Best Of

'Nicola Sturgeon has told the BBC she feels like she is "serving a sentence for a crime I did not commit", after her estranged husband admitted embezzling £400,000 from the SNP, the party she led for years.

In an exclusive interview with Laura Kuenssberg, Scotland's former first minister refused to apologise for the scandal and struggled to hold back tears, recalling gifts from Peter Murrell that turned out to have been purchased with stolen money.

Sturgeon told the BBC: "I am not responsible for the crimes that my former husband committed and I'm not going to apologise for somebody else's crimes."

She has consistently denied any knowledge of Murrell's wrongdoing, committed between 2010 and 2022.

The former first minister was not charged following a police investigation.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2027k1ev3zo

"I think I'm the real victim here."

OK. Let's for the sake of argument accept that she did not know that her husband was embezzling SNP campaign funds, the question that should be put to her is why was it that anyone in the SNP who asked questions about where the money was going was crushed, their careers effectively ended.

Kemi is lowering standards, ferfuxake, what a terrible idea.

Builders as Tory MPs? I mean no wonder she keeps on getting mullered in elections.

Badenoch: I want teachers and builders to become Tory MPs

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/30/badenoch-want-teachers-builders-future-tory-mps/

'Future Tory candidate selection, she said, would focus on the five C’s – cleverness, charisma, communication skills, conviction and Conservatism.

“I will not allow people who do not share our beliefs to use the Conservative Party as a vehicle to further their personal ambitions,” she added.'

What is capital C Conservatism? People have very different ideas about that.

Thesedays around half the people who might be interested in Conservatism are more excited by Reform - never mind if they are conservative or Conservative.

Will they have to provide certification for cleverness, whatever that is as she palpapbly can't according to US sources

Will she have yo evidence she has any charisma, she has none.

Will they only communicate on Twitter like her?

Will they have the conviction to deny saying she wanted to go to war with US v Iran when she definitely did, or will you need a conviction for web hacking?

FFS

She makes Truss look like Theresa

Kemi is a software engineer and systems analyst not a lawyer or PPE or Humanities graduate so I suppose she wants some more practical people like her

FINALLY...Kemi brags about being an Engineer!

The word has connertations of the Golden Industrai era, a Golden technology age, hands dirty in oil.

But NO

"Kemi is a software engineer and systems analyst "

That is plain English (at the very low level of work experience she had is)...

"I'm sorry your Computer is not working please turn it off at the plg, count to 30 and see if it works, if it doesn't ring the IT Call Centre back and me or one of my 200 colleagues sat in this old warehouse will tell you to do the same again"

The Kemi-hate is strong with this one.

As is the misogyny.

The treble-chin-and-gin ignorance is of note. The belief that IT is just about “make my Excel work” is why many U.K. software startups end up seeking US investment.

Software "engineers" are not Engineers.

Are electronics engineers "engineers"?

You can be accredited to the Engineering Council as a software engineer, Chartered institute for IT (formerly BCS).

As a software engineer, qualified Engineer, and a practised mechanical “engineer” (built multiple steam boilers to certified standard etc) - the whole “Engineer as a qualification” thing is an American import.

We should use "Eng" in the same way as "Dr" as a title, reserved for those with CEng status.

We could take a similar approach for those with a PPE qualification, and use the title "Twat".

Eng Twat S. Rentool has a ring to it.

We must stop being in hock only to the bond markets.

No one voted for the bond markets.

https://x.com/ZackPolanski/status/2060784820058235342

They pretty much did vote for them, when they voted in Governments who spent more than they took in tax.

Indeed.

Consistently run a budget surplus and there's little the bond markets can or will do.

Yes.
Any ideas how to do that and be re elected?

Seriously?
Go in, day 1, do it. Take an axe to spending left right and centre. In particular, axe some whole programs, rather than trying to trim everything.

Welfare, pensions etc goes in the blender, comes out cheaper and less wide ranging.

Bin most of the MOD, sack all the procurement staff, buy standard kit wherever possible. It's apparent we've no meaningful capability left anyway, so why are we wasting all the cash?

Same time, bonfire of regulation, and get the entire tax code down to 4 sides of A4 at 11 point text. Simple, straightforward taxation. Tax consumption rather than employment as far as possible.

Explain that it's going to be painful, that the payoff won't be instant, but it will all be worth it.

Grit your teeth and get on with it for 4 years, hopefully without too many riots. With any luck, by then your deregulation and tax simplification will start to get the economy motoring, and your fiscal position is improving substantially. Use some of your accumulated savings to pay for tax cuts as you approach the GE.

Also - be straight and level with people about what you're doing and why. Avoid scandals, drop any misbehaving MPs instantly. Ensure no one has a just cause against you, other than a dislike of your actual policies.

Do all that, and you'll be hitting Starmer levels of popularity in years 2-3, but should bounce back magnificently as the payoff starts to occur.

Serious cuts to welfare are guaranteed to tank the economy because every penny of that gets spent on consumption. That coupled with a rapid shift to consumption taxes would cause a depression-level recession.

Almost certainly not. Keynesian economics, though excellent for doing what it was designed to do, namely dealing with recessions caused by shocks to the financial system, has nothing to say about our current economic problem, which is a supply side strangled by over-regulation and over-taxation.

A credible commitment to welfare cuts would reduce interest rates as the financial markets realise the government is finally serious about controlling spending, and increase the labour supply as scroungers were forced to go back to work.

The huge increase in business confidence would get investment going again.

There is a precedent for this - the 1979-1981 budgets tightly controlled public spending, reduced income tax and doubled VAT. And, in a famous letter to The Times after the 1981 budget, 364 Keynesian economists predicted a depression-level recession for exactly those reasons. (Though in fairness an equally large number supported the government).

Instead, the economy started to grow again from the next quarter (see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/pn2), and eventually boomed.

Though there are differences between now and then (in particular, headline inflation is much lower than in the late 1970s, so we don't need the very high nominal interest rates of the period) hat's what the economy is crying out for now.

New rules, which come into force this week, will allow benefits claimants aged 25 and over to receive PIP awards for four years after an initial assessment, and then a further six years after a review. Under the current system, claimants face reviews as often as every nine months.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/30/starmer-makes-easier-stay-on-benefits/

This news depresses me enough to claim PIP.

It is only a phone call away

The vocal ‘scrap the triple lock’ brigade are always very quiet about the other side of the benefits bill.

PiP is about 9% of welfare spending, state pension about 45%. You can, and should, clamp down on PiP fraud, but it's never going to save you much compared to pensions.

I’m talking about all non pension welfare.

Fine at the moment but the rate of increase is worrying and this chart worries me.

Now you cannot just cut what people get now, but slowing the rate of growth, as SKS and Reeves wanted to do, is the solution.

Do you really worry about spending projections decades into the future?

The solution to welfare and NEETs is to increase the health and employability of recipients rather than browbeat and punish them. If we got the employment rate back to 2018 levels the finances would improve significantly.

I would target mental health in particular, both in terms of treatment and prevention. Very often the best treatment for anxiety, depression and neurodiversity is appropriate employment with support.

Do you think we should leave future generations to pick up the tab ?

Perhaps we shouldn’t be increasing taxes and the costs of employing people. Tax something you generally get less of it.

We should also value hospitality as an industry. It’s an industry that often gives young people a start in work.

As for welfare incentives matter. Pay people to be idle and they will. Too many cliff edges and passports benefits will be lost if people work too many hours.

It’s far more complex than your solution of a group hug.

On that chart the trend lines are in the correct direction for a balanced budget over the next years.

I am not in favour of deficits, indeed would rather have tax rises than government in the red.

The long term projections are all about demographics and the worker/dependency ratio. It is in large part down to the zero net migration policy, so an ever aging population with fewer children or workers.

There is a failure to acknowledge amongst immigration hawks that pensions and healthcare are dependent on young workers, and with our current TFR that means immigration. We have to choose.

And pro mass inward migration/open door fanatics need to realise we need to be fussy about our inward migration.

Bringing in millions of Boriswavers with their economically inactive dependents who once they get ILR will be a net burden of £240 billion over their lifetime. Especially considering their entitlement to a pension and passport we’d benefits. Figures CPS.

Skilled inward migration, especially wealth/job creators we should welcome and, indeed, roll the red carpet out for them.

New rules, which come into force this week, will allow benefits claimants aged 25 and over to receive PIP awards for four years after an initial assessment, and then a further six years after a review. Under the current system, claimants face reviews as often as every nine months.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/30/starmer-makes-easier-stay-on-benefits/

benefits nowadays is like winning the lottery

This will be for lifelong and progressive conditions.

So it’s not across the board then ?

More likely they will chase the real lifelong ones and just pay out to the chancers Taz

New rules, which come into force this week, will allow benefits claimants aged 25 and over to receive PIP awards for four years after an initial assessment, and then a further six years after a review. Under the current system, claimants face reviews as often as every nine months.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/30/starmer-makes-easier-stay-on-benefits/

This news depresses me enough to claim PIP.

It is only a phone call away

The vocal ‘scrap the triple lock’ brigade are always very quiet about the other side of the benefits bill.

PiP is about 9% of welfare spending, state pension about 45%. You can, and should, clamp down on PiP fraud, but it's never going to save you much compared to pensions.

I’m talking about all non pension welfare.

Fine at the moment but the rate of increase is worrying and this chart worries me.

Now you cannot just cut what people get now, but slowing the rate of growth, as SKS and Reeves wanted to do, is the solution.

Do you really worry about spending projections decades into the future?

The solution to welfare and NEETs is to increase the health and employability of recipients rather than browbeat and punish them. If we got the employment rate back to 2018 levels the finances would improve significantly.

I would target mental health in particular, both in terms of treatment and prevention. Very often the best treatment for anxiety, depression and neurodiversity is appropriate employment with support.

Do you think we should leave future generations to pick up the tab ?

Perhaps we shouldn’t be increasing taxes and the costs of employing people. Tax something you generally get less of it.

We should also value hospitality as an industry. It’s an industry that often gives young people a start in work.

As for welfare incentives matter. Pay people to be idle and they will. Too many cliff edges and passports benefits will be lost if people work too many hours.

It’s far more complex than your solution of a group hug.

On that chart the trend lines are in the correct direction for a balanced budget over the next years.

I am not in favour of deficits, indeed would rather have tax rises than government in the red.

The long term projections are all about demographics and the worker/dependency ratio. It is in large part down to the zero net migration policy, so an ever aging population with fewer children or workers.

There is a failure to acknowledge amongst immigration hawks that pensions and healthcare are dependent on young workers, and with our current TFR that means immigration. We have to choose.

On t'other hand, thirty years of mega immigration don't seem to have helped us, very much, in fiscal terms.

The policy has failed.

The solution. More policy.

‘ 🇬🇧 There are 79 vape shops on the Home Office’s public register of licensed visa sponsors.

‘Guardian Vapes Ltd’ in South Shields is licensed to sponsor overseas workers via the ‘Skilled Worker Visa’ route’

https://x.com/procurementfile/status/2060091840859128316?s=61

Why does a vape shop need to be able to sponsor overseas workers? What idiot signed off their permission?

What had they been smoking?

.

New rules, which come into force this week, will allow benefits claimants aged 25 and over to receive PIP awards for four years after an initial assessment, and then a further six years after a review. Under the current system, claimants face reviews as often as every nine months.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/30/starmer-makes-easier-stay-on-benefits/

This news depresses me enough to claim PIP.

It is only a phone call away

The vocal ‘scrap the triple lock’ brigade are always very quiet about the other side of the benefits bill.

PiP is about 9% of welfare spending, state pension about 45%. You can, and should, clamp down on PiP fraud, but it's never going to save you much compared to pensions.

I’m talking about all non pension welfare.

Fine at the moment but the rate of increase is worrying and this chart worries me.

Now you cannot just cut what people get now, but slowing the rate of growth, as SKS and Reeves wanted to do, is the solution.

Do you really worry about spending projections decades into the future?

The solution to welfare and NEETs is to increase the health and employability of recipients rather than browbeat and punish them. If we got the employment rate back to 2018 levels the finances would improve significantly.

I would target mental health in particular, both in terms of treatment and prevention. Very often the best treatment for anxiety, depression and neurodiversity is appropriate employment with support.

Do you think we should leave future generations to pick up the tab ?

Perhaps we shouldn’t be increasing taxes and the costs of employing people. Tax something you generally get less of it.

We should also value hospitality as an industry. It’s an industry that often gives young people a start in work.

As for welfare incentives matter. Pay people to be idle and they will. Too many cliff edges and passports benefits will be lost if people work too many hours.

It’s far more complex than your solution of a group hug.

On that chart the trend lines are in the correct direction for a balanced budget over the next years.

I am not in favour of deficits, indeed would rather have tax rises than government in the red.

The long term projections are all about demographics and the worker/dependency ratio. It is in large part down to the zero net migration policy, so an ever aging population with fewer children or workers.

There is a failure to acknowledge amongst immigration hawks that pensions and healthcare are dependent on young workers, and with our current TFR that means immigration. We have to choose.

And pro mass inward migration/open door fanatics need to realise we need to be fussy about our inward migration.

Bringing in millions of Boriswavers with their economically inactive dependents who once they get ILR will be a net burden of £240 billion over their lifetime. Especially considering their entitlement to a pension and passport we’d benefits. Figures CPS.

Skilled inward migration, especially wealth/job creators we should welcome and, indeed, roll the red carpet out for them.

That £240 billion figure is nonsense. Even the authors of the report have withdrawn it.

Okay, what is the figure then ?

You’re always very good at shouting down stuff that conflicts your happy clappy world view of these matters. Not so good at offering counter facts.

The figure was only withdrawn due to the OBR changing the definitions of the fiscal data used. Not because it was wrong based on the known data at the time.

The figure was withdrawn because it was wrong. I’m not shouting it down because it conflicts with my view of the world: I am shouting it down because it’s wrong. The authors of the report that produced that figure have agreed it was wrong. No-one should be using that figure, whatever their political views.

The authors of the report, the CPS, have promised a revised figure, but haven’t produced one yet. Complain to them about why they haven’t done that yet.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/ summarises evidence of the fiscal impact of immigration in the UK. In summary, the overall impact is small, but it’s very dependent on the type of immigration.