SNP praised for responsible approach to campaigning during pandemic with modest, basic, ordinary, low-cost camper van

News, sadly for us, is often the result of utterly cynical choices about what and how to report, for maximum effect and not for the truth.

First is the SNP camper van ‘state-of-the-art’ or ‘high-end?’

According to the evidence below, the above camper van was bought for just over £80 000 in 2021. It’s hardly ‘state-of-the-art’ or ‘high-end’, given that you can pay up to $3 million for the Marchi Mobile EleMMent Palazzo. Even within the Niesmann + Bischoff motorhome range, the really high-end ones cost as much as £180 000!

Why was it bought? ‘Down the page’, the Daily Record gives us the positive, accurate, slant absent from the headlines and the opposition party frothing:

An SNP source told the Record the motorhome had been bought during the pandemic for use in the Holyrood election campaign in the spring of 2021.

On January 4 of that year, Sturgeon said her Government had decided to introduce another lockdown for January.

Restrictions were strengthened in the middle of the same month.

The SNP source said the Covid rules had been up in the air and the party saw the motorhome as an option if the restrictions were tight.

They said: “The campervan was about trying to have an ability to campaign while complying with the rules. It would have acted as a mobile campaign room.

“It would mean not having a need for hotels and minimise mixing.”

Now, was that not good thinking and socially responsible in a way utterly alien to the other parties?

What did the other parties plan? They don’t campaign on the streets much. They’ll just use donor money to pay for mailshots and Facebook posts.


50 thoughts on “SNP praised for responsible approach to campaigning during pandemic with modest, basic, ordinary, low-cost camper van

      1. No mystery here. The 2021 SNP accounts publicly available at the Electoral Commission web site record in the balance sheet a vehicle as a fixed asset valued at £80,632. This balance sheet entry is of course for an owned asset of this value not an expenditure, that will be accounted for elsewhere.

        Liked by 4 people

  1. Ah BUTT, the £90,000,000,000 squandered by the truss government.

    They should have stored the van properly it’s not designed to be outdoors you know.

    Don’t expect to see this in the local englander controlled media.
    It doesn’t fit in with the agenda.

    See the rich cynic says he doesn’t see an end to the boat people crossing the Channel, reasons reasons.

    Can we really believe that the economic figures from Hunt that says we’re in the sunny uplands?

    Liked by 4 people

  2. SNP corrupt,SNP wings clipped they have to go through GB embassies before they can speak to foreign Governments these headlines from the Scottish Mail, dont they realize this just makes us more determined to get independence or are they just stupid.
    Have you noticed we have not seen or heard from the Tory MSP Doctor for a while is he spending more time in his surgery and what about Stephen Kerr being stupid again.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. So did they really CONfiscate the camper van and where is it now? I’m surprised they didn’t look through Nicola’s nicker drawer to see if there was any designer stuff. Of course it all has an effect, the old folks in care homes, watching the BBC will be tut tutting, and others who are inclined to laziness by claiming, ‘they are all the same these politicians’. The BritNatz state is spooked, so they will conjure all sorts of stuff to demonise the SNP, there’s an election in the foreseeable, so Brit staff must be very busy indeed.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. I’m sorry, but even if correct this was still not a good use of funds. The spokesman said ‘for use in the Holyrood election campaign’ NOT for use in independence referendum campaign, which if you recall was the way the YES fund was marketed. First it was ‘ring fenced’ then it changed to ‘earmarked’ but this was not supposed to be SNP money, but indyref money. This was money obtained not just from party members but from the general public and that could include Labour for Independence members, Independence supporting Tories (if there is such a thing) – anyone. You can’t just repurpose or reallocate money for something like this. It’s a shame that the movement is in the situation we find ourselves presently, but closing our eyes or trying to convince ourselves is not the way to deal with the reality of our situation. There should be no way that £600,000 has to be found somewhere in accounts – it should be as easy to find and follow as the wee girl in the red dress in Schindler’s List. It’s an awful lot of money.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You can repurpose money, that’s the thing. In all my years of working, the term ‘ring fencing’ has been proven to be utter bollocks. A simple board meeting could have decided to repurpose money for whatever the priority was at the time. It probably states in their constitution that this is acceptable. I have given £££s to the independence cause and I’m not bothered if they used it. If Mr Murrell has not been charged after months of investigating, I assume they don’t have a case against him. 🤷‍♀️

      Liked by 2 people

      1. It’s to do with perception. I saw the fund I tried to contribute but the site had an error but it was sti[ulated that the money raised was ringfenced for an independence referendum. I’m no fraud expert but I don’t think that a fraudster tells you that they might repurpose the money. Not that I am referring to this matter here. Is still think that that £600,000 should be easy to find in accounts – don’t you?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. WT do you have a copy of the actual and full wording of the fundraiser? It’s odd that this doesn’t seem to have been republished in recent weeks.

      From another context but perhaps of general interest, namely the charity sector, in fund raising there is much written about restricted and unrestricted funds gained from fundraising activities. See the Charity Commission (?) and legal firms’ websites,

      Wording used in a charity’s fundraiser is critical, legally. The terms may refer to a secondary or wider objective/s in acknowledgment that the prime objective may not be capable of being advanced for reasons beyond the charity’ control.

      I have been unable to find the actual wording of the controversial fundraiser.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. No I don’t Stewart and I have to say that is irrelevant. £600,000 should be easy to find somewhere in accounts. I like your articles, they are very informative but here you are just wearing blinkers. I do know about restricted and unrestricted funds and this is not relevant here. If we cannot criticise our leaders if we cannot put them under the same microscope as we do others then we are lying to ourselves. and I’m afraid that’s what we are doing here. You say, “WT do you have a copy of the actual and full wording of the fundraiser? It’s odd that this doesn’t seem to have been republished in recent weeks.” I say again, no I don’t but ask the SNP. I remember the wording I saw the wording I saw it change but I don’t keep a copy of everything I read on the internet – do you? And while we are at it (fopr other readers really) do yuo have a copy of the wording? do you have a copy of the internet page? No. So why should I?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Nicola murrell twice assured us that the money would not be used for any other purpose. It was in the papers at the time. Stop pretending this is anything other than theft by her and her pervert beard.


    3. But if the SNP is not re-elected to Government in Scotland how do you go about getting independence?

      From the audited accounts for 2021 published in Aug 2022

      “”Referendum Appeal
      By 31 December 2021, a total of £740,822 had been raised through the independence related appeals. These donations are also included in – and have been reconciled with – the total amount for donationsincluded in Party accountsfrom 2017 to 2021. Up until 31 December 2021 a total of £253,335 of expenditure had been applied against this income. The balance remains “earmarked” for independence related campaigning.

      Of course, the SNP is the party of independence and, as such, every action we take – directly or indirectly – is in support of winning independence. However, we continue to take a very strict approach to ensuring that this income supports expenditure directly related to the campaign for independence. We will ensure that an amount equivalent to the sums raised from these appeals will go directly to our work to secure a referendum and win independence.””

      Liked by 1 person

    4. ‘Even if correct’? Who are you to judge?
      As for the amount, it’s tiny compared to what the Tories earn in their second and third ‘jobs’, we saw how much they take via the Led by Donkeys Investigation recently, it’s ‘an awful lot if money’ indeed, and certainly not all above board to say the least. We all know the BritNat state are determined to take down the SNP
      before the next election, this orchestrated theatre for their media outfits is so obviously a set up. The £millions that the BritNatz take from dodgy folk to influence government in London is an absolute disgrace. That’s where the police should be raiding Tory houses and offices.
      It’s the SNP who are seen as the enemy of the BritNat state, fascism is on the rise and it’s utterly terrifying.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Theft is theft. Conspiring to imprison an innocent man is evil. Destroying the infrastructure of Scotland is rank stupidity.

        If you don’t want people to call you a cult then don’t act like one.


    5. To get Independence you need a large Independence Government , so by being able to campaign during Covid ,to-get a Government that supports Independence and that was in the manifesto except English Court denied Scotland Democracy . As someone who donated to the fund I have no problem with some of the funds to be used to get an SNP Government in Holyrood ,if you don’t then it’s goodbye Indy for good . Was a reasonable use of the funds as far as I’m concerned if that’s what happened .

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Glenn and Juan—“The SNP have a high-end van they PAID for”!
    Frothing outrage and pearl-clutching “journalism” we have come to expect from the colonial North Brit BEEB.
    Was it decorated by gold wallpaper? No?— what is wrong with these people.

    I was personally peeved that the disturbed and disturbing Liz Truss had us pay £4000 for a Jenga lectern for a paltry 5 minutes of use—indeed EVERY Tory Premier seems to have us buy a new one.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Well they didn’t buy a yacht or a jet plane they don’t get to buy a house on us in Edinburgh and get it furnished and staffed all at public expense the way those corrupt people in Westminster do.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Seen this headline.

    BREAKING: High Court finds Government PPE ‘VIP’ lane for politically connected suppliers ‘unlawful’

    I wonder if Campbell will be all over this.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Going by what has happened in the motor trade, will we be unhappy if they sell the motor home for a big profit?

    Has it been SORNed, ie untaxed and off the road, in a driveway.


  9. Just another quick word about the effing van – eighty grand and it hasn’t moved, is that a good way to spend money? A two year old vehicle, one owner still loses money. Bad investment. If any of you want to invest in the future a better future, rather than the link from Bob Agassi above can i suggest that you and I really do appeal to you to pop a fiver or anything into this fundraiser:


    1. When the corruption down in Tory Westminster is fully investigated, when the actual evidence is there for all to see, dodgy Russian money, literally £BILLIONS of public money wasted on PPE etc, even burning tons of the PPE , they may as well have burned the £BILLIONS of public money in the street. Covid lockdown parties, and when those who stole the money to hand to their pals are taken in for questioning for twelve hours, and their houses and mansions are raided, and property confiscated, come back to us about the SNP.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. What baffles me is that over the recent weeks of Mr Murrell accusations there was no mention of a motorhome by any of the SNP MPs or MSPs are we to believe they knew nothing of the purchase or are we to believe they knew of the purchase but didn’t ever question why it was purchased by SNP or where the money came from , ow come we have all these SNP MPs and MSPs who are silent don’t they have opinions or are they afraid to speak out or covering up , how would we know we only get news from untrustworthy sources like BBC , is that in itself not a good reason for these SNP MPs and MSPs to be news broadcasters for us.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Why would the MSPs etc necessarily know about the motorhome? Do they know about every paperclip, ream of paper, printer ink etc bought by the admin part of the party?


        1. Good point , perhaps I would not know about every paper clip in the business I worked for but if the boss or the bosses husband was interviewed by the police I am sure someone in the business would know about a motorhome and would perhaps mention it and from there the word would spread.What we see here is a motorhome worth nearly a hundred thousand pounds don’t compare it to a paper clip , im sure some of our MPs and MSPs knew of the motorhome and how it was purchased if not why not don’t they want to know why and how a hundred thousand pounds is spent on a single item ? and if the knew about the purchase as I suspect most of them did , why the silence , not even a peep through the usual grapevine communication you get in big organisations and I mean for and against the purchase , what we get in Scotland is trash untrustworthy news from BBC and silence from those who are meant to be on our side.

          Liked by 1 person

  10. This isn’t satire? The van cost over £100K – £80 is after one years depreciation. Is it responsible to retain an unused asset, which is costing you money to insure and tax, while you are having to borrow £107,620 from your CEO.


  11. The whitaboutery in circulation over SNP finances went past being ridiculous long ago – eg
    – The preposterous argument over what “ring fenced funds” means should extend to the banks with whom these are deposited ?
    – The “SNP source told the Record” who gave justification for buying the camper van should have mentioned Indy ?

    The SNP’s financial affairs have been subjected to more scrutiny than any other political party in UK history, yet the mischief makers insist all is not as it seems ?

    It’s nuts….

    That’s a nice camper van by the way…

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The SNP accounts passed the litmus test for any business or corporation. Signed off by the auditors and accepted by HMRC unless of course one of the accusers is HMRC but I think we would have known about that.
    WT says ” I should know better ” why that should be I don’t know. What I do know is if this £600,000 was put in a bank account and left there it would be worth a lot less in procurement terms than it was at the time of collection. I would expect that money to have been invested over short and medium term and I will be angry if that is not what was done. Think Norway fund.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. And if memory serves correctly, on two separate occasions when the question over these Indy funds were raised, the auditors confirmed the funds were present, correct and available.

      The reason this keeps coming up is simple enough, the propaganda game – I cannot blame those convinced by it as the entire operation is geared nowadays to individual profiling, Brexit being a perfect example, some of whom will go to their graves entirely convinced of falsehoods.
      I’ve lately clashed with a normally intelligent individual entirely convinced the GRA reforms were wrong, but absolutely nothing can shift her from that perspective.

      I don’t understand the detail of how the manipulation works, but it appears to involve the age old favourite of suspicion, and the modern means of targeting individuals to a personalised nudge in the desired direction.

      I really don’t know the truth over the 600k nor frankly care, but I do prefer professionals verifying what they have found over a “Grim Squeaker” algorithm whispering in my ear or HMS James Cook..

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.