Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

Not having adequate pricedures in place doesn't mean there isn't a cover up as well.

True, but nor does it mean that there is.

There needs to be investigation as to whether, at the one extreme this relates to poor accounting practice and inadequate governance over audit and risk. Or whether there has been additionally a deliberate cover-up. Further whether monies raised for one purpose have been used for a purpose that is beyond that restriction. And finally whether the funds are actually 'missing' - in other words their whereabouts is actually not know and/or funds have been embezzled.

I don't know the answers to these questions and I suspect nor do others, which is the whole point why an investigation needs to get to the bottom of this. However the media using "missing' isn't really very helpful as it implies that the issue is at the worst end of the severity rather than merely poor practice. Now that is not to say that poor practice and government isn't a concern and needs to be dealt with - it is and it should be - but it isn't the same as someone running off with £600k.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd add that having a political party with the CEO and leader married to each other is likely going to cause issues.

Also correct potentially, although the notion of declaration of interests should be able to deal with this. There are loads of organisations where husband and wife teams have controlling interests - that doesn't mean that there is malpractice. As an example I have a few company directorships - one of these has four directors, two pairs of husband and wife.

I think it is also worth noting that (I think) Murrell was CEO of the SNP before he became involved with Sturgeon. And similarly Sturgeon was in a leading position in the SNP before she became involved with Murrell. Point being that this isn't the case of one person with power contriving to bring their spouse into another position of power within the same organisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd extend the 'little over a decade ago' a bit further since they have been in govt for 16 years.

Then you would be wrong, because you would be confusing the SNP as a government with the SNP as a political party. These have to be kept scrupulously distinct and you cannot spend civil service public money on political campaigning when in government. That is the role of the political party itself.

And the sudden rise in the size of the SNP as a political party happened around, and I believe just after, the referendum in 2014, when their membership increased approx. 6 fold. And that is actually less than a decade ago, not even a 'little over a decade ago'. That is, potentially where the problems arose. In 2013 the SNP was a small political party with approx. 20,000 members and income of probably less than £1M - within a year it had swollen to about 120,000 members and income of about £5M. It looks to me that their accounting practices and governance never caught up.

[Nearly Sane]

Then you would be wrong, because you would be confusing the SNP as a government with the SNP as a political party. These have to be kept scrupulously distinct and you cannot spend civil service public money on political campaigning when in government. That is the role of the political party itself.

And the sudden rise in the size of the SNP as a political party happened around, and I believe just after, the referendum in 2014, when their membership increased approx. 6 fold. And that is actually less than a decade ago, not even a 'little over a decade ago'. That is, potentially where the problems arose. In 2013 the SNP was a small political party with approx. 20,000 members and income of probably less than £1M - within a year it had swollen to about 120,000 members and income of about £5M. It looks to me that their accounting practices and governance never caught up.

So according to this you think it is 'wrong' to think that a party that is on govt should run in a professional manner if they don't have whatever random number of the population you deem relevant.

And given the smaller electorate in Scotland, the equivalent in the UK of 20,000 would be roughly 200,000 bit lower than that you would be happy with them being run by someone who had watched a youtube video on Excel and had a season pass for their local internet cafe.

[Nearly Sane]

Also correct potentially, although the notion of declaration of interests should be able to deal with this. There are loads of organisations where husband and wife teams have controlling interests - that doesn't mean that there is malpractice. As an example I have a few company directorships - one of these has four directors, two pairs of husband and wife.

I think it is also worth noting that (I think) Murrell was CEO of the SNP before he became involved with Sturgeon. And similarly Sturgeon was in a leading position in the SNP before she became involved with Murrell. Point being that this isn't the case of one person with power contriving to bring their spouse into another position of power within the same organisation.

Because some random companies are the same as the party of govt.

[Nearly Sane]

True, but nor does it mean that there is.

There needs to be investigation as to whether, at the one extreme this relates to poor accounting practice and inadequate governance over audit and risk. Or whether there has been additionally a deliberate cover-up. Further whether monies raised for one purpose have been used for a purpose that is beyond that restriction. And finally whether the funds are actually 'missing' - in other words their whereabouts is actually not know and/or funds have been embezzled.

I don't know the answers to these questions and I suspect nor do others, which is the whole point why an investigation needs to get to the bottom of this. However the media using "missing' isn't really very helpful as it implies that the issue is at the worst end of the severity rather than merely poor practice. Now that is not to say that poor practice and government isn't a concern and needs to be dealt with - it is and it should be - but it isn't the same as someone running off with £600k.

Who said it was the same as someone running off with £600k? Obviously you don't need that much money for straw.

[ProfessorDavey]

So according to this you think it is 'wrong' to think that a party that is on govt should run in a professional manner if they don't have whatever random number of the population you deem relevant.

Where on earth do you get that from.

To be clear I expect all organisations whether companies, charities, political parties etc to be run in a professional manner and if they are not I expect the relevant authorities to take action which may include barring certain individuals from holding office through to charging individuals with offences should that prove to be the case.

But you are again blurring the issue of the SNP being in government and the SNP as a political party. In government they will need to abide by a whole raft of rules and have a huge amount of public money to distribute and they need to do this professionally and lawfully. But they have the support of the civil service to help them do this.

Their financing as a political party must be completely separate to the public money they may control in government - and quite rightly too. Regardless of whether they are in government or not they will have to abide by the same rules and responsibilities of political funding so the notion of their being in government is a red herring. They are required to act professionally and lawfully whether in government or not.

And given the smaller electorate in Scotland, the equivalent in the UK of 20,000 would be roughly 200,000 bit lower than that you would be happy with them being run by someone who had watched a youtube video on Excel and had a season pass for their local internet cafe.

Which is kind of my point - despite being in government, as a political party in organisational terms they are tiny. My estimates being that their income was sub £1M prior to the big membership rise and approx £5M after. Even at its peak I suspect that is about half the annual income of the school where, as a trustee, I have governance responsibility for audit and risk.

So I think you have an organisation run on a shoe string where people want to spend as much time and effort on their political activities and look not to have prioritised their accounting obligations. That's entirely wrong and if I did that as a trustee I should expect to get into serious hot water, as should the SNP hierarchy.

So I'm not excusing their incompetence (even if it is merely that), just looking to explain it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who said it was the same as someone running off with £600k? Obviously you don't need that much money for straw.

If a headline talks of a "missing' £600k, that is the impression they want their readership to get.

[Nearly Sane]

If a headline talks of a "missing' £600k, that is the impression they want their readership to get.

  What would you call it? The £600k that was formerly known as in the accounts?

[ProfessorDavey]

Because some random companies are the same as the party of govt.

Both have to be run to the same professional standard.

And again you seem to be blurring the distinction between the Scottish Government and the SNP as a political party. Perhaps you can tell us what position or role Murrell has ever held in the Scottish Government.

[ProfessorDavey]

  What would you call it? The £600k that was formerly known as in the accounts?

But it isn't even clear that it is missing, is it - hence the media needing to put "missing" in "".

[Nearly Sane]

Both have to be run to the same professional standard.

And again you seem to be blurring the distinction between the Scottish Government and the SNP as a political party. Perhaps you can tell us what position or role Murrell has ever held in the Scottish Government.

Why would I? It's irrelevant to a political party needing to be run professionally and the need for democratic transparency.

There was this bloke called Julius Caesar, not sure if you know about him, anyway he had a wife...

[Nearly Sane]

But it isn't even clear that it is missing, is it - hence the media needing to put "missing" in "".

And again, what would you call it? Schrodinger's £600k?

[Nearly Sane]

Where on earth do you get that from.

To be clear I expect all organisations whether companies, charities, political parties etc to be run in a professional manner and if they are not I expect the relevant authorities to take action which may include barring certain individuals from holding office through to charging individuals with offences should that prove to be the case.

But you are again blurring the issue of the SNP being in government and the SNP as a political party. In government they will need to abide by a whole raft of rules and have a huge amount of public money to distribute and they need to do this professionally and lawfully. But they have the support of the civil service to help them do this.

Their financing as a political party must be completely separate to the public money they may control in government - and quite rightly too. Regardless of whether they are in government or not they will have to abide by the same rules and responsibilities of political funding so the notion of their being in government is a red herring. They are required to act professionally and lawfully whether in government or not.
Which is kind of my point - despite being in government, as a political party in organisational terms they are tiny. My estimates being that their income was sub £1M prior to the big membership rise and approx £5M after. Even at its peak I suspect that is about half the annual income of the school where, as a trustee, I have governance responsibility for audit and risk.

So I think you have an organisation run on a shoe string where people want to spend as much time and effort on their political activities and look not to have prioritised their accounting obligations. That's entirely wrong and if I did that as a trustee I should expect to get into serious hot water, as should the SNP hierarchy.

So I'm not excusing their incompetence (even if it is merely that), just looking to explain it.

It's nice to see you think that your trusteeship is more important than the Scottish govt.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's nice to see you think that your trusteeship is more important than the Scottish govt.

I don't - I think all organisations should be competently and professionally run, including both the Scottish Government and the SNP, which are two separate organisations.

And I'm a bit confused - where exactly is the accusation that the Scottish Government has a missing £600k raised as part of a campaign for a second referendum. I think there would be bigger issues than one of accounting if the Scottish Government was raising funds for a party-political campaign.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't - I think all organisations should be competently and professionally run, including both the Scottish Government and the SNP, which are two separate organisations.

And I'm a bit confused - where exactly is the accusation that the Scottish Government has a missing £600k raised as part of a campaign for a second referendum. I think there would be bigger issues than one of accounting if the Scottish Government was raising funds for a party-political campaign.

I can't really help your political naivete.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would I? It's irrelevant to a political party needing to be run professionally and the need for democratic transparency.

It isn't irrelevant - the separation between a Government and the political party that may, from time to time, run that government is absolutely critical for democratic transparency.

And I also think that it is critical that both of those organisations - the Government and political parties should be run professionally.

Now your misunderstanding of the distinction between the Government and the political party isn't uncommon. Often people think that a political party who are in government is absolutely flush with money. Often they aren't because they cannot (quite rightly) spend government money on political activities. So you end up with this somewhat weird mismatch where a political party that is run on a shoe string is in charge of a government responsible for a massive budget.

That's my point when I mention the annual income of my school - the entire budget of the SNP will be less than that of a single fairly sizeable secondary school, funding of which will represent a minute proportion of the annual budget of the government.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't really help your political naivete.

Have you ever been an active member of a political party, perhaps holding office in that party and standing for election?

I don't think it is me demonstrating naïveté - that is represented by someone who seems to misunderstand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are not the same.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't really help your political naivete.

So given that you seems to consider you have more political nouse can you answer the following questions that you've ignored:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

So given that you seems to consider you have more political nouse can you answer the following questions that you've ignored:

What role, position or office has Peter Murrell ever held in the Scottish Government?

Has the Scottish Government been accused of having a "missing" £600k that they raised for a political campaign for a second referendum?

Thank you for illustrating my point by your questions.

[Nearly Sane]

Have you ever been an active member of a political party, perhaps holding office in that party and standing for election?

I don't think it is me demonstrating naïveté - that is represented by someone who seems to misunderstand that the government and the political party that, from time to time, may run that government are not the same.

And again you seem determined to demonstrate my point for me. Ta!

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't irrelevant - the separation between a Government and the political party that may, from time to time, run that government is absolutely critical for democratic transparency.

And I also think that it is critical that both of those organisations - the Government and political parties should be run professionally.

Now your misunderstanding of the distinction between the Government and the political party isn't uncommon. Often people think that a political party who are in government is absolutely flush with money. Often they aren't because they cannot (quite rightly) spend government money on political activities. So you end up with this somewhat weird mismatch where a political party that is run on a shoe string is in charge of a government responsible for a massive budget.

That's my point when I mention the annual income of my school - the entire budget of the SNP will be less than that of a single fairly sizeable secondary school, funding of which will represent a minute proportion of the annual budget of the government.

And yet they are a party that forms a govt and you are a school trustee.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet they are a party that forms a govt and you are a school trustee.

And Peter Murrell until a couple of days ago was the CEO or an organisation with an annual budget of approx half of the school where I am a trustee. And the "missing" £600k relates to that organisation, not the Scottish Government.

[Nearly Sane]

And Peter Murrell until a couple of days ago was the CEO or an organisation with an annual budget of approx half of the school where I am a trustee. And the "missing" £600k relates to that organisation, not the Scottish Government.

Married to the FM of Scotland.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thank you for illustrating my point by your questions.

Are you actually going to answer them or engage in your usual evasion and obfuscation.

I note that you've still failed to answer the question on your opinions of the three candidates which I asked in replies 318, 326, 328, 330, 331.