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

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from previous thread.

An excellent article that really articulates how I feel and shows the real issues here with governance.

TBH this is the biggest variable. I find it bananas that she is still married to Peter Murrell. On one account he has ruined her life. And financially, needlessly complex. So who benefits from this arrangement?

Is it fair to note that Murrell will have his own story, and indeed, his own needs? Once a sentence hearing has begun, then all motivation and mitigation must be made to reduce it. What he says will be personal. His crimes may be murky but his motives are even weirder. You do not need to buy toilet rolls or hand cream with party donations. These things are odd, and need explaining.

My sense is there are many people in the wrong. The main problem has been opacity, defensive denial, and control. All of which would seem to stem from Sturgeon as party leader.

It is possible she was being used and manipulated by someone else, I suppose. But her elaborate defences are preventing the situation from clear sight.

It’s like Starmer. When they scream from the rooftops about their virtue and how awful everyone else is when they come unstuck it’s grates somewhat when they try and make victims of themselves. Can you imagine if Boris was accused of this what lenience’s would she have given. The left have a huge hypocrisy problem.

but to top her off after years of trying to split the uk up, with threats of making the English pay a tax to visit Scotland she’s now moved to….LONDON!

Hypocrisy is not confined to left or right. It is innate in a certain sort of political party. One that does not have too much competition in it.

And has been very clearly stated in numerous posts this is about the culture she created and enforced as Party leader that at the very least enabled the fraud.

Yes, and those don't appear to have been resolved.

NS's explanation of the indyref2 fund is financially illiterate.

Once the money was spent it was spent. They might spend £600K on a future referendum campaign, but the money would have to come from elsewhere.

Is there any reason to believe that things have improved?

Observationally, the nost ardent and vocal supporters have always been the types that most people just give a wide berth to.

Especially Scots, who tend in general to be more reticent, especially in politics.

Under Salmond, many more moderate people were convinced by rational and cordial argument. But I expect many of them have again moved away in recent years, so those remaining are again at the more extreme end of the supporter spectrum.

And yes, tribalism, echo chambers and strong idea of self righteousness are a potent mix. That dynamic has a big effect on the govt and the whole country.

The quiet majority didn't vote SNP. The country lacks any real opposition, though.

On Independence- Salmond’s particular skill was to engage emotions and appear to have the skill to deliver. That is better than most nationalists. And he also wiped the floor with most of the Labour and Scottish MPs who did disagree with him because they would not do the same.

England now has its own issues with Reform doing a similar trick, engaging emotions. It can get you a vote that is otherwise unaligned.

It is also uncritical in a dangerous way for running a country.

It's a good article, although

The justice system has done its work.

Any investigation absolutely must also investigate Dorothy Bain, the Chief Constable, and how Scottish government and law are (and aren't) separated.

We just cannot have a country run on nepotism, favour, fudging and obscurantism. It leads to exactly this type of fiasco.

Yes, agree.

Sturgeon did have a convincing act. She did well for a long time in appearing competent and compelling. But it wasn't backed up by any political skill or understanding.

All surface, no content. I guess she took the appearance of Salmond's politics on without the substance. Conversely Salmond was less appealing as a personality, but the legacy of his actions had huge impact. So perhaps the inverse.

@ArabellaScott I think the story of Sturgeon’s rise as mentored by Salmond is probably essential in understanding the SNP.

Salmond understood how the party accountability looked, with Sturgeon and Murrell married. He counselled against it. Why? Probably because he saw the potential for criticism about it, the clear conflict from the structure, and his instinct was that independence needed to avoid those kind of easy criticisms. He knew too that Murrell had problems and had taken property.

But in the context of a marriage, and a powerful marriage, these may have seemed like delicacies that no one needed to care about. Sturgeon would defend her husband. He would barely be challenged at all. And he bought her things that she used and loved to indicate her status. You can use a biro, or you can buy a Montblanc to tell the world you are an important person. The pictures of Sturgeon wearing this stuff, bought with party money are just awful.

That Montblanc attitude is not very Scottish I think. It is greedy, and gauche.

What’s wrong with ‘Nicky’? It’s a common contraction of Nicola, and I like to make a bit of variety.

Cool that that is your only issue with what I said. I can call her ‘Nicola Sturgeon, former First Minister of Scotland’ if you are really bothered by it?

Yes there is. But whilst the right will pick up the left on their hypocrisy they fall short of stating their own virtues, whilst the left will categorically say they’re better, they’d never do that etc

Wow! You see ‘total contempt and ridicule’, where that wasn’t my intention at all.

I think that’s more a reflection of your thinking than mine.

I wasn’t necessarily looking for a response from you on my previous post so don’t worry about it.

Yes, these leaders are doing Scotland a huge disservice by representing them.

They don’t have the honour, rigour or self respect of the amazing Scottish people I have had the pleasure of knowing.

The question is, how are they getting voted in? Who is voting for this?

How do you know they're not divorced?

Mmm. I think it’s a mote in both eyes.

They get voted in by:

a) promising to deliver Indy, and;
b) welfare handouts and public sector pay rises.

I cannot see any other reason for voting for them. Happy to be proven wrong.

Thank you. And maybe the lack of an attractive alternative?

In my mind, once someone (or a group) has been found to be behaving dishonestly in one aspect, all bets are off on their trustworthiness in all areas.

Given the known vulnerabilities of our electoral system I think it would be sensible to have an eye on that to rule out any anomalies. I’m not making any accusations at this point but given the disastrous record of the SNP, it’s surprising that they are still in power. Are that many Scots still so keen for independence that they’d sacrifice effective government?

We’ve seen how quickly and emphatically the serious issues of electoral fraud raised by the independent observer organisation were waved away by those who benefited from the result in the Gorton &Denton by election. Might it be sensible to look at any reports on that here?

I think many also see them as the tartan wing of the progressive alliance. Don't think about the technicalities of independence, just feel the vibe.

It's an assumption, based on the public announcement that they were separating and going to be divorced, and the media calling Murrell Sturgeon's 'estranged' husband.

Had the decree been finalised I'd have been enormously surprised had Sturgeon not drawn a clear line between her and Murrell by declaring it publically.

They don’t need many voters though because the unionist vote is split and the Indy vote isn’t. They just need enough people who think that Indy is a good idea and deliverable. UK economists etc don’t really takes Indy seriously because they find it such a laughably bad idea and so they don’t even start to debunk the nationalists saying that Indy will be fine. If more debunking went on then maybe the electorate would be better informed. For instance if you go on nationalist twitter you’ll find many people think Scotland funds rUK, when it’s clearly the other way around. It’s not in the SNP’s best interest to clarify this and so people are left to think this clearly untrue thing is true.

So 30% of Scot’s probably do think Indy would be fine…

As far as I'm aware support for independence stays roughly the same, no matter the vagaries of SNP support. However, that might have changed with recent events.

(very roughly 50/50)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1170409/scottish-independence/

'The judge, Lord Young, wants a criminal justice social work report before sentencing - an assessment of Murrell's background, circumstances and risk.
These normally take three to four weeks to prepare.
He ordered one last week - so the case has been "continued" for reports, with the mitigation and sentencing expected at a hearing on 23 June..'

Mitigation plea/sentencing on 23rd June.