Nicola Sturgeon STILL didn't know her husband stole £400,000

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from previous thread.

I think the detail was that it was just listed as “vehicles” with no further breakdown.

Your ridiculous and insulting attempt at humour actually shows that you don't give a crap about the REAL women who were actually affected by her policy. Didi it ever occur to you that actual women were terrified of being housed with this animal? Actual rape victims?

Sturgeon didn't give a shit.

Clearly you don't either.

Feminist? Nope.

Do you think you need some therapy to figure out why you would celebrate a woman being raped?

That’s a serious allegation - I hope you can point to where PP said that because it looks to me like you made it up.

Nicola had confidence in the SPS managing the male murderers and rapists in women’s prisons so why would there be any issue with her being subject to the same policy as other female prisoners?

(Supposing she was convicted.)

I always think let it stand. Shows them for what they are.

This Police Scotland?

Police Scotland has apologised to For Women Scotland's director after she was accused of damaging the umbrella of a trans-rights activist.

Footage showed Ms Smith approaching Mr Harlow and briefly placing her hand on his umbrella after asking him to reduce the volume.
Mr Harlow later reported to police that the umbrella had been damaged. Police Scotland confirmed they had received a report of “vandalism to an umbrella”.

Ms Smith had been asked to attend a police station to accept a Recorded Police Warning over the alleged damage, which followed a Holyrood protest.
The prominent campaigner was expected to decline the offer of a warning, meaning she could have faced a vandalism charge.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25604871.police-scotland-apologise-women-scotland-director/

I saw this on FB.

TBH I think we are still at the very start of unravelling just what the fuck has been going on in Scottish politics for the past ten years.

There's been a lot.

I think this is a great idea. There seems to be such a tangled web of lies and deceit that it seems ludicrous to expect an honest report to come out of this.

While I’m sure there are many good and honest people that could be involved in an inquiry, it seems like quite a long shot to hope they would be allowed to do their job unimpeded.

I would also like to know what information Peter Murrell wants to prevent being made public that is so bad he’d plead guilty so quickly.

I'm also interested in the difference between the amount he admitted to and the actual amount.

There nearly always is one.

So she DID know about it?

Do you know when this ‘explanation’ was provided?

Nicola herself doesn’t seem to have an issue moving to London to have the MET as her police force

Every campaign bus needs 4 coffee machines, you're just being mean.

What's he back in court for tomorrow? Sentencing not until the 23rd, but another court appearance tomorrow?

I worked as an auditor, not for the SNP. If I had seen a line in the accounts for motor vehicles and it was hugely different from years before I would have asked about it. And the explanation would have been along the lines of what Sturgeon gave in her interview. The motor home was for politicians to campaign in during covid when they didn't know what the regulations would look like. Here's the paperwork, here's a photo showing the motorhome waiting to be used. I would probably accept that as reasonable. If I had seen a photo of the motorhome on a campsite in the south of France with him sunbathing in his trunks under the awning then I might have thought differently. But I'm not aware that there was any evidence of him actually using the motorhome for a jolly.

Sturgeon said they often spent a lot of money on vehicles of one kind or another. I can believe that too.

That's how clever fraudsters work. They have reasonable explanations for individual things.

Having said all that I still think she didn't investigate seriously enough when people were bringing financial concerns to her.

She claims not to have known anything about its existence though, even though she had to sign off on the financial statements. That’s what doesn’t ring true.

Back in 2023 according to the daily record SNP motorhome: £124k Fife campervan controversy explained https://share.google/MbestqN3pwjBEhIXS

Initial explanation was that it was for campaigning in 2021 Scottish Parliament election (with Covid restrictions still in place). I think the idea was that it would be self contained and allow the team to work as a group while minimising other contact.

I assumed it was possible that it was purchased genuinely with the intention of using it as a campaign vehicle, and then not used because things changed. But that he then didn’t give it back or had it sold to makes funds available to the party perhaps implies he was hoping to just keep it.

I think that is what muddied the waters. Potentially acquired legitimately, but later actions become embezzlement.

edit - sorry, cross posted with a bunch of others 🙂

As HIGNFY pointed out on Friday, you could see it from space. And no 92 year old woman was driving that.

Also, would keeping campaign vehicles on relatives' drives not look a bit....odd....

It would have been a single line of the accounts with an amount for “motor vehicles”.

That said, I agree she didn’t ask enough questions about what it meant. And she definitely should have been asking questions rather than shutting them down when the auditors resigned.

And the explanation would have been along the lines of what Sturgeon gave in her interview. The motor home was for politicians to campaign in during covid when they didn't know what the regulations would look like.

Surely you would wait for the regulations to come out before making such an extravagant purchase? It’s not like they had years to wait - it was a national emergency and legislation was churned out left right and centre.

Yes that's one way of thinking about it. But the explanation given at that time was equally believable

It's not about the individual items though. He could have given valid explanations for most of them. I don't think Sturgeon knowing or not knowing about any individual thing says anything significant.

I think it's about whether she acted swiftly enough on other people's concerns about the party finances. And I don't think she did.

Or just spend less money on renting a few campervans so they could campaign in different parts of the country?

I mean, your husband gives his employer, a political party, a £100k “loan” to aid cash flow.

You, as leader of said party, your husbands employer, see nothing wrong here that warrants you to look a little more closely at what exactly you are signing off on?

FFS. And we are supposed to believe she is a victim here?