Why shouldn’t I water my grass in a heatwave?

What should I do with my grass during a heatwave?

Peter Murrell wasn’t even locked up in his cell at Saughton (we hope it’s the same one as Craig Murray’s) when the chump-suckering resumed.

And as the Nicola Sturgeon Loyal, led by her most faithful of lieutenants, set out to try to take control of the post-conviction narrative, let’s take a look at just what a boatload of bare-faced bullshit the above is.

Everyone in Scotland, not just the SNP’s members or independence supporters, was a victim of Peter Murrell’s crimes. For a start because Operation Branchform cost close to £3 million of public money, dwarfing the £400,000 Murrell pinched to spend on a houseful of frou-frou knick-knacks. (The police bill alone of over £2m does not include the Crown Office’s costs.)

But even the cash directly trousered by Murrell didn’t just belong to SNP members. The pot of party funds he pilfered it from was filled from three main revenue streams:

(1) SNP members’ membership fees and donations

(2) UK taxpayer funding, the large bulk of the SNP’s income

(3) Money donated by the wider independence movement to two fundraisers which ultimately triggered Murrell’s arrest, which were supposedly “ringfenced” for an “Independence Referendum Campaign Fund” but in fact just disappeared into the SNP’s general treasury and from there into Murrell’s pockets.

That last one, incidentally, remains an unanswered question. The two fundraisers combined raised almost £700,000 but Murrell only copped a plea for misappropriating £400,000 of it, and the rest remains unaccounted for.

We know it was spent years ago because as far back as October 2020 there was only £97,000 left in the party’s bank account, and the SNP has tried a whole string of absurd madcap excuses to explain away the fact that it was plainly, demonstrably and fraudulently frittered away on lavish and wasteful general party spending – the exact thing they angrily insisted WOULDN’T happen.

Operation Branchform started as an inquiry into the missing fundraiser cash but then morphed into a wider embezzlement one, leaving the original complaints unresolved. The former has a different and narrower group of victims to the latter, and they still deserve answers, not from Peter Murrell but from Nicola Sturgeon and her then-deputy John Swinney.

But it looks like they’re ontae plums.

Sturgeon’s girlboss fanclub have pulled out all the stops to excuse her.

But Sturgeon quite literally WAS responsible.

Not because she was Murrell’s wife and £80,000 of very pricey Amazon parcels were piling up, unnoticed by her, in the kitchen they ostensibly shared (although we’re told that their marriage was such a facade that neighbours referred to the house as “The Prop”), but because she was his boss – and as such had a direct fiduciary duty to party members to stop him doing what he did – and because she personally signed off the accounts from which hundreds of thousands of pounds were missing.

Sturgeon can’t even plead simple ignorance, because she didn’t just direct enquiries to the party’s auditors. She repeatedly, actively and personally asserted, in public and in private, that there was NO missing money and that the party’s finances were in rude health and anyone suggesting otherwise would be for the high jump.

?

?

Murrell’s activities might have gone unnoticed by the auditors (whose remit is very narrow and technical), but you didn’t need to be an accountant to see that the money simply wasn’t there, you only had to be able to read.

If Wings, a humble website run by an idiot, could spot it in 2020 – by the simple act of noticing that 97 is a smaller number than 700 – then the party’s leader, whose legal responsibility it was, certainly could and should have.

That is something that still needs explaining after Murrell’s conviction. Two people – Sturgeon and treasurer Colin Beattie – both signed off on accounts that were clearly and obviously dodgy to even an amateur eye, and it’s difficult to tell why neither has yet been charged with any crime.

The most plausible explanation – which came to us from a senior former SNP source yesterday – is that the Crown Office, having already suffered an embarrassing defeat over Alex Salmond, didn’t want to risk being seen to have mounted two expensive and unsuccessful prosecutions of SNP First Ministers in a row.

But even if we leave aside for a moment the questionable neutrality of an organisation headed by a person who is also a Scottish Government minister and answerable to the FM, the state of the Crown Office’s delicate ego is not an adequate reason to abandon valid complaints about serious crimes.

Yesterday morning Sturgeon – “The people’s QUEEN, living her best life” – affected a breezy air, posting holiday snaps on Instagram along with a personal statement about how sad and shocked and etc she was over Murrell’s crimes.

She ended the statement with the words “I will be making no further comment”. So anyone previously familiar with her track record on promises therefore wouldn’t have been surprised when it was followed just hours later with a further comment.

While the first had been in her own name, the second statement was lawyered up. It was issued by semi-celebrity lawyer, publicity aficionado and political activist Aamer Anwar, and backed up by a threatening email Anwar sent to much of Scotland’s media.

We say “threatening”, but on close inspection it’s got about as much legal menace as a TV Licence reminder. If the media fail to delete defamatory comments by readers or viewers, it says, Anwar is instructed to “consider” legal action or – oh no! – complaints to the toothless press watchdog IPSO.

Also, the threat carries with it a tantalising proposition – any legal action brought by Sturgeon for defamation would result in her having to appear in the witness box and be cross-examined in forensic detail by the defendant’s lawyer about what she did and didn’t know. You could make a fortune selling tickets to such an event, and Sturgeon’s usual “I don’t remember” approach to questioning, as seen during the Salmond and COVID inquiries, wouldn’t cut much ice.

Yesterday also revealed something we were told by an unimpeachable source two years ago, but couldn’t talk about while Sturgeon was still under investigation for fear of contempt charges – the fact that despite claiming to have “fully co-operated” with police when she was arrested, she in fact turned her chair to the wall and didn’t say a word for seven hours. She is of course legally entitled to remain silent, but it’s a very stretched definition of the word “co-operating”.

(Just as it had been when she publicly pledged to give the Salmond inquiry anything it asked for, and then, in conjunction with John Swinney, directly obstructed it and refused to hand over documents on almost 60 separate occasions.)

For the record, and for the reasons already stated above, it is absolutely this website’s belief that Nicola Sturgeon knew there was money missing from the SNP’s accounts, and that she was lying when she said otherwise, and furthermore that she dishonestly fronted a fundraising campaign while knowing that she had no intention whatsoever of “ringfencing” the resulting money. Mr Anwar knows where to find us.

Today, the SNP will attempt to deflect from the scandal with another performative vote in Holyrood about demanding a second indyref, secure in the certain knowledge that it’ll fail.  John Swinney will attempt to alchemise the Parliamentary arithmetic into the “100% guaranteed” referendum he said would result from an SNP majority, despite the fact that he didn’t achieve one.

He won’t have any more luck than Sturgeon did when she pulled the same stunt twice before (in 2017 and 2020) then quietly scuttled off when Westminster said no, and no more luck than donors to the SNP’s “ringfenced Independence Referendum Campaign Fund” will have at getting either their stolen money or their dreams back.

Although by this time next year, both he on his First Minister’s salary, and Sturgeon on her fat book advance and other lucrative income streams, will indeed be millionaires.

Rivals actor Luca Pasqualino has revealed he came close to landing a major role in a very different British show that has also gone on to become a huge hit internationally.

During a recent interview with HuffPost UK to promote the new episodes of the Jilly Cooper bonkbuster, Luca was asked if there was an audition he missed out on earlier on in his career that still “haunts” him today, to which he admitted that there was “definitely” one that came immediately to mind for him.

“One that I got really, really close to that sort of sticks out was Ted Lasso,” he explained, before sharing that he’d tried out to play striker Jamie Tartt in the Apple TV+ series.

“I got down to [the last few], went and met Jason Sudeikis, had two tests for it, and I was so close. But my friend Phil Dunster, he got the part in the end. And he was so good.”

Luca continued: “If you watch [something that you’ve auditioned for] and the person who gets it is really awful or whatever, it makes you feel worse.

“But [Phil] was so good, it’s like, ‘OK, fine, I get it. This is going to be an easier pill to swallow’.”

Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy ahead of the Labour Party Conference in 2023 (PA Images / Alamy)

6 min read1 hr

At a launch in central London at the start of last year, Lisa Nandy outlined her mission to create jobs and spread influence globally. Rather than cite the work of the Foreign Office or the use of international aid, she instead championed Peaky Blinders and Adele.

Joining her at the launch was the then-foreign secretary David Lammy – a true believer in the power of soft power, brought in to reinvigorate and reinvent the work of the Foreign Office – and 26 leaders in the arts, culture and sports sector.

It wasn’t quite ‘Cool Britannia’ but it seemed to those involved that this was a moment – like the early years of the Blair government – where the country’s leadership in those fields might be fully leveraged to national advantage.

But less than 18 months later, the so-called Soft Power Council is drifting towards oblivion, having not met in full for at least seven months and with many members believing it is doomed.

Why did it fail? Reshuffles both at ministerial and official level and spending cuts are part of the answer.

At its launch, Lammy outlined a manifesto to take advantage of the UK’s huge cultural pull, and the potential power of using it for Britain’s national interest.

“Soft power is fundamental to the UK’s impact and reputation around the world,” he said. “I am often struck by the enormous love and respect which our music, sport… and institutions generate on every continent. But we have not taken a sufficiently strategic approach to these huge assets as a country. Harnessing soft power effectively can help to build relationships, deepen trust, enhance our security and drive economic growth.”

To many, Lammy’s remarks were a signal for welcome change in the department. Allies of Lammy had continually voiced frustration in years previously about the quality of government work on soft power. Under the previous government, too often it was cobbled together at the last minute, or treated as an afterthought.

One founding member says: “I thought the council was a great idea. There was an urgency about it and a sense that the government gets that it is a new era. While the UK needs to build up its hard power, we also still need to make best use of everything we have.”

However, early cuts to international aid and funding trouble at the British Council meant that some believed that the goals were being undermined.

Baroness Chapman, a Foreign Office minister and supporter of soft power work, was simultaneously having to champion its promotion while also being the face of controversial international aid cuts.

Despite the rocky start, council members were still optimistic about the work. Lord Mendoza – the Conservative peer and former Boris Johnson appointee behind the controversial ‘retain and explain’ guidance for contentious statues, monuments and artefacts following the toppling of the Colston statue in 2020 – was very supportive upon the council’s creation.

A council member tells The House that the creation of the body was genuinely groundbreaking: “It is the first time we see a government properly co-ordinating expertise across a broad range of key sectors, like culture, creative, sports, education and science and technology to steer and advise on policy and action.”

Insiders point to the reshuffle of September 2025, and the move of Lammy to justice as the inflection point, which saw the council tip into inactivity.

Another council member says: “It was clearly an initiative that Lisa Nandy and David Lammy worked on, thought of and launched. Their personalities were very prominent at the start of the Soft Power Council; we haven’t had the same rhythm of meeting and engagement since the reshuffle.”

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper was scheduled to attend the latest meeting in Belfast in October but dropped out just before and was replaced by DCMS minister Ian Murray. Another meeting was organised but abruptly cancelled, meaning the full Soft Power Council has not met in seven months.

“We’re still waiting for a signal that they think this is worthwhile. We’ve had some great ministerial meetings but we haven’t had the same one twice – we’re showing up and we’d like the government to.”

It’s clearly a low priority

Advertisement

Another member says the council has been “neglected” since Cooper took over, and was “clearly a low priority for her”.

“There’s been a hell of a lot to deal with and it’s not at the top of [Cooper’s] priority list, but it would be good to retain the soft power we have.”

Shortly after the reshuffle, the senior civil servant responsible for soft power left the Civil Service, further robbing momentum from the initiative.

An outside contractor was also brought in to assess the success of a soft power strategy altogether. In the meantime, almost all work has ceased. 

One member tells The House: “Where we are at is that it currently feels on hold.”

Much of the ire among council members is directed at Cooper. One council member says: “We would like the current Foreign Secretary to take more of an interest. If you’re involved in this field of work you can see a future where we are marginal.”

Another agrees: “I think [Cooper] hasn’t made a decision, but it’s clearly a low priority”.

While Cooper’s arrival has triggered criticism, Nandy’s inaction since its launch has caused some previously supportive members of the council to turn on her.

“She’s been a complete disappointment. She seems to have no interest in culture whatsoever.”

A government spokesman did not deny the senior departures from the FCDO, or the lack of meetings for over half a year, but claimed the group did contribute to recent cultural visits to China and India.

They said: “The soft power they deliver is creating growth and strengthening our reputation at home and abroad. We are committed to doing all we can to further their reach, as well as promoting the English language overseas.”

With the government on the rocks and political capital quickly waning, the likelihood of a reinvigoration for the council seems low – especially when discussions around hard power and the Defence Investment Plan have become so terse. 

“It’s one of the few effective things created by this government,” one of the council members mused. “Which means they’ll probably kill it.”

An irony of the pause is that while the government has gone cold on the Soft Power Council, foreign nations are taking an increased interest. Members have met and worked with representatives of Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and Oman in recent months, all of whom have taken an interest in the work of the council and replicating it in their own nations.

Meanwhile, some members thought the work of the council could aid the government in one of the problems which led to its freeze: domestic politics.

Council member Vivienne Stern believes that its work should expand into the UK, rather than retract internationally: “This country is in a national funk – you look at the polls… people feel pessimistic. What the Soft Power Council does is bring together a list of reasons to be optimistic. We should lean on it domestically more.”