and do the opposite in business life, particularly when , allegedly, you and your party are espousing equality and fairness. It really doesn’t wash.

  123. Colin Rippey says:

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell
    So this doesn’t look like it’s the Wrights’ house, but not for that reason.

    Yes, it does look like Property 7 was sold in June and not May. A strange coincidence on the figures – same selling price of £75,000 and a “similar” amount £52,500 that the Wrights claimed to have received.

    The lawyer must have done the paperwork on that one correctly.

  124. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Rev all that research & to no avail .Will Michelle Thomson / SNP make a stand against the Media & challenge them head on via the Legal system. I doupt it.

  125. Robert Peffers says:

    @ThemadMurph says: 6 October, 2015 at 6:04 pm:

    Collective term, how about mudionists?

    We have been using the correct collective term for the whole boorach o thaim, “The Establishment”, for a long time. They have been ever present even before the printing press was invented.

    It encompasses the royals, Aristocracy, government, the media, armed & security services, the established church, the legal system, the police, the civil service and the Education System.

  126. Derick fae Yell says:

    Effortlessly making monkeys out of the paid liars of the British Press in Scotland. By doing simple honest journalism

    There’s another tenner waiting here for the next Wings crowdfunder. Hey, c’mon not made a cash!

    And to think you nearly shut up shop last year!

  127. PRJ says:

    Wesellanyhome,nationalpropertytade and quicksalehouse are companies that offer to buy your house very quickly. Often they quote a 10% reduction in the house value as a price but in reality the reduction is closer to 30%. The Independent did a story: This is what probably happen Wrights.

  128. Gary Grant says:

    Never mind “How do they sleep at night” more how do they manage to get up in the morning and go to work? I’m sure many of them must have imagined a more Woodward & Bernstein type life rather than pander to what their masters want and churn out shit they know has zero journalistic credibility. You may as well get Chick Young to out together some of the crap they have recently.
    I’d be utterly demoralised to have reduced myself to that in the career I’d chosen.

  129. @Rock,

    Yes, the whole right-to-buy thing was a crock of crap devised by Thatcher to disguise the fact the she was destroying the real economy,and exporting all the national assets to benefit her cronies.

    Yes, it let Blair and Broon look good for a few years, while an artificial property bubble disguised real impoverishment of the population and the public purse.

    Yes, plenty of affordable social housing is better than rampant property speculation.

    But, ffs, Michelle Thomson, as far as I can see just bought houses that were already privately owned, that the owners wanted to shift quickly, and then rented them out. She didn’t steal them from the public, she didn’t even buy a cooncil hoose. She didn’t rip anybody off.

    Private landlordism isn’t a business I’d want to get into myself – but if anything, she did the sellers a favour, and made the house available for somebody else to stay in. Like any business, there’s risk involved, and you need to try to make a profit. We live in a crappy capitalist world, and everybody has to make a living.

    I’d be raging if it turns out that she rents out the houses at inflated unaffordable prices, that really is persecuting the poor. But buying to let is hardly immoral, in the context of this society.

    Unless you think we’re all immoral, because we stay and try to make a living here rather than defecting to Cuba?

  130. davidb says:

    The Lallans Peat Warrior piece is very informative.

    However I think it again confirms that there isn’t going to be anything legal arising from the witch hunt.

    A solicitor did not follow his professional code and was rightly struck off.

    That code was in place because those activities described were known to be features of mortgage fraud.

    But the Wrights house has not been repossessed, so it would be reasonable to assume the mortgage payments were kept up. Ms Thompson has not been accused of “running off” with anyone’s money. Sure she may have built up a portfolio using other people’s money, but that’s just part of the game of capitalism. All those bank loans that went bad were picked up by Broon on behalf of the taxpayers – how many of the borrowers were jailed?

    If the payments are kept up, and no-one has suffered actual loss in this affair, then surely no fraud has occurred. So the absence or presence of a code to prevent fraud is neither here nor there. No actual fraud seems to have taken place.

    I think the defamation actions should be taken against the TV stations, the newspapers, and if she would repeat them outside Parliamentary Privilege, Ms Bailey.

  131. Grouse Beater says:

    Peffers: Collective term, how about mudionists?

    Interesting Unionist shills have targeted women first. I’m surmising a reason is smearing a female damages more than a male in a government that has females to the fore, and an electorate that trusts them more than old-style male politicians.

  132. We’ve had the Lord Advocate called to parliament to answer for why investigations into the possibility of mortgage fraud weren’t started sooner. The Hales case at the SSDT (May 2014)

    refers to a previous almost identical case, Aikman (July 2013)

    I don’t hear anyone baying for invesigations into potential mortgage fraud by Aikman’s clients or even complaining that no investigation appears to have been initiated despite that case being concluded over 2 years ago. Indeed there doesn’t appear to be any clamour for investigation of any of Hales’ other clients either.

    What is most instructive, however, is that despite the mortgage lenders being identified in each transaction in the 2 cases, there appears to have been no clamour or interest whatsoever in pressing for police investigations by the alleged potential victims in these cases, namely the mortgage lenders themselves.

    Surely the onus should be on them to press for investigations if they are appropriate, not on some Scottish Law Officers with much better things to do? Furthermore, those folk impugning Scottish Law Officers for not immediately recognising that “Mrs A” was SNP candidate Michelle Thomson when they themselves plainly couldn’t give a flying goat’s fart who Mr B, C, D, E … X Y and Z were or what they may or may not have done is just taking a bizarre SNP collusion conspiracy theory way beyond the bounds of credibility.

  133. andy smith says:

    As a wise man once said, two wrongs don’t make a right, but two Wright’s make….

  134. Gary45% says:

    I take it the Wright family are selling their story to any gutter establishment that will buy it.

    Perhaps she sees this as a potential stepping stone to a more lucrative appearance on the Jeremy Kyle show.

  135. Lesley-Anne says:

    Does anyone have any idea when the book and movie are coming out?

    I’m sure the Wright’s must have a ghost writer writing their story as we speak so no doubt the book must be due out in time for Xmas. Perhaps we could see the movie out in time for Xmas 2016? 😀

  136. Robert Unwin says:

    Jabba on both Scotland 2015 and Scotland Tonight.

  137. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Now I see some Tory MP has complained to the standards committee of Westminster about Michelle Thomson. They are ramping up the SNP Bad now.

  138. Gfaetheblock says:


    If you lie about certain aspects of the purchase of a property, that is fraud. The loan doesn’t need to go bad to make it fraud. It is a loan against risk appetite and the victims are everyone else who has a mortgage, the cost of which had to included the cost of fraudulent transactions like the ones that are suggested here.

    And to other posters who have stated that what is suggested here is simply like homes under the hammer, I would suggest you do not understand what you are commenting on.

  139. Charles Kearney says:

    Have we any Idea where the Wright Family are living now? My implication being, is it a Privately owned House or is it Publicly supplied. I go only on the STV Report which saw them coming out of what did not look like a Private dwelling!

  140. davidb says:


    Oh I’m no lawyer.

    The loans didn’t go bad. No-one lost anything. Its not malicious intent. Its not really much worse than inflating income on a self certify mortgage app. And lots of people did that 10 years ago. Strictly fraudulently.

    I doubt there is any case to answer. It may not be the letter of the law, but no one lost any money by fraud here.

  141. Well, well: the view from the banks of the southern Avon must be much more clouded than that from the Water of Leith.

    I defer to, with in concurrence. But what do they know who know only the law:

    “… unless the findings of the SSDT are wholly inaccurate, and you will note that the facts were agreed by Mr Hales, Thomson personally is toast. The sentencing guidelines are here. It qualifies for what is commonly known as exemplary sentencing so she’ll probably get several years in jail giving rise to an interesting by-election.

    “With Bill Walker the SNP got away with murder. I wrote about that at the time here and here. It was simply unsustainable on the known facts that they were unaware of his history at the time he was selected as a parliamentary candidate. But the Nats simply stuck to that line and somehow got away with it.

    “This time, once the dust settles, there must be a more thorough investigation as to who in the SNP knew what and when. The only pity is that this is unlikely to be before next May.”

  142. Tom Platt says:

    Sport, horse racing, colour photographs, crosswords, sudoku, television comment, personal adverts, horoscopes, money off coupons etc. are all seen as legitimate reasons for some to buy the rags sold in UK as red top newspapers. Fairy Stories posing as news with smearing and not so subtle political messages, such as this one, are big reasons to avoid doing so. As circulations continue to decline it is clear which reasons are winning.

  143. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “unless the findings of the SSDT are wholly inaccurate, and you will note that the facts were agreed by Mr Hales, Thomson personally is toast”

    Ian Smart has regularly said various SNP ministers and MSPs were “toast”, who are still in place today. I’d get a second opinion if he told me a piece of hot bread with marmalade on it was toast.

  144. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “You appear to have made (almost as) many assumptions as the media, which I guess shows that you are just like them really. Whatever the rights and wrongs – and i have to say I doubt very much if there’s any huge evidence of illegality on Ms Thomsons part, however it is the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. You can’t say one thing in Parliament and do the opposite in business life, particularly when , allegedly, you and your party are espousing equality and fairness. It really doesn’t wash.”

    Fuck away off, Tim. Buying someone’s house from them is nothing to do with “equality”. Unless you’re saying that everyone who owns a house should be forced to sell it and the money distributed among the population according to how poor they are, of course.

    Trouble there is, who do they sell them to?

  145. Rock says:


    “But, ffs, Michelle Thomson, as far as I can see just bought houses that were already privately owned, that the owners wanted to shift quickly, and then rented them out. She didn’t steal them from the public, she didn’t even buy a cooncil hoose. She didn’t rip anybody off.”

    She bought a house for £51,000 and sold it for £75,000 on the same day. That is a rip off, although as I wrote both parties were gambling on it and nothing was illegal.

    Do you want independent Scotland’s economy being run by the likes of Thomson making a 50% profit on a property or any other transaction?

    I don’t.

  146. Quotation begins:
    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    “7 October, 2015 at 2:57 pm
    “unless the findings of the SSDT are wholly inaccurate, and you will note that the facts were agreed by Mr Hales, Thomson personally is toast”

    Ian Smart has regularly said various SNP ministers and MSPs were “toast”, who are still in place today. I’d get a second opinion if he told me a piece of hot bread with marmalade on it was toast.
    Quotation ends.

    As parent of two practising lawyers, I reckon when one of that trade opines: “It qualifies for what is commonly known as exemplary sentencing so she’ll probably get several years in jail giving rise to an interesting by-election”, there’s two choices:
    1. Take your overnight case to the sentencing; or
    2. Book the next flight to northern Cyprus or Caracas.

    Since the Blessed Nicola has already “thrown her under a bus”, the tea-leaves must be a bit strained for Ms Thomson.

  147. Will Podmore says:

    A large number of the ‘Rev”s posts focus on the media and its various stories. Comments on comments in the media are by definition rather derivative.
    Far too few of his postings focus on issues of substance. Why not have a real debate about the merits or otherwise of staying in the EU?
    Or a real debate about what kind of country we want to achieve?
    Can we achieve the society we want merely by getting rid of Westminster? Or do we need more fundamental change?

  148. Paula Rose says:

    Will dear – there will be plenty of debate about Europe when we get nearer to the referendum and know what the parameters are.

    The point about an independent Scotland from Westminster is that people here will decide the direction they want to go in – the rest of the UK will find that that situation fundamentally changes things for them.

  149. Graham King says:

    Dear me! That performance at First Minister’s Questions was surely not Kezia Dugdale “carping from the sidelines” again, was it? Not so soon after her saying that (as elected leader of Labour in Scotland) she did not want to be doing that?

  150. Will Podmore says:

    The debate on whether to leave the EU has started. Wings will get left behind if it doesn’t rise above the personal comment and point-scoring which are all too prevalent.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top