Nicola Sturgeon

GrannyGravy13

I have to sign off our business accounts, which means accepting responsibility for what is declared.

As a women in charge of Scotland at the time I would have thought that she would have been all over anything regarding the SNP which she put her signature to.

With one of those fancy pens I believe!

OldFrill

BlueBelle

Crikey all that space taken up with copies can’t we just cut and paste a sentence or two.

If she wasn’t aware and some people do lead very separate lives and I did say ‘if’, what a horrible situation, and if she didn’t know I ve no idea how she could prove it well she couldn’t could she ?

The cut and paste police - I've seen it all now.

I just feel like quoting everything now.

No, she is not liable. Here is the AI summary:

Nicola Sturgeon is not legally liable for the embezzlement debts of her estranged husband, Peter Murrell. Murrell admitted embezzling over £400,000 from the Scottish National Party (SNP), and under Scots law, criminal liability and the associated financial restitution lie solely with the individual who committed the crime.

Key Points on Liability:
Separate Finances: Sturgeon and Murrell maintained separate bank accounts. She had no access to his financial records and was cleared of criminal wrongdoing after an exhaustive police investigation.
No Joint Debt: Because the embezzlement was an individual criminal act rather than a shared business or joint financial obligation, debts or proceeds of crime orders apply exclusively to him.
Private Legal Threats: While Sturgeon will not face criminal charges or state-mandated financial liability for the crime, activists have reportedly considered launching civil actions for damages. However, legal experts point out that holding a spouse civilly liable for a partner’s hidden criminal actions is highly complex.

BlueBelle

Crikey all that space taken up with copies can’t we just cut and paste a sentence or two.

If she wasn’t aware and some people do lead very separate lives and I did say ‘if’, what a horrible situation, and if she didn’t know I ve no idea how she could prove it well she couldn’t could she ?

The cut and paste police - I've seen it all now.

Are they divorced or not?
I don't know what happens in embezzlement cases, whether the guilty party has to pay money back out of assets, which would include the house. No wonder Sturgeon is desperate to establish that she knew nothing.
I knew someone who divorced her husband for adultery and before the case was under way he managed to rack up debts which were paid out of their joint assets before any settlement could be made.

It was taxpayer money. It included the funding from Westminster 'short' money.

I understood they were little more than housemates.
I certainly wouldnt treasure a item someone had ostensibly "bought" me, under those circumstances.

LemonJam

Premium price for second hand jewellery is usually because of the previous owner's legendary fashion or style icon status, royal status, Hollywood star status, a global trendsetter or a cultural trail blazer.

An ex politician whose husband was convicted of embezzlement doesn't quite cut it to fetch a premium price.

Not really. Would NS knowing it could have been bought with embezzled funds make the jewellery only one stage removed from receiving stolen goods?
Would she want to keep it anyway.

Maremia

It was SNP money, not tax payer money.
How are we getting on with Hancock and the money diverted through the VIP lane?

The investigation has cost the tax payer £2million - it’s not just SNP members who are affected.

It was SNP money, not tax payer money.
How are we getting on with Hancock and the money diverted through the VIP lane?

Crikey all that space taken up with copies can’t we just cut and paste a sentence or two.

If she wasn’t aware and some people do lead very separate lives and I did say ‘if’, what a horrible situation, and if she didn’t know I ve no idea how she could prove it well she couldn’t could she ?

That's me done, l usually don't look back.

Casdon

I can’t imagine she will ever want to wear it again, regardless of the residual value. Nor do I think anybody would wear something with pleasure that they had treasured because they thought it was a gift from their husband, once they found out he had used embezzled money to buy it. She may have known about other items, but I don’t think she knew about how the necklace was funded.

If she were to hand these items over and they were publicly auctioned there would be massive press coverage and there would be a bidding war, probably between the Nats and the Yoons. Alan Cummings maybe and gosh l can't think of an equivalent Yoon!

LemonJam

OldFrill

Rosie51

OldFrill

LemonJam

25Avalon

It seems the house which was jointly owned will have to be sold or Nicola will have to buy his half so that the monies go towards repayment for that which Murrell embezelled. Maybe she will have to hand over the pendant as well.

If and when they divorce, the equity value of the marital home, as a joint asset, with no children, is almost certainly going to be split 50/50.

Thus he has his divorce settlement and she has hers. Murrell embezzled so any recuperation of assets from the SNP would fall on him. Sturgeon is now aware that some items of jewellery as gifts given to her were paid for by embezzled funds.

Hopefully she has the gumption and the insight to make recompense to the SNP for the value of these items. Value of second hand jewellery is less than purchase price and inflation of embezzlement funds has increased SNP budget loss. Thus reputationally, I would suggest it would be better for Sturgeon to recompense SNP by original value plus compound inflation interest.

Second hand jewellery with this jewellery's history and ownership is likely to fetch far in excess of its base worth. Likewise other items paid for by funds embezzled by Murrell could fetch inflated prices if auctioned.

Really?! Goodness there really is 'nowt so queer as folk'

The provenance of any item may increase its value, and is often the case with jewellery that has "celebrity provenance".

Second hand jewellery in normal circumstances absolutely does not achieve a price far in excess of its original cost.

Personally I do not think there is a large market waiting and willing to buy a few items of jewellery from Nicola Sturgeon knowing it belonged to her and knowing it was purchased by her husband with embezzled SNP funds- its hardly an attractive investment or an attractive 'provenance'

I stand by my view it would be much better for NS to donate the purchase price of said jewellery items plus inflation uplift to SNP.

Everything else is down to her husband and he should make the recompense.

I don't see why any monies raised from goods Murrell embezzled should be given to the SNP. It was the SNP's lack of effective governance and Sturgeon's dogged unwillingness to listen to those who were warning of irregularities in the SNP's accounts that allowed Murrell to embezzle and cost the taxpayer £2million. Maybe the SNP could reimburse the tax payer.

LemonJam

Premium price for second hand jewellery is usually because of the previous owner's legendary fashion or style icon status, royal status, Hollywood star status, a global trendsetter or a cultural trail blazer.

An ex politician whose husband was convicted of embezzlement doesn't quite cut it to fetch a premium price.

She's rather more than an ex-politician

I can’t imagine she will ever want to wear it again, regardless of the residual value. Nor do I think anybody would wear something with pleasure that they had treasured because they thought it was a gift from their husband, once they found out he had used embezzled money to buy it. She may have known about other items, but I don’t think she knew about how the necklace was funded.

Premium price for second hand jewellery is usually because of the previous owner's legendary fashion or style icon status, royal status, Hollywood star status, a global trendsetter or a cultural trail blazer.

An ex politician whose husband was convicted of embezzlement doesn't quite cut it to fetch a premium price.

OldFrill

Rosie51

OldFrill

LemonJam

25Avalon

It seems the house which was jointly owned will have to be sold or Nicola will have to buy his half so that the monies go towards repayment for that which Murrell embezelled. Maybe she will have to hand over the pendant as well.

If and when they divorce, the equity value of the marital home, as a joint asset, with no children, is almost certainly going to be split 50/50.

Thus he has his divorce settlement and she has hers. Murrell embezzled so any recuperation of assets from the SNP would fall on him. Sturgeon is now aware that some items of jewellery as gifts given to her were paid for by embezzled funds.

Hopefully she has the gumption and the insight to make recompense to the SNP for the value of these items. Value of second hand jewellery is less than purchase price and inflation of embezzlement funds has increased SNP budget loss. Thus reputationally, I would suggest it would be better for Sturgeon to recompense SNP by original value plus compound inflation interest.

Second hand jewellery with this jewellery's history and ownership is likely to fetch far in excess of its base worth. Likewise other items paid for by funds embezzled by Murrell could fetch inflated prices if auctioned.

Really?! Goodness there really is 'nowt so queer as folk'

The provenance of any item may increase its value, and is often the case with jewellery that has "celebrity provenance".

Second hand jewellery in normal circumstances absolutely does not achieve a price far in excess of its original cost.

Personally I do not think there is a large market waiting and willing to buy a few items of jewellery from Nicola Sturgeon knowing it belonged to her and knowing it was purchased by her husband with embezzled SNP funds- its hardly an attractive investment or an attractive 'provenance'

I stand by my view it would be much better for NS to donate the purchase price of said jewellery items plus inflation uplift to SNP.

Everything else is down to her husband and he should make the recompense.

Rosie51

OldFrill

LemonJam

25Avalon

It seems the house which was jointly owned will have to be sold or Nicola will have to buy his half so that the monies go towards repayment for that which Murrell embezelled. Maybe she will have to hand over the pendant as well.

If and when they divorce, the equity value of the marital home, as a joint asset, with no children, is almost certainly going to be split 50/50.

Thus he has his divorce settlement and she has hers. Murrell embezzled so any recuperation of assets from the SNP would fall on him. Sturgeon is now aware that some items of jewellery as gifts given to her were paid for by embezzled funds.

Hopefully she has the gumption and the insight to make recompense to the SNP for the value of these items. Value of second hand jewellery is less than purchase price and inflation of embezzlement funds has increased SNP budget loss. Thus reputationally, I would suggest it would be better for Sturgeon to recompense SNP by original value plus compound inflation interest.

Second hand jewellery with this jewellery's history and ownership is likely to fetch far in excess of its base worth. Likewise other items paid for by funds embezzled by Murrell could fetch inflated prices if auctioned.

Really?! Goodness there really is 'nowt so queer as folk'

The provenance of any item may increase its value, and is often the case with jewellery that has "celebrity provenance".

OldFrill

LemonJam

25Avalon

It seems the house which was jointly owned will have to be sold or Nicola will have to buy his half so that the monies go towards repayment for that which Murrell embezelled. Maybe she will have to hand over the pendant as well.

If and when they divorce, the equity value of the marital home, as a joint asset, with no children, is almost certainly going to be split 50/50.

Thus he has his divorce settlement and she has hers. Murrell embezzled so any recuperation of assets from the SNP would fall on him. Sturgeon is now aware that some items of jewellery as gifts given to her were paid for by embezzled funds.

Hopefully she has the gumption and the insight to make recompense to the SNP for the value of these items. Value of second hand jewellery is less than purchase price and inflation of embezzlement funds has increased SNP budget loss. Thus reputationally, I would suggest it would be better for Sturgeon to recompense SNP by original value plus compound inflation interest.

Second hand jewellery with this jewellery's history and ownership is likely to fetch far in excess of its base worth. Likewise other items paid for by funds embezzled by Murrell could fetch inflated prices if auctioned.

Really?! Goodness there really is 'nowt so queer as folk'

Ignore last post 'giving' was correct 😂

giving should read given. I can't blame autocorrect as I'm on the laptop 🫢

LemonJam

25Avalon

It seems the house which was jointly owned will have to be sold or Nicola will have to buy his half so that the monies go towards repayment for that which Murrell embezelled. Maybe she will have to hand over the pendant as well.

If and when they divorce, the equity value of the marital home, as a joint asset, with no children, is almost certainly going to be split 50/50.

Thus he has his divorce settlement and she has hers. Murrell embezzled so any recuperation of assets from the SNP would fall on him. Sturgeon is now aware that some items of jewellery as gifts given to her were paid for by embezzled funds.

Hopefully she has the gumption and the insight to make recompense to the SNP for the value of these items. Value of second hand jewellery is less than purchase price and inflation of embezzlement funds has increased SNP budget loss. Thus reputationally, I would suggest it would be better for Sturgeon to recompense SNP by original value plus compound inflation interest.

Second hand jewellery with this jewellery's history and ownership is likely to fetch far in excess of its base worth. Likewise other items paid for by funds embezzled by Murrell could fetch inflated prices if auctioned.

Blind man!

No, and when four (?) accounts people resigned from the SNP a bind man on a galloping horse would have taken notice.