The story of the apparently missing £600,000 from the earmarked fund for an independence referendum campaign was obviously damaging for the SNP and its leadership, but it was nevertheless in the interests of Yes supporters to pursue, because it was about ensuring that money intended to help win independence is actually spent on that purpose, rather than on any unrelated purpose. But the story about Peter Murrell personally lending a large sum of money to the SNP, which has dominated the headlines of several media outlets and seems to have been completely generated from scratch by Stuart Campbell, is in a wholly different category because as things stand there's no particular reason to assume anything untoward has happened - it's all just innuendo, a "questions are being asked" story. There was no noble journalistic intent in Campbell setting this story in train - it was just a malicious attempt to damage the SNP and the Sturgeon leadership for its own sake.
When I ask the people who still earnestly claim that Campbell is some sort of "independence supporter" how on earth this sort of stunt is supposed to help the cause of independence, they tell me it's very simple. Ms Sturgeon is a hindrance not a help to independence, they say, and therefore anything that harms her is good for independence. To which I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Unless you actually have the means to bring Ms Sturgeon down and get her replaced as SNP leader very speedily, then all you're doing is chipping away at the credibility of the independence movement and the independence campaign as currently constituted - and indeed as it will probably still be constituted if and when a plebiscite election occurs. Is there the remotest prospect of Campbell's stunt removing Ms Sturgeon from office? No of course there isn't. Is it particularly likely that anything at all Campbell can do will contribute to her stepping down earlier than she wishes? No of course it isn't. He's been chucking everything he can think of at the head of the independence movement for several years now, and it's all been completely ineffective. Therefore, by definition, he's harming the cause he nominally claims to still support. All he's doing is throwing unionists a lifeline at the precise moment we should be keeping them on the ropes and pressing home the Yes majority in all recent polls.
A commenter said on the previous thread (and I paraphrase) that he doesn't think Campbell is actively opposed to independence - it's simply that Campbell is single-mindedly driven by his anti-SNP agenda and is past the point of caring what effect his attempts to harm the SNP will have on the prospects for independence. I think that's about right. The front page of the Mail today is the grotesque but entirely natural end point for a man who, due to his own vanity and petty grudges, has in effect become an enemy of independence. It's hard to see any way back for him from this.
Stuart must be so proud. Maybe he can give them a front page about immigrants next.https://t.co/ddabtNAhFs
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 15, 2022
I agree wings has become a hindrance . I also think it's weird the loan. More because of the weird excuse than the fact of the loan itself. The size of the salary of the CEO is genuinely one thing that makes me raise an eyebrow at SNPs fairness credentials. It doesnt seem remotely justified. He doesn't lead the company in a normal sense. Seems wrong to me to be on over 100k a year.
ReplyDeleteThat said I totally agree Campbell is causing more harm than good.
Your blog James = where you're positive, aren't afraid to criticise the SNP, but mostly focus on independence, how to gain it, and sticking it to Unionists.
ReplyDeleteWings' site = where he's always negative, constantly attacks the SNP and Greens, rarely mentions independence and how to gain it, and rarely attacks Unionists.
Now which of those doesn't sound like a pro-independence campaigner?
Imagine how much worse he’d be if Nicola pantsed him in court instead of poor wee Kezia.
ReplyDeleteHe's only doing what Alex Salmond asked him to do when he made up his lies about the FM and asked Campbell to do his worst
ReplyDeleteAnd what "lies" would those be? Although you post anonymously, you always stand out a mile because you're so obsessed with trying to smear Alex Salmond.
DeleteThe Murrells are traitors to the cause. The quicker they are history the better.
ReplyDeleteOK Stu.
DeleteThis is where I disagree with James. The Murrells are a cancer on the SNP and there will never be a genuine independence campaign while they're in charge. Anything which exposes the moral bankruptcy of that pair is fine by me. I could never bring myself to vote for today's SNP and I feel no guilt about saying it as we will not achieve independence under the dead hand of the Gruesome Twosome and their party apparatchiks.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what influence Wings has over voters - not much if the polls are to be believed - but it's no more damaging to the cause than the corrosive influence of Sturgeon herself.
If you really feel that way about Ms Sturgeon, the rational thing to do is sit tight and find a strategy for ensuring her successor is someone more radical. She's unlikely to be in office for longer than three or four more years at most. But if you instead burn the whole house down in an attempt to destroy her, your "purifying flames" will actually destroy the cause of independence. You'll kill what you think you're trying to "save". Literally the only beneficiaries will be Labour and the Tories.
DeleteIs wheest for Indy back in vogue?
ReplyDeleteI remember with great fondness the days when it was thought that Sturgeon was serious about Scottish independence. Now all that is left is memories.
"Is wheest for Indy back in vogue?"
DeleteNah, just wheesht for Stu.
"If you don't defer to Our Lord Stu's every whim, you will make me VEWY cwoss and you are probably also mentally ill."
#WheeshtForStu
I was rather indifferent WOS - beind dead an all - until this; seems personal vengeance rescinds all other priorities. Sturgeon is indeed a rubbish indy leader (the fact the YES vote is only now really over 50% YES is lamentable) - but giving the Brits mud to sling at indy is unacceptable and reprehensible -shame on Mr Campbell.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about the intent and the motivation of Campbell but this is a story that any decent journalist would be happy to have scooped. The fact that a grubby little sewer rat like Campbell is the one who unearthed it virtually guarantees that something about it stinks. He's a useful idiot and cypher for Sturgeon's numerous enemies from within and without the Indy movement. The dodgy pic distributing incel snowflake has his own little smutty/sinister secrets which deserve more widespread publicity - not that his reputation could be lowered any more by the revelations. He's nothing other than a parasite on the indy scene and it's all down to the realisation that he'll do anything for attention.
ReplyDeleteWell said sir, think Campbell has been taking the Queens/Kings shilling for quite a while now. Campbell is a traitor to the cause.
DeleteThe £20 million worth of carrots have all gone mouldy. The WGD numpties who once said that the £20 million was a clear sign that the no ifs no buts referendum was going ahead have gone silent again. Their brains are at this moment in the process of expunging it from their memory bank along with all the other broken promises of the Sturgeon leadership. Like Nicholson SNP MP they will then convince themselves that the secret plan was never to actually hold a referendum but to increase the yes vote by getting a London court to say no to a referendum. A cunning plan indeed.
ReplyDeletePlease see Clachangowk's post below for a fine example of a cunning plan. Baldrick would be very pleased.
DeleteI have no idea what the front page of the Mail says. However, a Chief Exec of an organisation giving the organisation they manage a loan is not unknown for family run businesses and I guess that is what the SNP is these days.
ReplyDelete"I have no idea what the front page of the Mail says."
DeleteI helpfully provided it in the blogpost.
James - Changed equipment I used to log on and see it now.
DeletePersonally, I think the £600k Indyref2 ring fenced fund is a much bigger scandal. How can the police still be looking in to this after 18 months? It's not exactly on the scale of the Trump organisation. If the £20 million is being returned to be used for another purpose then the £600k should be as well as there is not going to be an Indyref2.
But surely you remember when Skier (wearing his company director hat at the time) told us on here that he could 'personally guarantee' the indyref2 fund. Makes you wonder why he isn't the one loaning money to the party. Hang on...does anyone know if 'Peter Murrell' is a winter sports enthusiast?😂
DeletePS I see the Big Dug has the begging bowl out again for a new laptop. Does this guy ever pay for his own stuff?
Sturgeon is now a barrier to independence. Anything that knocks down that barrier is fine by me. It has to be done so the quicker the better. Let the public blame the Mail and English msm.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you destroy the cause of independence in "knocking down that barrier", is that fine with you too?
DeleteYou guys are like the crack suicide squad at the end of Life of Brian. "That showed 'em, huh?"
James, does that include Salmond and the Alba party who yesterday criticised the SNP for running up the white flag of surrender. Personally, I think Alba are a bit late as Sturgeon ran up the white flag way back in Jan 2020.
DeleteI'd want clarification from Swinney about whether his words were consistent with a genuine plan for a plebiscite election. At this stage I'd be more interested in asking questions than making accusations of surrender, although I might change my mind if the answers weren't satisfactory.
DeleteAmong Sun Tzu's messages in the "Art of War" are that preparation , guerrilla tactics and disorientating the adversaries are vital to win any war; contrary to so many of SNP supporters' Among Sun Tzu's messages in the "Art of War" are that preparation , guerrilla tactics and disorientating the adversaries are vital to win any war; contrary to many so-called Independence supporters complaining about the SNP leadership doing nothing to get Independence going, the last few years of good government pushing the Well-being political philosophy in words and action to strongly differ from Westminster's neo-liberal ideology was in fact essential preparation for Independence ( how many people actually see it this way); also for instance focusing on windfarms and developing tidal energy rather than Westminster's belief in nuclear energy and rejecting privatisation of the Scottish Health Service all emphasise the different direction. The point is: if the Scottish Government had been following Westminster's lead in policy decisions the argument from the Union side would be " What's the point of Independence, nothing much would change".
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court issue was an example of guerilla warfare and disorientating the opposition. The Scottish Government did not expect to get the go ahead for a referendum but the result completely threw the Unionist side and suddenly forced them to change to their losing argument of being against the right of Scotland in a Voluntary Union to become independent.
On another issue I am convinced that, as proposed by many including Alba , to push for a Holyrood election as a defacto independence referendum is completely wrong. In this case the full might of the Westminster establishment and the Unionist Parties with funds and people (e.g coming up from England to canvass etc) would be thrown against us. In a UK General Election the Tories would be so concerned about minimizing the loss of seats in England and Labour would be so focussed on getting back their red seats in the North of England that they would have no time for Scotland, leaving their Scottish campaign to their poorly funded and equipped Scottish Parties. In both cases while it may well be a YES lead campaign in an election the votes must be for SNP or Greens so undermining the SNP makes no sense at all.
I am prepared to believe much of this was very much SNP leadership thinking and why spell out your strategy for your opponents to see.
--
Clachangowk = nawbag
DeleteYour post can be neatly summarised as 'Nicola has a cunning plan. Be patient and trust in Nicola. One day you will be free.'
DeleteNow, many of us might have believed that for a while, but frankly it's wearing a bit thin. Her cunning plan is taking so long that the activist end of the movement have all but given up hope and are wandering off the battlefield. I think it is truer to say that Nicola has calculated that keeping the main body of footsoldiers happy is more likely to keep her in power than keeping the small number of cavalry happy. She also seems to have been blinded and sidetracked by some issues that maybe are close to her heart. All rather short to medium term thinking, not long term strategy.
But what to do about it? The party has been infiltrated and is run by a compliant group of people. I'm no expert in how political parties work, but it seems to me that the simplest way to rectify the situation is to do the same in reverse. Infiltrate the party ourselves and take it over. What is done can be undone. Is that a possibility? What are the alternatives, and what are the costs of each to our common goal, that of independence for Scotland?
Clachangowk - just where in this cunning plan does Sturgeon spending over 3 years getting her pals to try to send Salmond to jail fit in.
DeleteThe whole idea of a 2023 Holyrood plebiscite shows an appalling lack of strategic foresight. Let's say we win it, then what? The UK government isn't going to start negotiating when it can plausibly defer the issue into the next UK parliament, obviously also hoping for a Hail Mary result from that election.
DeleteIt would be far more potent to hold a Holyrood plebiscite following that Westminster election if the UK government does not recognise the results in Scottish seats. Crucially, we would control the timing of that follow-up rather than the Prime Minister controlling the timing of their follow-up election.
I would choose the day of that incoming government's King's Speech to call a Holyrood election, for example. Seize the agenda from that incoming government if it does not cooperate.
Anonymous - UK GE de facto referendum. Let's say we win it then what? You say do it again at Holyrood. Oh and what then do it again at another UK GE ad infinitum. The point is you do not know what would happen because Sturgeons secret cunning masterplan is to be agreed at a conference next year. Won't be secret then will it. What a load of nonsense. There is no plan - just a shambles of broken promises one after another.
DeleteIn that scenario, we would have had both elections by 2024(probably in May and September) and the subsequent ones would be way off towards 2028/9.
DeleteThe ideal conditions for actually getting independence delivered requires that there be as little wiggle room as possible left for for the UK government to retreat towards. An UK snap election followed by a snap Holyrood election less than six months later does that by breaking us out of the "there's another election soon" cycle.
It gives the successor UK government an incentive to agree quickly, as to get the divorce and its consequences out of the way before their next election rolls around.
The fake "Reverend" has betrayed us.
ReplyDeleteThe fake independence leader has betrayed us.
DeleteYou're quite correct: the fake "Reverend" was indeed a fake independence leader, and he has indeed betrayed us.
DeleteAnonymous you are a right numpty if you ever thought Campbell was an independence leader. The vast majority of people who have ever voted for independence have never heard of Campbell. Campbell has no power to lead independence but the leader of the SNP has and that is where the 8 years of betrayal lie.
DeleteA leader is exactly how he portrayed himself and exactly how he was seen. Why else did he plan to lead his own political party, which as I recall he expected to easily get 20% of the vote? (LOL.)
DeleteYou're the numpty, pal.
Only a numpty would undermine their own post by that LOL and you are such a daftie you don't even see it.
DeleteAll right, I admit it, you're not a numpty.
DeleteYou're a full-blown cretin.
LOL.
£107,620 - seems a strange figure to give as a donation. £ 105,000 maybe or £110,000 of £107,000 even. Why the random £620? Spare change he found in the bottom drawer of his desk?
ReplyDeleteYouGov Westminster voting intention, Scottish sub-sample (field work 14th - 15th Dec)
ReplyDeleteCon 12%, Lab 27%, LibDem 7%, SNP 46%, Pliad 1%, RefUK 5%, Green 0%, Other 3%.
Meanwhile RefUK are polling at 9% UK wide and 11% in the all important North of England, “Red wall seats”. Pretty impressive for a Facebook based grift to fleece uneducated Gammons.
Sunak and Starmer dance to Farage’s tune.
As forecast above the WGD numpties are saying having no referendum and no £20 million pound budget is all part of Sturgeon's secret masterplan. Liar Skier who continually said anyone who doubted there would be a referendum was a Unionist now says it is a brilliant move on the part of the SNP.
ReplyDeleteIf Sturgeon told them to kick their own arses they would ask how hard and how often and tell themselves it is all part of the secret masterplan.
WGD numpty Skier gets it wrong again. Skier says:- " I've given hundreds of grubby donations myself."
ReplyDeleteIt's a loan Skier not a donation. Ya numpty.
Campbell is a unionist, he supports the LIb Dems after all.
ReplyDeleteYup. Lifelong Liberal Democrat voter.
DeleteCampbell a LibDem voter with a traitors propaganda blog against the cause of Scottish Independence.
DeleteHas Peter Murrell got a factory producing anonymous numpties.
ReplyDeleteJames, the issue is NOT that Peter Murrell loaned the SNP money. This issue IS that the SNP needed a loan. This whole sordid affair stinks to high heaven and it is right that someone asks questions. Consider this:
ReplyDeleteThe SNP raised 600,000 for a ring-fenced fund to fight a future independence campaign. Given that the SNP has refunded monies to individuals who have asked (in some cases within a day) it is reasonable to assume that the ring-fenced money was under the control of the SNP. So, what should be in the SNP accounts is a bank account holding the 600,000 and a liability account (Independence Campaign Fund or similar) for the same amount. (Let's ignore, for simplicity, that the SNP says the money raised was more and they have spent some money on a campaign.)
Now, an aggressive accountant might argue that most of the money was donated by SNP members. Therefore, if there is cash flow pressure within the SNP general account as a result of fighting the 2021 election, they might also argue that the Independence Campaign Fund, to the extent it is funded by SNP members, can be used to help with party cash flow. I'm not saying I agree with that view, but it is defensible, up to a point.
The big problem is that this did not happen. Why not? Because there is no bank account in the 2020 or 2021 SNP financial statements representing the "ring-fenced" money. The story here, as it has been for a few years is that money donated for an independence campaign has, seemingly, disappeared. Either the SNP treasurer will admit to incompetence and another bank account will be discovered or there has been a serious fraud, which needs to be investigated. One should not ignore this if it was Labour, Tories or the other ones. One should not ignore it just because the party involved happens to support independence.
I have seen a few comments, here and elsewhere, that the amount seems very specific, and, therefore, suspicious. I suspect the loan was a mixture of deferred salary, expense claims submitted but unpaid at the date of the loan and a lump sum (perhaps 60,000) that remained outstanding at year-end. The big issue for any SNP member is that current assets at the end of last year were only enough to cover 3/4 of current liabilities. Although annual financial statements are a snapshot in time, that should greatly concern any SNP member. If I saw that on monthly or quarterly financial statements that I prepare for clients, I would be arranging a meeting with the client to discuss the serious financial hole they dug for themselves.
"This issue IS that the SNP needed a loan."
DeleteBut neither you nor anyone else (barring those directly involved) knows why they needed the loan. This is pure speculation/innuendo.
SkipNC: Your reply is pretty bloody outrageous, quite honestly, and I have no intention of publishing it. It reads like a threat, probably because that's exactly what it is. My point stands.
DeleteI can't stand the woman. I am angry that she is conning everyone over and over. That she is actually blocking other routes to independence. She is a pretty useless FM in terms of achievements. So why wouldn't anyone with any sense want to remove her.
ReplyDeleteUntil she goes. Independence is dead.
Wanting to remove her is one thing. Ineffectively throwing stones at her, as Campbell has been doing for years now, is quite another, because the only cause that benefits is the Brit Nat cause. If you have the means to remove her, by all means do so, but if no such means exist, you need to think about the damage that is being done by Campbell's behaviour.
Delete