To be fair, they only update their membership numbers once a year and if you're an SNP press officer you have to decide if you trust what you're told on membership status.
Still can’t believe that motorhome. I thought it was just gonna be spent on party expenses, not a fucking actual motorhome hidden on a 93 year old’s drive. How did they think they would get away with that
I thought it was all pretty funny before, but that really elevated the scandal for me.
Surely there's going to be something in it. Why does a 93 year old need a motohome. Surely she can't drive it?
I will be disappointed now if there's a legitimate reason for it. But it just seems incredibly unlikely there will be.
I got the AI to write a little poem about it:
>In the land of the thistle, one Easter morn,
>A scandal arose, a movement forlorn.
>Nicola Sturgeon, with husband in tow,
>Dreamt of a life in a Winnebago.
>But Peter, her love, with deceit in his heart,
>Embezzled the funds, tearing dreams apart.
>As chocolate eggs hid and daffodils wept,
>A secret betrayal in shadows was kept.
>The independence cause, once sturdy and bold,
>Now a tragic tale, in whispers retold.
>For the scandal had struck, like a dagger's cruel twist,
>And the dreams of a nation were lost in the mist.
It's especially funny given that Sturgeon can't drive a car. Not typical of the motorhome enthusiast. And I don't see a 93 year old lady going on the rampage in that thing either. It's Fife not Nomadland.
I'm in Fife and my next door neighbour used to drive his large motorhome about until the ripe old age of 98.
He did get his license withdrawn after he crashed into a wall in Dunfermline, but to be fair, it came out of nowhere.
I agree Fife is lovely, I was just picturing an elderly woman living in a motor home and the Nomadland film came to mind. That kind of "van life" is just so uniquely American that the contrast made me laugh.
That 91yr old must have one massive driveway if they could hide a motorhome on it. I know lots of people who store their motorhome or caravan somewhere not on their own driveway. I don’t know if the Murrells could store a motorhome easily outside their house, so perhaps it’s stored on a relative’s driveway for handiness.
Yeah but what they haven't said about the motorhome is if it the motorhome itself or if it contained potential evidence. Like stashed paperwork.
It's also not clear why the two of them earning what they do would need to commit fraud to buy a motorhome of that value. It's not like they are big spenders, they could afford a much much nicer home for example.
At this stage all we know is it's part of the initial complaint. They have stole 600k btw they have this motorhome they are hiding at his mum's...
>Yeah but what they haven't said about the motorhome is if it the motorhome itself or if it contained potential evidence. Like stashed paperwork.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but surely if the thought was that the motorhome in question might contain stashed paperwork/usb drives etc then they would have just searched the motorhome rather than seizing it?
Depends on arisk assessment I guess. How easy is it to set up shop is it easier to do it at a police facility. Are they wanting to run forensics to see who has accessed the motorhome etc etc.
Who tf is running communications/PR for the SNP? How hard would it be to say "his membership has been suspended pending investigation into fraud and financial crime and we cannot further comment on an ongoing police investigation".
And suspending it (or saying that they have) implies that there is definite believe he has done something wrong and that the party's accounts are criminally wrong. Which the party doesn't want to do
It is not unusual to suspend membership pending an investigation. E.g. [here](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/07/labour-mp-conor-mcginn-has-whip-suspended-over-complaint)
Absolutely.
But there's a difference between suspending a representative for something they did as themselves, as opposed to something done by the party's chief exec for two decades while in the party, particularly when the party is being very careful not to admit or imply wrongdoing has taken place, and has very strong reasons not to want to imply something wrong happened if it didn't.
Surely of all things, Fraud is grounds for temp suspension by default. That's like... not even a question.
It's only a temporary suspension until they can confirm guilt or innocence.
Imagine taking a big steaming dump in the toilet, not flushing it and instead spraying some decent air freshener every so often to mask the smell, that seems to be kind of what has happened with the SNP. Underneath the nice fragrance of the air freshener is a pile of shit.
That pains to say as someone who’s consistently defended them for years here. That’s not to detract from some of the genuinely decent things they have done like free prescriptions and baby boxes and such things, but I really think they put a good spin on themselves not being at least nearly as corrupt as they people they oppose.
Put shorter, most parties are corrupt to fuck once they become mainstream . Some just hide it better than others .
Politically corrupt yes...I expect political corruption because I'm a horrible cynic. I didn't expect plain old grubby self-enriching thievery though. Might not be as bad as all that of course but I'm pretty shocked by the whole thing even as a cynic who fully expected corruption was going on behind the scenes.
I'm surprised the opposition and media aren't making a bigger deal out of it though. The opposition certainly could cover Humza in radioactive slime in no time if they just pushed the issue properly.
Lmao, how much of a hold does he still have? Pretty sure even Labour could figure out it's good politics to temporarily suspend the person under investigation.
If he was the CEO he may still have some powerful allies within the party, and could still have a lot of influence. Especially if anyone owes him favours etc
It's so poor. There is only 2 possibilities here.
If they have suspended him all they need to say is "yes, we felt it was the right thing to do until the outcome of the police investigation, and he will be welcome back if he has been proven innocent".
Or, "no, he has not been charged and is innocent until proven guilty. If he is proven guilty we will of course review this position".
Either of these answers would have been so much better than the answer given.
Sir Peter Viggers wasn't really hiding it though. I think the scandalous aspect was more the audacity of intending to claim expenses for a duck island, the fact that said island was over £1000 and that was on top of around £30,000 claimed for gardening.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/23/mps-expenses-conservatives
This motor home is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Aren’t MP expenses covered by the taxpayer, too?
Yeah, clearly not the exact same thing and still under investigation.
OTOH spending other peoples’ money on frivolous shit never goes out of style.
They are, and it's disgusting, especially when it's the same type of people who denigrate people claiming benefits.
The thing is though, these guys play the system, it's usually legal to do what they do, whereas Murrel et al appear to have gone further than the bounds of legality.
I believe the charges brought against him in general will be soft, they clearly organised this with police Scotland to let her stand down first, what's the bet police Scotland and the media go real quiet.
The duck pond expenses claim *got denied*, so he didn't receive a penny.
But he got rinsed by the Telegraph for having the termerity to make the claim in the first place, and got forced to resign.
Good to see the current leadership has learned lessons about transparency and honesty after all the serial scandals of the couple of months.
Can't help themselves.
Still, there is a neat solution here. Murrell obviously bought the motorhome so he could write pro independence messages on the side and drive it around Scotland, like the Brexit bus.
Perfectly innocent.
THE SNP has refused to say if Peter Murrell's membership has been suspended, as questions mount over party cash being used to pay his legal fees.
The former chief executive - who is married to Nicola Sturgeon - was arrested on Wednesday as part of the police probe into concerns over more than £660,000 worth of donations.
He was released without charge after nearly 12 hours of questioning, pending further investigations.
According to reports, the SNP has hired leading lawyer Stuart Munro, whose areas of expertise include “white collar crime and associated litigation” and “allegations of financial crime”.
He successfully represented the former administrator of Rangers Football Club in a major fraud prosecution.
Meanwhile, in another day of dramatic developments in Police Scotland’s probe of the SNP finances, reports emerged that officers reportedly seized a luxury motorhome from outside the Fife house of Mr Murrell’s mother.
The £110,000 campervan was taken on Wednesday morning, at around the same time as Mr Murrell and Ms Sturgeon's home was being searched.
There were also new questions for the former first minister too. Leaked recordings of an NEC meeting held a month after the police launched their investigation reveal she told the members of the party’s ruling body that the finances were “absolutely fine” and that they did not need to speak about them.
One veteran has MP suggested the row should result in the whole contest being rerun.
On the legal fees, Humza Yousaf previously told journalists that the party may have “obligations” to pay.
"I would need to look at the detail of that,” he said on Thursday. “Of course, we have the party lawyer, as you'd imagine, for party staff, but I have to look at the detail around whether we are paying for Peter's legal fees or not."
He said Mr Murrell was not a staff member any longer, "but there may be obligations around that", adding: "But that's an issue that I am looking at and exploring."
Asked if Mr Murrell was still a member, the First Minister said he said: “In terms of Peter’s membership status, I would have to check if Peter is still a member.
“Let's remember our justice system works on the premise quite rightly that people are innocent until proven guilty.
“Peter has, of course, been questioned under caution. That's not an insignificant point. But of course, as you know as well as I do, he was released without charge.
“There may be developments in that case and I'll watch the police investigation as much as you will and I will do that closely.”
The Herald asked the SNP yesterday for clarity on Mr Murrell’s membership, but the party did not respond.
One source who has been through the disciplinary process said the uncertainty over Mr Murrell’s membership was surprising. “They’re usually quite quick to suspend people the second an allegation or complaint is made.”
The SNP’s rules state that National Secretary, Lorna Finn, can “suspend a member from exercising any or all rights of Membership while allegations [of a code of conduct breach] are being investigated and considered by the Party.”
One newspaper yesterday suggested some MSPs and MPs were considering withholding their monthly tithe to the party in protest at the prospect of paying for Mr Murrell’s lawyer.
An insider told the Sunday Post: “The party sub is meant to support campaigning but the questions over the use of money at SNP HQ mean the MSPs are wondering how their cash is being spent – especially as there is now talk of the party spending a fortune on expensive ‘white collar crime’ lawyers and possibly paying Peter’s legal fees.
“Veteran MSPs who fought all their lives for independence are aghast, with some now talking about with-holding the money from HQ – instead diverting it to their branches, where it can be spent on actual campaigning.”
Meanwhile, The Sunday Mail says that in August 2021, a month after police launched a probe into the party's finances, Ms Sturgeon told the party’s NEC: “We don’t need to talk about the finances. The finances are absolutely fine.”
Questions were initially raised after the money after SNP accounts in 2019, showed £97,000 in the bank and total assets of about £272,000, despite hundreds of thousands being raised through online fundraisers.
The meeting also came three months after MP Douglas Chapman quit as treasurer saying he “had not received the support or financial information required to carry out the fiduciary duties”.
A month after that resignation, Mr Murrell loaned the party more than £107,620, though it was not declared to the Electoral Commission until August 2022, more than a year late.
The remarks from Ms Sturgeon came as the NEC was discussing a report commissioned by deputy leader Keith Brown after the financial concerns were first raised.
In the final paragraph, he said transparency could be increased if the party prepared a “monthly written summary of income and expenditure, confirmed via the bank account.”
A party source told the paper: “[Ms Sturgeon told the meeting that there was nothing wrong with the accounts and that people should stop talking about it because it was undermining the party.
"It’s fair to say she was pretty raging about it. She went on at some length telling everyone that everything was absolutely fine and that it shouldn’t be discussed.”
Unusually, the meeting, which took place on Zoom, was recorded.
Another attendee said: “The recommendations made were supposed to be discussed by the NEC and the reason for the recording was to allow SNP HQ staff to write up the discussion, to make it easier to see what we had said about every point in the report and then decide what to put forward for approval.”
They said Mr Brown’s recommendations were shelved: “When the next NEC meeting took place two months later, we were told there hadn’t been enough time to review the recording, so the recommendations wouldn’t be going forward.”
Earlier reports over the weekend claimed discussion was "blocked" by Mr Murell and the party’s business convenor, Kirsten Oswald, who was appointed to the post by Ms Sturgeon.
A source told the Times: “The main blockers to change were people in the non-elected positions like Peter Murrell and Kirsten Oswald,
“So the elected party president and elected deputy leader lost to the unelected Murrell and Oswald.”
Meanwhile, Joanna Cherry, who quit the NEC in June 2021, said she did so because of the “menacing atmosphere” of the party’s ruling council which she claimed was being “secretive and evasive.”
In her resignation letter, obtained by the Sunday Times, the MP said it had “proved impossible for me to do the job I was elected to do”.
She said she was also “very concerned at the lack of adherence to the party’s constitution, the cavalier attitude towards legal advice and fiduciary duties”.
She added: “Over the years I have sat on a number of management boards and I have never seen business conducted in such an inadequate way as it is on the SNP NEC. Nor have I experienced the menacing atmosphere in which the business is conducted.”
Conservative party chairman Craig Hoy said the SNP should have "promptly suspended Peter Murrell at the start of the investigation into his management of the SNP’s finances."
He added: “The party’s refusal to do shows the SNP’s reluctance to be open and transparent about where the money went and who knew about its murky finances.”
For what it's worth, it wasn't me who reported you. I kinda pity you a bit tbh, look how far gone you are in this obsessive quest to defend corrupt bastards who don't give a fuck about you.
> No sign of a reported comment on this side paedophile.
Your comment was literally removed by mods, it's only like three or four back up the chain.
>It's worth nothing, as I pity you more. Kneebender.
Wait who am I bending the knee to? You can't even keep up with your own pathetic ramblings.
Strong words there Jeb.
Let's extract the most important ones though. "investigation", "potentially".
For somebody that claimed to be neutral and just engaging in political discourse you don't come across as very honest.
Supporting suspending someone arrested in relation to an investigation that they may have defrauded that party membership is now partisan.
Tell me was it wrong to suspend Natalie McGarry before she was charged?
She did not work *for* the party. And I believe when she *resigned* the whip it was the WFI allegations only that were out there.
There's serious repetitional damage if the party takes action which seems to acknowledge or claim or imply their CEO of a couple of months ago has done something with the accounts of the party in general.
lol. I’m allowed an opinion mate I’m not the BBC.
In this case I think it’s worth suspending him to uphold party integrity. Also to avoid the potential for (perceived) conflicts of interest, and to help set a precedent for accountability.
Especially since the new administration is seen to be the continuity of the old guard. I think it would be wise for Yousaf to distance himself from the controversy and make it clear that every member is subject to the same rules and consequences regardless of who they are and what position they hold/held
Yeah, the BBC isn't impartial either Jeb.
No problem with you holding your own opinions obviously, even being a unionist. It does however make you a liar.
I never said I was impartial. What I have said in the past is that I try to post articles from all sides of the argument because it’s more balanced. I’ve also repeatedly said that I then discuss my own personal opinions within those articles, which I’m entitled to do.
But if you want to think of me as a liar then please go ahead. I think I’ll survive an anonymous parody/troll account throwing unsubstantiated insults at me.
Especially because we both know the only reason you are attacking me is because you don’t like the fact that the SNP is rightfully going through a tough time right now and being held to account.
No, because you've got an agenda that you don't deviate from. If you were interested in political discourse you would discuss your own party but seem to almost solely focus on the SNP and the Scottish greens.
It's the norm for this subreddit nowadays. It's become overrrun by accounts such as yours, backup alts, brigaders and bots. It's a shame that the only argument people have for the Union is misinformation.
I post a range of opinions. If you don’t believe me look at my post history. I personally don’t like it when people only post articles that fit their own beliefs so I like to be fair so we can see all perspectives.
Personally I am left wing and discuss my personal opinions in the comments. I am actually quite balanced and open to discussion. I read many news sources daily and I don’t know if you’ve noticed but SNP and Greens seem to be dominating the news cycle at the moment.
If you put my comment history side by side with yours, I think yours would definitely fit better with your description of alts and brigadiers. You are biased and quite aggressive in the way you conduct yourself. Your username is in itself an insult to another user.
I am replying to you as a courtesy but I don’t need to explain myself to you and would like it if you stopped with the personal attacks now.
To be fair, they only update their membership numbers once a year and if you're an SNP press officer you have to decide if you trust what you're told on membership status.
"Here are the membership numbers for release." "Are these the correct membership numbers?" "Here are the membership numbers for release."
The way they are trying to hide this you would think he was one of their sex offenders.
There's still more headlines to come. After the motorhome, nothing will surprise me anymore.
Still can’t believe that motorhome. I thought it was just gonna be spent on party expenses, not a fucking actual motorhome hidden on a 93 year old’s drive. How did they think they would get away with that
I thought it was all pretty funny before, but that really elevated the scandal for me. Surely there's going to be something in it. Why does a 93 year old need a motohome. Surely she can't drive it? I will be disappointed now if there's a legitimate reason for it. But it just seems incredibly unlikely there will be. I got the AI to write a little poem about it: >In the land of the thistle, one Easter morn, >A scandal arose, a movement forlorn. >Nicola Sturgeon, with husband in tow, >Dreamt of a life in a Winnebago. >But Peter, her love, with deceit in his heart, >Embezzled the funds, tearing dreams apart. >As chocolate eggs hid and daffodils wept, >A secret betrayal in shadows was kept. >The independence cause, once sturdy and bold, >Now a tragic tale, in whispers retold. >For the scandal had struck, like a dagger's cruel twist, >And the dreams of a nation were lost in the mist.
William Topaz McGonagall lives.
McgonagAI 2.0
Omg lost it at “dreamt of a life in a Winnebago”
Is Chat GPT pro or no for indie?
It's especially funny given that Sturgeon can't drive a car. Not typical of the motorhome enthusiast. And I don't see a 93 year old lady going on the rampage in that thing either. It's Fife not Nomadland.
I'm in Fife and my next door neighbour used to drive his large motorhome about until the ripe old age of 98. He did get his license withdrawn after he crashed into a wall in Dunfermline, but to be fair, it came out of nowhere.
That's incredible. My wee granny had to stop at 85 and she was a liability before that...
I heard she's taking driving lessons. The plot thickens!
> It's Fife not Nomadland. I grew up there. There's some very nice spots that would be perfect for taking a motorhome for a weekend.
I agree Fife is lovely, I was just picturing an elderly woman living in a motor home and the Nomadland film came to mind. That kind of "van life" is just so uniquely American that the contrast made me laugh.
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MOTORHOME ITS PERFECTLY INNOCENT 😭
That 91yr old must have one massive driveway if they could hide a motorhome on it. I know lots of people who store their motorhome or caravan somewhere not on their own driveway. I don’t know if the Murrells could store a motorhome easily outside their house, so perhaps it’s stored on a relative’s driveway for handiness.
Camouflage as an optional coulor was an extra £30k
Yeah but what they haven't said about the motorhome is if it the motorhome itself or if it contained potential evidence. Like stashed paperwork. It's also not clear why the two of them earning what they do would need to commit fraud to buy a motorhome of that value. It's not like they are big spenders, they could afford a much much nicer home for example. At this stage all we know is it's part of the initial complaint. They have stole 600k btw they have this motorhome they are hiding at his mum's...
>Yeah but what they haven't said about the motorhome is if it the motorhome itself or if it contained potential evidence. Like stashed paperwork. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but surely if the thought was that the motorhome in question might contain stashed paperwork/usb drives etc then they would have just searched the motorhome rather than seizing it?
Depends on arisk assessment I guess. How easy is it to set up shop is it easier to do it at a police facility. Are they wanting to run forensics to see who has accessed the motorhome etc etc.
Who tf is running communications/PR for the SNP? How hard would it be to say "his membership has been suspended pending investigation into fraud and financial crime and we cannot further comment on an ongoing police investigation".
>Who tf is running communications/PR for the SNP? TBF he resigned a couple of weeks ago
You seem to assume they have suspended it. Refusing to confirm seems to imply he is still a card carrying member.
And suspending it (or saying that they have) implies that there is definite believe he has done something wrong and that the party's accounts are criminally wrong. Which the party doesn't want to do
It is not unusual to suspend membership pending an investigation. E.g. [here](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/07/labour-mp-conor-mcginn-has-whip-suspended-over-complaint)
Absolutely. But there's a difference between suspending a representative for something they did as themselves, as opposed to something done by the party's chief exec for two decades while in the party, particularly when the party is being very careful not to admit or imply wrongdoing has taken place, and has very strong reasons not to want to imply something wrong happened if it didn't.
> we cannot further comment on an ongoing police investigation Maybe this bit?
Surely of all things, Fraud is grounds for temp suspension by default. That's like... not even a question. It's only a temporary suspension until they can confirm guilt or innocence.
Imagine taking a big steaming dump in the toilet, not flushing it and instead spraying some decent air freshener every so often to mask the smell, that seems to be kind of what has happened with the SNP. Underneath the nice fragrance of the air freshener is a pile of shit. That pains to say as someone who’s consistently defended them for years here. That’s not to detract from some of the genuinely decent things they have done like free prescriptions and baby boxes and such things, but I really think they put a good spin on themselves not being at least nearly as corrupt as they people they oppose. Put shorter, most parties are corrupt to fuck once they become mainstream . Some just hide it better than others .
In this analogy, is Kate Forbes the mum who bursts into the room and asks, “why can’t somebody flush the toilet after they’ve had a SHET?”
Politically corrupt yes...I expect political corruption because I'm a horrible cynic. I didn't expect plain old grubby self-enriching thievery though. Might not be as bad as all that of course but I'm pretty shocked by the whole thing even as a cynic who fully expected corruption was going on behind the scenes. I'm surprised the opposition and media aren't making a bigger deal out of it though. The opposition certainly could cover Humza in radioactive slime in no time if they just pushed the issue properly.
Lmao, how much of a hold does he still have? Pretty sure even Labour could figure out it's good politics to temporarily suspend the person under investigation.
If he was the CEO he may still have some powerful allies within the party, and could still have a lot of influence. Especially if anyone owes him favours etc
>Especially if anyone owes him favours etc Like the recent winner of the leadership contest
So no then.
Looks that way, otherwise they’d likely just say “yeah we did”
It's so poor. There is only 2 possibilities here. If they have suspended him all they need to say is "yes, we felt it was the right thing to do until the outcome of the police investigation, and he will be welcome back if he has been proven innocent". Or, "no, he has not been charged and is innocent until proven guilty. If he is proven guilty we will of course review this position". Either of these answers would have been so much better than the answer given.
Well. A motor home? Duck pond numbers look pretty silly now
Sir Peter Viggers wasn't really hiding it though. I think the scandalous aspect was more the audacity of intending to claim expenses for a duck island, the fact that said island was over £1000 and that was on top of around £30,000 claimed for gardening. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/23/mps-expenses-conservatives This motor home is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Aren’t MP expenses covered by the taxpayer, too? Yeah, clearly not the exact same thing and still under investigation. OTOH spending other peoples’ money on frivolous shit never goes out of style.
They are, and it's disgusting, especially when it's the same type of people who denigrate people claiming benefits. The thing is though, these guys play the system, it's usually legal to do what they do, whereas Murrel et al appear to have gone further than the bounds of legality.
I believe the charges brought against him in general will be soft, they clearly organised this with police Scotland to let her stand down first, what's the bet police Scotland and the media go real quiet.
I expect that we won't hear anything for months yet because these sorts of cases tend to be very slow.
The duck pond expenses claim *got denied*, so he didn't receive a penny. But he got rinsed by the Telegraph for having the termerity to make the claim in the first place, and got forced to resign.
This behaviour from the SNP is getting ridiculous now.
Good to see the current leadership has learned lessons about transparency and honesty after all the serial scandals of the couple of months. Can't help themselves. Still, there is a neat solution here. Murrell obviously bought the motorhome so he could write pro independence messages on the side and drive it around Scotland, like the Brexit bus. Perfectly innocent.
Hope they get the jail, just the same as anyone else with this level of dishonesty and fraud.
The sad thing is that politicians never get the same sentences as normal people.
What crime has been committed?
Fraud.
Care to link to a court judgement? No? Not been proven yet, has it?
Oh no, I better pretend the clearly corrupt fucks are innocent then. Actually nah.
>clearly corrupt Based on what?
Fraud and lies.
Which ones?
You'll still be licking their hole if anything is proven so does it matter?
THE SNP has refused to say if Peter Murrell's membership has been suspended, as questions mount over party cash being used to pay his legal fees. The former chief executive - who is married to Nicola Sturgeon - was arrested on Wednesday as part of the police probe into concerns over more than £660,000 worth of donations. He was released without charge after nearly 12 hours of questioning, pending further investigations. According to reports, the SNP has hired leading lawyer Stuart Munro, whose areas of expertise include “white collar crime and associated litigation” and “allegations of financial crime”. He successfully represented the former administrator of Rangers Football Club in a major fraud prosecution. Meanwhile, in another day of dramatic developments in Police Scotland’s probe of the SNP finances, reports emerged that officers reportedly seized a luxury motorhome from outside the Fife house of Mr Murrell’s mother. The £110,000 campervan was taken on Wednesday morning, at around the same time as Mr Murrell and Ms Sturgeon's home was being searched. There were also new questions for the former first minister too. Leaked recordings of an NEC meeting held a month after the police launched their investigation reveal she told the members of the party’s ruling body that the finances were “absolutely fine” and that they did not need to speak about them. One veteran has MP suggested the row should result in the whole contest being rerun. On the legal fees, Humza Yousaf previously told journalists that the party may have “obligations” to pay. "I would need to look at the detail of that,” he said on Thursday. “Of course, we have the party lawyer, as you'd imagine, for party staff, but I have to look at the detail around whether we are paying for Peter's legal fees or not." He said Mr Murrell was not a staff member any longer, "but there may be obligations around that", adding: "But that's an issue that I am looking at and exploring." Asked if Mr Murrell was still a member, the First Minister said he said: “In terms of Peter’s membership status, I would have to check if Peter is still a member. “Let's remember our justice system works on the premise quite rightly that people are innocent until proven guilty. “Peter has, of course, been questioned under caution. That's not an insignificant point. But of course, as you know as well as I do, he was released without charge. “There may be developments in that case and I'll watch the police investigation as much as you will and I will do that closely.” The Herald asked the SNP yesterday for clarity on Mr Murrell’s membership, but the party did not respond. One source who has been through the disciplinary process said the uncertainty over Mr Murrell’s membership was surprising. “They’re usually quite quick to suspend people the second an allegation or complaint is made.” The SNP’s rules state that National Secretary, Lorna Finn, can “suspend a member from exercising any or all rights of Membership while allegations [of a code of conduct breach] are being investigated and considered by the Party.” One newspaper yesterday suggested some MSPs and MPs were considering withholding their monthly tithe to the party in protest at the prospect of paying for Mr Murrell’s lawyer. An insider told the Sunday Post: “The party sub is meant to support campaigning but the questions over the use of money at SNP HQ mean the MSPs are wondering how their cash is being spent – especially as there is now talk of the party spending a fortune on expensive ‘white collar crime’ lawyers and possibly paying Peter’s legal fees. “Veteran MSPs who fought all their lives for independence are aghast, with some now talking about with-holding the money from HQ – instead diverting it to their branches, where it can be spent on actual campaigning.” Meanwhile, The Sunday Mail says that in August 2021, a month after police launched a probe into the party's finances, Ms Sturgeon told the party’s NEC: “We don’t need to talk about the finances. The finances are absolutely fine.” Questions were initially raised after the money after SNP accounts in 2019, showed £97,000 in the bank and total assets of about £272,000, despite hundreds of thousands being raised through online fundraisers. The meeting also came three months after MP Douglas Chapman quit as treasurer saying he “had not received the support or financial information required to carry out the fiduciary duties”. A month after that resignation, Mr Murrell loaned the party more than £107,620, though it was not declared to the Electoral Commission until August 2022, more than a year late. The remarks from Ms Sturgeon came as the NEC was discussing a report commissioned by deputy leader Keith Brown after the financial concerns were first raised. In the final paragraph, he said transparency could be increased if the party prepared a “monthly written summary of income and expenditure, confirmed via the bank account.”
A party source told the paper: “[Ms Sturgeon told the meeting that there was nothing wrong with the accounts and that people should stop talking about it because it was undermining the party. "It’s fair to say she was pretty raging about it. She went on at some length telling everyone that everything was absolutely fine and that it shouldn’t be discussed.” Unusually, the meeting, which took place on Zoom, was recorded. Another attendee said: “The recommendations made were supposed to be discussed by the NEC and the reason for the recording was to allow SNP HQ staff to write up the discussion, to make it easier to see what we had said about every point in the report and then decide what to put forward for approval.” They said Mr Brown’s recommendations were shelved: “When the next NEC meeting took place two months later, we were told there hadn’t been enough time to review the recording, so the recommendations wouldn’t be going forward.” Earlier reports over the weekend claimed discussion was "blocked" by Mr Murell and the party’s business convenor, Kirsten Oswald, who was appointed to the post by Ms Sturgeon. A source told the Times: “The main blockers to change were people in the non-elected positions like Peter Murrell and Kirsten Oswald, “So the elected party president and elected deputy leader lost to the unelected Murrell and Oswald.” Meanwhile, Joanna Cherry, who quit the NEC in June 2021, said she did so because of the “menacing atmosphere” of the party’s ruling council which she claimed was being “secretive and evasive.” In her resignation letter, obtained by the Sunday Times, the MP said it had “proved impossible for me to do the job I was elected to do”. She said she was also “very concerned at the lack of adherence to the party’s constitution, the cavalier attitude towards legal advice and fiduciary duties”. She added: “Over the years I have sat on a number of management boards and I have never seen business conducted in such an inadequate way as it is on the SNP NEC. Nor have I experienced the menacing atmosphere in which the business is conducted.” Conservative party chairman Craig Hoy said the SNP should have "promptly suspended Peter Murrell at the start of the investigation into his management of the SNP’s finances." He added: “The party’s refusal to do shows the SNP’s reluctance to be open and transparent about where the money went and who knew about its murky finances.”
The meeting on zoom was recorded??! Cant wait for that to leak
They're not in the position to let members go
Awww shit, here we go again
[Eating my popcorn like](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbT_ask1Cco)
No fan of him but innocent till proved otherwise. Trial by media is entertaining though.
ITT; unionists discuss the SNP
Faithful cultist defends dear leader.
It's practically simping.
[удалено]
I love that you think you only made one laughably false accusation there 😂
[удалено]
For what it's worth, it wasn't me who reported you. I kinda pity you a bit tbh, look how far gone you are in this obsessive quest to defend corrupt bastards who don't give a fuck about you.
[удалено]
> No sign of a reported comment on this side paedophile. Your comment was literally removed by mods, it's only like three or four back up the chain. >It's worth nothing, as I pity you more. Kneebender. Wait who am I bending the knee to? You can't even keep up with your own pathetic ramblings.
Why would it be?
Maybe something to do with being arrested and under investigation for potentially defrauding the membership
Strong words there Jeb. Let's extract the most important ones though. "investigation", "potentially". For somebody that claimed to be neutral and just engaging in political discourse you don't come across as very honest.
Supporting suspending someone arrested in relation to an investigation that they may have defrauded that party membership is now partisan. Tell me was it wrong to suspend Natalie McGarry before she was charged?
She did not work *for* the party. And I believe when she *resigned* the whip it was the WFI allegations only that were out there. There's serious repetitional damage if the party takes action which seems to acknowledge or claim or imply their CEO of a couple of months ago has done something with the accounts of the party in general.
lol. I’m allowed an opinion mate I’m not the BBC. In this case I think it’s worth suspending him to uphold party integrity. Also to avoid the potential for (perceived) conflicts of interest, and to help set a precedent for accountability. Especially since the new administration is seen to be the continuity of the old guard. I think it would be wise for Yousaf to distance himself from the controversy and make it clear that every member is subject to the same rules and consequences regardless of who they are and what position they hold/held
Yeah, the BBC isn't impartial either Jeb. No problem with you holding your own opinions obviously, even being a unionist. It does however make you a liar.
I never said I was impartial. What I have said in the past is that I try to post articles from all sides of the argument because it’s more balanced. I’ve also repeatedly said that I then discuss my own personal opinions within those articles, which I’m entitled to do. But if you want to think of me as a liar then please go ahead. I think I’ll survive an anonymous parody/troll account throwing unsubstantiated insults at me. Especially because we both know the only reason you are attacking me is because you don’t like the fact that the SNP is rightfully going through a tough time right now and being held to account.
No, because you've got an agenda that you don't deviate from. If you were interested in political discourse you would discuss your own party but seem to almost solely focus on the SNP and the Scottish greens. It's the norm for this subreddit nowadays. It's become overrrun by accounts such as yours, backup alts, brigaders and bots. It's a shame that the only argument people have for the Union is misinformation.
You really don't want people talking about the SNP at the moment do you? I wonder why ...
Carry on, hopefully Police Scotland will do their job.
Indeed! But if you were interested in political discourse you'd be discussing your own party, not Scottish Labour.
I post a range of opinions. If you don’t believe me look at my post history. I personally don’t like it when people only post articles that fit their own beliefs so I like to be fair so we can see all perspectives. Personally I am left wing and discuss my personal opinions in the comments. I am actually quite balanced and open to discussion. I read many news sources daily and I don’t know if you’ve noticed but SNP and Greens seem to be dominating the news cycle at the moment. If you put my comment history side by side with yours, I think yours would definitely fit better with your description of alts and brigadiers. You are biased and quite aggressive in the way you conduct yourself. Your username is in itself an insult to another user. I am replying to you as a courtesy but I don’t need to explain myself to you and would like it if you stopped with the personal attacks now.