Look away, look away

Och, away!

dogs are people too

[Denise Findlay 💚🤍💜 @gracebrod1e]

Roll call of shame.
The SNP MPs are showing that Swinney’s assurances that he accepts the Supreme Court ruling are simply more LIES
SNP are a danger to women and girls

[Look away, look away @Socratesobvs]

@jollyman56 @andrewgmorton @rowan9sam @GreenBhoy1967 There's no political vehicle to harness that 53%, unfortunately

[Claire Valentine @JuraMurphy]

@BrechinYes2 I will try to keep this polite. My elderly mum donated over a grand to the ring fence fund and this crap has broken her. We don’t care about the other parties, we care about the party who we all worked our butts off for and exploited us. How dare you imply we’re unionists.

[Look away, look away @Socratesobvs]

@jollyman56 @andrewgmorton @rowan9sam @GreenBhoy1967 Independence in our lifetime has already gone down the tubes thanks to the Sturgeon gang. Hard as it may be to hear - the SNP is the biggest obstacle.

[Andrew Morton @andrewgmorton]

@jollyman56 @rowan9sam @GreenBhoy1967 I think his direction and motivation are crystal clear. He wants to clear the crooks out of the SNP and re establish it as a party dedicated to Scottish independence. Failing that it has to go.

[Neale Hanvey🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @JNHanvey]

Brilliant interview with Stu from @WingsScotland

What’s clear is however serious the crimes Murrell committed, it is entirely a straw man argument that this is the end of the matter.

The question/admission over the misuse of ring-fenced funds has not been addressed.

/2…

[Joanna Cherry KC @joannaccherry]

This is appalling. Whatever happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech? Surely the @UniofOxford can deal with the students disrupting these lectures? They are not fit to be at a university and are taking up places that should be available to young people who are.

[Murdo Fraser MSP @murdo_fraser]

For obvious reasons, Stuart Campbell and I have had the odd difference over the years (😉) but he is pursuing this tenaciously and has every right to do so

[Joanna Cherry KC @joannaccherry]

Keep going. Delighted to see your letters to Crown Office & Police Scotland were informed by independent legal advice from the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. We need more transparency of decision-making in Scotland. If it takes legal action or a Westminster inquiry so be it.

[Lloyd Quinan @QuinanLloyd]

I do not want to live in an Independent Scotland with standards in public life as low as @BrechinYes2 is happy with.

[John @thejohnhannah]

@QuinanLloyd @BrechinYes2 Unfortunately that's not the only SNP supporting account burying it's head in the sand and hoping we'll all kowtow.

I'd also like an independent Scotland with higher standards than the current apologists are promoting.

I mean, who wants a mini-me Westminster?

[Bill Cowan 🍒🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇦🇺 @BillDunblane]

Wings @WingsScotland

Very unusually for Stu, this post is not properly indexed, so I'll post it in full.

Wings has today sent the following emails.
————————————————————————-
The Chief Constable
Police Scotland
5 Fettes Avenue
Edinburgh
EH4 1RB
6 June 2026

Thank you for your (very swift) reply to my letter. However, I am afraid that it leaves more questions than answers.

Firstly, you state that Police Scotland “have been advised” that the information provided had already been investigated. That is rather odd. Who “advised” Police Scotland of this, and why did Police Scotland need to be advised of something which they should already know?

Second, you say that if any new information should be received, “this will be assessed”. I have provided new information, in the form of what has been said, publicly, by the First Minister over the last few days.

That is clearly “new information”: neither he, nor anyone else within the SNP, had disclosed previously that the ring-fenced funds had been spent on other matters. On the contrary, they repeatedly, publicly and stridently argued otherwise. Police Scotland cannot possibly have investigated the legal consequences of the recent public pronouncements by the First Minister himself in the short time that has elapsed since then.

Indeed, it is simply chronologically impossible for the statement in your reply to be true: Police Scotland announced the completion of Operation Branchform on 25 May 2026. The First Minister made his statement on 3 June 2026. How could his comments have been investigated nine days before he made them?

Third, and following on from this, I have provided you with a detailed legal analysis of why there is clear evidence of the commission of one or more crimes.

That is also “new information”, unless you saying that that analysis was already available to Police Scotland?

That seems rather unlikely.

That legal analysis was based on legal advice, instructed on my behalf and provided by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Doubtless he may have his citations wrong: even Homer nods, after all.

But if Police Scotland is going to decline to exercise its core responsibility for the investigation of crime in Scotland, at the very least one might expect an explanation of why the clear evidence of criminality and the accompanying legal analysis which I have provided is to be ignored.

The matter raised in my letter is of significant public interest. I quite appreciate that whether or not to prosecute is a matter for COPFS, and that their decision in that regard is (probably) not subject to judicial review.

However, an anterior refusal by Police Scotland to decline even to investigate evidence of criminality, at least in the absence of very good reason (and the only reason you have given, that you “have been advised this has already been investigated”, is plainly wrong) would be subject to judicial review. Given the level of public interest in this matter, I have little doubt that such a judicial review could and would be easily funded.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to take slightly longer to consider your reply this time: I would prefer a reasoned response to a rapid one.

Yours etc,
Rev. Stuart Campbell

And:

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1LA
6 June 2026

Thank you for your (very swift) reply to my letter.

However, I am afraid that it leaves more questions than answers.

It may, in the general run of things, be “for the police or other reporting agency to investigate allegations of criminal conduct”. However, and as I am sure you aware, that is not the end of the story. Crown Office always retains the power to direct the police to investigate. This is made clear by The Law of Criminal Procedure in Scotland (SULI), 1st Ed, at 8-019:

“The position in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales (and the US): as previously noted, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland is required by statute to comply with any lawful instruction from a procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate. The latter can also issue instructions to the Chief Constable “with regard to the reporting, for consideration of the question of prosecution, of offences alleged to have been committed”.”

I have brought to your attention evidence of a crime. It is open to Crown Office to require an investigation.

That is what I am asking you to do. If you decline, perhaps you could explain why.

You will be aware of the public interest in this matter, and the need to avoid any suggestion of anything other than the complete independence of Crown Office. Your telegraphic response to my detailed explanation of why (a) a crime seems to have been committed, and (b) the commission of that crime seems to have been admitted by the First Minister himself (by which I mean that his statements suggest a crime has been committed by someone: I know not who was responsible therefor) is unlikely to engender confidence in that independence.

My letter was prepared with legal advice, instructed on my behalf and provided by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Doubtless he may have his citations wrong: even Homer nods, after all.

But if Crown Office is going to decline to exercise its core responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland, at the very least one might expect an explanation of why the clear evidence of criminality and the accompanying legal analysis which I have provided is to be ignored.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to take slightly longer to consider your reply this time: I would prefer a reasoned response to a rapid one.

Yours etc,
Rev. Stuart Campbell

[Look away, look away @Socratesobvs]

@mikemerc002 @CaledoniaLad @kmckenna63 @sunpath2 What difference would it make. At least the unionist parties are honest about it.

[Wilderness of Peace @WildernessPeace]

@AndrewH56488884 The people most responsible for the SNP's failures over the last 10 years are still in control of the party. Until they are gone, there is no possibility of it.

[Wilderness of Peace @WildernessPeace]

Peter Murrell: pleads guilty to embezzlement, gets legal aid & the opportunity to pay his loot back.

Alex Salmond: found innocent, paid his own fees, died near impoverished.

This is why we *cannot* let this go. The soul of our nation is at stake. They *must not win.*

[Neale Hanvey🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @JNHanvey]

I can’t say it any more plainly.

Independence supporters have been lied to.

Independence supporters have been fleeced.

There is no plan, secret or otherwise.

Those raising the alarm were monstered, blamed and vilified.

You’re flogging a dead horse.

[Dean M Thomson @DeanMThomson]

8/10
Joanna Cherry's call for a fully independent inquiry is not a partisan demand. It's a basic democratic question.
How does an embezzlement of this scale, in the party of government, go undetected for twelve years — and why were the people trying to find out treated as the problem?
The guilty plea closes the criminal chapter. The political one is not closed. Not even close.

[Dean M Thomson @DeanMThomson]

7/9
Scotland hasn't had an honest audit of the Sturgeon era because two mirror-image bad-faith positions have made it nearly impossible.
Unionists weaponise the governance failures against self-government. Nationalists dismiss scrutiny as unionist bad faith.
Both serve their tribes. Neither serves the public. And both made twelve years of embezzlement easier.

[Look away, look away @Socratesobvs]

Yup https://t.co/p6rtlErueo

[Look away, look away @Socratesobvs]

Me neither

[Mel 🕊️ @meljomur]

What I can’t comprehend is why anyone believes that the SNP in its current state, is in anyway a good representation for independence?
I just don’t understand the mindset.