SNP nonsense

[Future17]

Read the thread and the various quotes - I really can't be bothered going over it again.

I'm confident that the SNP haven't done anything dogy with the donations. If a few unionists or Salmond fans wan't to kick up a fuss over nothing then so be it. I'm more worried about the waste of time & resources than anything else.

I've gone back and read the prior discussion in case I had actually missed something. There doesn't really seem to be any "explanation", just a few hypothetical suggestions. The jist of yours isn't absolutely clear to me, but I think your suggesting it's fine that the SNP have spent the funds which were donated for a referendum campaign as they currently have the facility to borrow the relevant sum from a lender.

It's personal opinion but I think such a position confirms donors were misled.

[Moulin Yarns]

I either missed that or have forgotten it. If you've got time (ie to save me scrolling back through the pages!) can you remind me what the explanation was? I'm unclear where the ring-fenced money has ended up. If it's been spent then how is it ring-fenced? Or is ring-fenced just one of those throwaway phrases those who donated to the fund shouldn't really take literally?

I can't remember either, but I think there might have been some confusion by those calling it fraud that it was down to the wrong terminology.

I don' think any money was 'ring-fenced' and it was 'ear-marked' for the purpose of a second referendum, as and when one was called.

Like, for example, I've got money ear-marked for a new car sometime in the next year or two, but it wouln't stop me spending it on something else in the meantime because I know I will still have it available when the time comes, whether that is cash or bank loan facilities.

[Moulin Yarns]

Read the thread and the various quotes - I really can't be bothered going over it again.

I'm confident that the SNP haven't done anything dogy with the donations. If a few unionists or Salmond fans wan't to kick up a fuss over nothing then so be it. I'm more worried about the waste of time & resources than anything else.

That is the way I see it.

[Peevemor]

I've gone back and read the prior discussion in case I had actually missed something. There doesn't really seem to be any "explanation", just a few hypothetical suggestions. The jist of yours isn't absolutely clear to me, but I think your suggesting it's fine that the SNP have spent the funds which were donated for a referendum campaign as they currently have the facility to borrow the relevant sum from a lender.

It's personal opinion but I think such a position confirms donors were misled.

They haven't spent the funds though.

Ring fencing doesn't exist in published accounts. Ring fencing is simply budgeting.

If you take the £600k out of the equation, the SNPs borrowing/debt has reduced significantly - this is obviously due to having tens of thousands of additional members.

They therefore haven't spent any of the money on anything other than the reason it was donated.

People have said that overdrafts and borrowing facilities can be withdrawn at any time - which is true. But for the SNP to have had toward £1m worth of debt in the first place suggests to me that the borrowing is guaranteed by someone. In fact I'd put money on it.

Once a date for a new referendum is confirmed, the £600k will be spent quickly enough and that's when we'll probably see the SNP further fundraising being required.

The campaign will cost millions.

[CropleyWasGod]

They haven't spent the funds though.

Ring fencing doesn't exist in published accounts. Ring fencing is simply budgeting.

If you take the £600k out of the equation, the SNPs borrowing/debt has reduced significantly - this is obviously due to having tens of thousands of additional members.

They therefore haven't spent any of the money on anything other than the reason it was donated.

People have said that overdrafts and borrowing facilities can be withdrawn at any time - which is true. But for the SNP to have had toward £1m worth of debt in the first place suggests to me that the borrowing is guaranteed by someone. In fact I'd put money on it.

Once a date for a new referendum is confirmed, the £600k will be spent quickly enough and that's when we'll probably see the SNP further fundraising being required.

The campaign will cost millions.

That's not the case for non-commercial entities. Sometimes such funds (particularly in charities) might be called "restricted" or "designated", but the concept does exist in published accounts.

[He's here!]

They haven't spent them though.

OK, I've read up on this story a bit more and it appears (judging by the Herald and Guardian reports below) that it's an accepted fact the overwhelming bulk of the money was spent on other things. The SNP have pledged to spend an equivalent amount on any future referendum campaign, but that's not most people's understanding of ring-fenced funds is it? Couple that with their inability to identify such a sum (or anything like it) in their most recent accounts and you can see why this has come under scrutiny. How do they plan to accrue these equivalent funds? With another fundraiser? Surely SNP donators aren't so blinkered as Hearts fans were by Romanov just to keep giving money unconditionally?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19438528.police-scotland-launch-fraud-probe-snp-fundraising-indyref2/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/13/police-investigate-snp-over-independence-campaign-cash-claims

I wonder if we'll be treated to the sight of the lesser-spotted Peter Murrell emerging from his burrow during the course of the police investigation?

[Peevemor]

That's not the case for non-commercial entities. Sometimes such funds (particularly in charities) might be called "restricted", but the concept of ring-fencing funds does exist in published accounts.

I'm not sure what people (not you) are struggling to understand here. Or maybe they just don't want to?

"1. The accounts of the SNP are subject to external audit and to review by the Electoral Commission. Assurance can therefore be taken that the accounts are true and fair, and have been prepared in accordance with the Electoral Commission’s requirements.


2. Funds received by way of donations are all treated in the same way. Whether received by card or cheque or by bank transfer they are recorded as donations and accounted as such in our books. This includes reporting to the Electoral Commission where appropriate.


3. Over many decades an internal process has been in use whereby, whenever a donor expresses a wish for his/her donation to be utilised for a particular purpose, whether of his/her own accord, or because they have donated in response to a particular appeal, this is recorded within HQ and a running total of such expressions of wish recorded. This includes full details of the donor and the size of each individual donation.


4. In due course, as money is utilised for such purpose, the balance of any such total is reduced until the obligation is expunged.


5. Donations made to the independence related fundraising appeals have been treated in this way. They are recorded within HQ as being related to these appeals and amounts equivalent to the sums raised will be spent for the intended purpose. Of course, the SNP is the party of independence and, as such, every penny we spend – directly or indirectly – is in support of winning independence. However, through this internal process 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.


6. To be clear, by the end of 2020 a total of £666,953 had been raised through the independence related appeals and coded as such through the internal process. These donations are also included in – and have been reconciled with – the total amount for donations included in Party accounts from 2017 to 2020.


Up until 31st December 2020 a total of £51,760 of expenditure had been applied against this income. The balance remains “earmarked” – through the internal process explained above – for independence related campaigning. It is worth noting that there are other items of expenditure that it would have been perfectly legitimate for us to apply against this income but we have chosen not to do so. In other words, we are taking a very strict approach to ensuring that this income supports expenditure directly related to the campaign for independence.


7. The SNP is not a registered charity and does not disclose “restricted” and “unrestricted” funds in our annual accounts. While the Electoral Commission accounts preparation guidance states a party “may” identify such reserves in its annual accounts, there is no obligation to do so.


8. There has been concern expressed in some quarters that this system does not result in a separate fund being officially recorded in the annual accounts of the Party. Hence a claim from some that the money does not exist. In fact the money is “earmarked” through the internal process set out above and will be deployed fully through future cash flow for the purpose of promoting a referendum on independence and campaigns intended to secure independence. All money raised by the Party through multiple revenue sources is managed through the books of the Party and, in common with other funds is expensed and paid when required through the normal Treasury Managed cash flow of the Party. While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible. The National Treasurer and the CEO have responsibility for managing cash flow and ensuring that all liabilities are met when they fall due.


9. In addition to the amount mentioned in paragraph 6 above that has been applied against the income already, we are budgeting to allocate much of the remainder for referendum/independence preparations this year. There may be a need for a further fund raising exercise early in 2022 as we approach critical political watersheds.


10. The concern expressed is that all of this is not set out as clearly and transparently as it could be has been recognised, hence the inclusion of this statement in the Annual Review and the National Treasurer and CEO are in discussions with the external auditors as to how such transparency can be achieved and improved in future years."

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19385760.snps-new-national-treasurer-releases-statement-600-000-indyref2/

[Peevemor]

OK, I've read up on this story a bit more and it appears (judging by the Herald and Guardian reports below) that it's an accepted fact the overwhelming bulk of the money was spent on other things. The SNP have pledged to spend an equivalent amount on any future referendum campaign, but that's not most people's understanding of ring-fenced funds is it? Couple that with their inability to identify such a sum (or anything like it) in their most recent accounts and you can see why this has come under scrutiny. How do they plan to accrue these equivalent funds? With another fundraiser? Surely SNP donators aren't so blinkered as Hearts fans were by Romanov just to keep giving money unconditionally?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19438528.police-scotland-launch-fraud-probe-snp-fundraising-indyref2/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/13/police-investigate-snp-over-independence-campaign-cash-claims

I wonder if we'll be treated to the sight of the lesser-spotted Peter Murrell emerging from his burrow during the course of the police investigation?


Nonsense, but you carry on believing what you want.

[Berwickhibby]

As much as it pains me ...as I would love to see the SNP crash and burn..... but I do not see a criminal offence of theft, to make the offence complete the property (money) must have been dishonestly appropriated with the intention of permanently depriving the owner. Now the monies were voluntary donated and if they have been solely used for official SNP business and not say a Villa in Spain then I cannot see a crime. Ring fencing is more about accounting imho

[Ozyhibby]

Nonsense, but you carry on believing what you want.

He has a note of the serial numbers on everyone of the £600k and it’s clear that when the campaign starts and the SNP spend a lot more than £600k, it won’t be that money. Must be fraud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

As much as it pains me ...as I would love to see the SNP crash and burn..... but I do not see a criminal offence of theft, to make the offence complete the property (money) must have been dishonestly appropriated with the intention of permanently depriving the owner. Now the monies we voluntary donated and if they have been solely used for official SNP business and not say a Villa in Spain then I cannot see a crime. Ring fencing is more about accounting imho

knock me down with a feather!!!! Berwickhibby admits to donating to the SNP :faf::faf::faf::faf:

[Berwickhibby]

knock me down with a feather!!!! Berwickhibby admits to donating to the SNP :faf::faf::faf::faf:

Bloody predictive text...it should say were... but don't worry I would not give that shower the steam of my 💩💩 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Moulin Yarns]

Bloody predictive text...it should say were... but don't worry I would not give that shower the steam of my 💩💩 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Naw, yer secret is oot!! :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

OK, I've read up on this story a bit more and it appears (judging by the Herald and Guardian reports below) that it's an accepted fact the overwhelming bulk of the money was spent on other things. The SNP have pledged to spend an equivalent amount on any future referendum campaign, but that's not most people's understanding of ring-fenced funds is it? Couple that with their inability to identify such a sum (or anything like it) in their most recent accounts and you can see why this has come under scrutiny. How do they plan to accrue these equivalent funds? With another fundraiser? Surely SNP donators aren't so blinkered as Hearts fans were by Romanov just to keep giving money unconditionally?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19438528.police-scotland-launch-fraud-probe-snp-fundraising-indyref2/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/13/police-investigate-snp-over-independence-campaign-cash-claims

I wonder if we'll be treated to the sight of the lesser-spotted Peter Murrell emerging from his burrow during the course of the police investigation?

Where would the fraud be?

[He's here!]

Nonsense, but you carry on believing what you want.

It's not what I 'believe'. It's clearly stated in that Guardian report that after returning as treasurer after Chapman's resignation Colin Beattie acknowledged that "nearly all the money raised for independence campaigns since 2017 had been put into general spending."

[CropleyWasGod]

Was going to ask you the same question. In your earlier post you suggest any potential fraud must have occurred in the last 18 months? However, if the criminal investigation is, as reported, into the alleged 'mishandling' of the donations could it not have occured before then?

The auditors gave all accounts up to December 2019 a clean report.

I'm struggling to see where and how there could have been fraud before that.

[Peevemor]

It's not what I 'believe'. It's clearly stated in that Guardian report that after returning as treasurer after Chapman's resignation Colin Beattie acknowledged that "nearly all the money raised for independence campaigns since 2017 had been put into general spending."Read my post no 5558 above where I (once again) quote the SNP treasurer's statement on the matter. If you don't (or don't want to) understand that then nothing I can say will change your mind. You believe what you want.

It'd be interesting, for a change, to hear a unionist come up with a decent pro-union argument and not just half-baked accusations against the SNP.

[Ozyhibby]

Read my post no 5558 above where I (once again) quote the SNP treasurer's statement on the matter. If you don't (or don't want to) understand that then nothing I can say will change your mind. You believe what you want.

It'd be interesting, for a change, to hear a unionist come up with a decent pro-union argument and not just half-baked accusations against the SNP.

There is no pro-union case. We are underperforming all the similar nations close to us while part of the union.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210714/0cc57bf42a15a647f58ba452151afbc9.jpg

The case for the union is that being poorer than we could be is a price worth paying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

The auditors gave all accounts up to December 2019 a clean report.

I'm struggling to see where and how there could have been fraud before that.

Assuming that's the case what, then, might have persuaded the police to open a criminal investigation if, as you suggest, spending of ring-fenced money is unlikely to interest the law?

[Moulin Yarns]

Assuming that's the case what, then, might have persuaded the police to open a criminal investigation if, as you suggest, spending of ring-fenced money is unlikely to interest the law?

The same reason they investigated Griffiths, a complaint has been made to them and the PF decision is to investigate.

[Ozyhibby]

Assuming that's the case what, then, might have persuaded the police to open a criminal investigation if, as you suggest, spending of ring-fenced money is unlikely to interest the law?

A Salmond loyalist has made a complaint so they are investigating. It’s no big deal and will likely come to nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Assuming that's the case what, then, might have persuaded the police to open a criminal investigation if, as you suggest, spending of ring-fenced money is unlikely to interest the law?

To be clear, it's not a criminal investigation yet. The police are doing what they have to do with complaints, and that is respond to them. (just as in the Leigh Griffiths case).

So... back to my question. Where would the fraud be?

[Moulin Yarns]

To be clear, it's not a criminal investigation yet. The police are doing what they have to do with complaints, and that is respond to them. (just as in the Leigh Griffiths case).

There is an echo 😉

[He's here!]

Read my post no 5558 above where I (once again) quote the SNP treasurer's statement on the matter. If you don't (or don't want to) understand that then nothing I can say will change your mind. You believe what you want.

It'd be interesting, for a change, to hear a unionist come up with a decent pro-union argument and not just half-baked accusations against the SNP.


I read all the way through that statement. Thanks for posting it.

It confirms, as the media reports state, that the money raised for independence campaigning has been spent elsewhere but that an equivalent sum has been 'earmarked' for any future referendum campaigns. I think it's fair to speculate that many donors would not have been aware their money would be put to use in such a manner. Sure, the final paragraph acknowledges they've not been transparent enough about the process but I think many will have given up wading through it by then. Especially when you come across jargon such as:

"While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible."

Essentially translates as OK we don't actually have access to the cash right now but you have our word that we will.

[Peevemor]

I read all the way through that statement. Thanks for posting it.

It confirms, as the media reports state, that the money raised for independence campaigning has been spent elsewhere but that an equivalent sum has been 'earmarked' for any future referendum campaigns. I think it's fair to speculate that many donors would not have been aware their money would be put to use in such a manner. Sure, the final paragraph acknowledges they've not been transparent enough about the process but I think many will have given up wading through it by then. Especially when you come across jargon such as:

"While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible."

Essentially translates as OK we don't actually have access to the cash right now but you have our word it that we will.



Dearie me. It confirms no such thing.

I give up.

[Santa Cruz]

A Salmond loyalist has made a complaint so they are investigating. It’s no big deal and will likely come to nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was there not 7 separate complainants, or did I pick that up wrong?

[Ozyhibby]

I read all the way through that statement. Thanks for posting it.

It confirms, as the media reports state, that the money raised for independence campaigning has been spent elsewhere but that an equivalent sum has been 'earmarked' for any future referendum campaigns. I think it's fair to speculate that many donors would not have been aware their money would be put to use in such a manner. Sure, the final paragraph acknowledges they've not been transparent enough about the process but I think many will have given up wading through it by then. Especially when you come across jargon such as:

"While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible."

Essentially translates as OK we don't actually have access to the cash right now but you have our word that we will.





Pretty sure if the referendum campaign started tomorrow then the cash would indeed be available right now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

To be clear, it's not a criminal investigation yet. The police are doing what they have to do with complaints, and that is respond to them. (just as in the Leigh Griffiths case).

So... back to my question. Where would the fraud be?

"Police Scotland said it had begun a criminal investigation, in consultation with prosecutors, after activists accused the party of wrongly claiming the cash would be ringfenced and only spent on pro-independence campaigns."

Re any potential fraud, I think you kind of answered your own question earlier. If it did indeed take place in the last 18 months then we're not yet party to what occurred.

As for the police, excuse my ignorance, but I don't believe they respond to every complaint with a formal inquiry?

[Peevemor]

"Police Scotland said it had begun a criminal investigation, in consultation with prosecutors, after activists accused the party of wrongly claiming the cash would be ringfenced and only spent on pro-independence campaigns."

Re any potential fraud, I think you kind of answered your own question earlier. If it did indeed take place in the last 18 months then we're not yet party to what occurred.

As for the police, excuse my ignorance, but I don't believe they respond to every complaint with a formal inquiry?So when the announcement is eventually made that the matter won't be taken any further, will you admit that it's all a bunch of trumped-up nonsense and a complete waste of everyone's time?

[lapsedhibee]

So when the announcement is eventually made that the matter won't be taken any further, will you admit that it's all a bunch of trumped-up nonsense and a complete waste of everyone's time?

There's definitely a smoking gun somewhere. There must be.

[degenerated]

To be clear, it's not a criminal investigation yet. The police are doing what they have to do with complaints, and that is respond to them. (just as in the Leigh Griffiths case).

So... back to my question. Where would the fraud be?Rent free in the heads of unionists and the Alba nutjobs. Do I win £5?

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

There's definitely a smoking gun somewhere. There must be.I have this vision of certain unionists having the same reaction to hearing the three letters "SNP" as Dreyfus does when he thinks about Inspector Clouseau.

[degenerated]

I have this vision of certain unionists having the same reaction to hearing the three letters "SNP" as Dreyfus does when he thinks about Inspector Clouseau.Do you know what kind of a gun it is?

The smoking kind.

Mark my words Peevemor sinister forces are at work here.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

"Police Scotland said it had begun a criminal investigation, in consultation with prosecutors, after activists accused the party of wrongly claiming the cash would be ringfenced and only spent on pro-independence campaigns."

Re any potential fraud, I think you kind of answered your own question earlier. If it did indeed take place in the last 18 months then we're not yet party to what occurred.

As for the police, excuse my ignorance, but I don't believe they respond to every complaint with a formal inquiry?

The BBC used the word "formal" rather than "criminal".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57820420

STV, the Record, Herald, Independent, even the Telegraph all use the word "formal".

Only the Guardian has used the C word.

[Peevemor]

Do you know what kind of a gun it is?

The smoking kind.

Mark my words Peevemor sinister forces are at work here.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk(as he impales his hand to his desk with a Better Together 4H pencil)...

[ronaldo7]

Another manifesto commitment delivered today. Music tuition fees for all children will be abolished. In my own county of East Lothian, the Labour controlled council, supported by the Tories, removed free music tuition for children, causing many to give up. It's costing the SG £13 million. Looking after our young people. Independence isn't the only reason to vote SNP. 👍

[Moulin Yarns]

"Police Scotland said it had begun a criminal investigation, in consultation with prosecutors, after activists accused the party of wrongly claiming the cash would be ringfenced and only spent on pro-independence campaigns."

Re any potential fraud, I think you kind of answered your own question earlier. If it did indeed take place in the last 18 months then we're not yet party to what occurred.

As for the police, excuse my ignorance, but I don't believe they respond to every complaint with a formal inquiry?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57820420

"formal investigation" obviously not good enough for you 🙄

[Moulin Yarns]

So when the announcement is eventually made that the matter won't be taken any further, will you admit that it's all a bunch of trumped-up nonsense and a complete waste of everyone's time?

I think he must be one of the complainants 😉

[Smartie]

Another manifesto commitment delivered today. Music tuition fees for all children will be abolished. In my own county of East Lothian, the Labour controlled council, supported by the Tories, removed free music tuition for children, causing many to give up. It's costing the SG £13 million. Looking after our young people. Independence isn't the only reason to vote SNP. 👍

I love this.

My partner is (was) a professional musician. She benefited greatly from these types of services and has been in a position to give back, on so many levels, over the years. It was incredibly sad to think that this sort of cycle could have been cut much earlier for so many people.

It was a travesty that it was considered in any way surplus to requirements and I’m well chuffed this has been reintroduced.

[Glory Lurker]

Why do the unionists and Alba insist on putting themselves through this sort of thing?

[Peevemor]

I love this.

My partner is (was) a professional musician. She benefited greatly from these types of services and has been in a position to give back, on so many levels, over the years. It was incredibly sad to think that this sort of cycle could have been cut much earlier for so many people.

It was a travesty that it was considered in any way surplus to requirements and I’m well chuffed this has been reintroduced.Yep. It's a great move on so many levels - and not only in terms of producing musicians.

[Santa Cruz]

I love this.

My partner is (was) a professional musician. She benefited greatly from these types of services and has been in a position to give back, on so many levels, over the years. It was incredibly sad to think that this sort of cycle could have been cut much earlier for so many people.

It was a travesty that it was considered in any way surplus to requirements and I’m well chuffed this has been reintroduced.

I agree. Do you mean the travesty was the SG did not class Music as a core subject as part of the cfe which left it to individual LA's to find the funding? If so, I never understood this. When my daughter was at primary school following auditions, 5 kids were selected for trumpet tuition. Their families were asked to pay a couple of hundred pounds to purchase the instrument, that was unfair on kids from families who could not afford it. When I went to school in the 70's the same school had a brass band, I moved to another primary which had an orchestra, no pupil paid for their instruments then.

Having checked, the additional funding for this manifesto pledge has only been initially agreed with COSLA for 12 months. To me this is the SNP beefing up their manifesto, not so much a new pledge, just righting a wrong of all their own making. They should be making music a core subject and providing funding to LA's to recruit permanent music teachers. I don't know of any primary schools that has one though there is plenty supply teachers in Secondary schools for this subject.

[Kato]

Why do the unionists and Alba insist on putting themselves through this sort of thing?The noise it makes.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

So when the announcement is eventually made that the matter won't be taken any further, will you admit that it's all a bunch of trumped-up nonsense and a complete waste of everyone's time?

If that's what the police announce then yes I'll assume that to be the case. However, I suspect they're unlikely to put it like that :wink:

Personally I've no idea if there's a criminal case to answer. How would I? All I've done is suggest that a significant number of the donors would have been surprised to discover that the supposedly 'ring-fenced' money they raised was actually spent elsewhere and replaced by a commitment to replace it, if and when another referendum campaign gets off the ground. The SNP clearly felt obliged to issue a lengthy explanatory statement in the light of questions being raised, concluding with an admission that there was a lack of transparency about how they planned to deploy the funds. If that's the long and short of it, fair enough. Not a good look perhaps, but equally not the offence of the century. However, the police appear to believe there's merit in taking the matter further.

I do note from the Herald report, however, that this investigation appears to have its roots in the Wings over Scotland blog, whose author I always regarded as bit of a bampot. I also note that he temporarily come out of 'retirement' a couple of days ago to make comment on it:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-long-slow-grind-of-justice/

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57820420

"formal investigation" obviously not good enough for you 🙄

I was quoting from the Guardian report. However, as somebody else has posted they seem to be alone in describing it as criminal so I'm assuming they've made a mistake.

[Glory Lurker]

If that's what the police announce then yes I'll assume that to be the case. However, I suspect they're unlikely to put it like that :wink:

Personally I've no idea if there's a criminal case to answer. How would I?

This is as far as I got.

[Future17]

I'm not sure what people (not you) are struggling to understand here. Or maybe they just don't want to?

"1. The accounts of the SNP are subject to external audit and to review by the Electoral Commission. Assurance can therefore be taken that the accounts are true and fair, and have been prepared in accordance with the Electoral Commission’s requirements.

I don't think that's in dispute.


2. Funds received by way of donations are all treated in the same way. Whether received by card or cheque or by bank transfer they are recorded as donations and accounted as such in our books. This includes reporting to the Electoral Commission where appropriate.

This is part of the problem. It appears the SNP sold some people on donating on the basis their donations would be held in a specific fund and used for a specific purpose. The SNP referred to these donations as being "ring-fenced".


3. Over many decades an internal process has been in use whereby, whenever a donor expresses a wish for his/her donation to be utilised for a particular purpose, whether of his/her own accord, or because they have donated in response to a particular appeal, this is recorded within HQ and a running total of such expressions of wish recorded. This includes full details of the donor and the size of each individual donation.

4. In due course, as money is utilised for such purpose, the balance of any such total is reduced until the obligation is expunged.

5. Donations made to the independence related fundraising appeals have been treated in this way. They are recorded within HQ as being related to these appeals and amounts equivalent to the sums raised will be spent for the intended purpose. Of course, the SNP is the party of independence and, as such, every penny we spend – directly or indirectly – is in support of winning independence. However, through this internal process 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.

This was not made clear to donors when they donated. It appears those donors were misled, knowingly or otherwise. However, I suspect most donors would be prepared to accept this position provided they could see that the SNP's end of year balance was at least the amount which was raised (minus the amount spend on the stated purpose).


6. To be clear, by the end of 2020 a total of £666,953 had been raised through the independence related appeals and coded as such through the internal process. These donations are also included in – and have been reconciled with – the total amount for donations included in Party accounts from 2017 to 2020.

Up until 31st December 2020 a total of £51,760 of expenditure had been applied against this income. The balance remains “earmarked" through the internal process explained above – for independence related campaigning. It is worth noting that there are other items of expenditure that it would have been perfectly legitimate for us to apply against this income but we have chosen not to do so. In other words, we are taking a very strict approach to ensuring that this income supports expenditure directly related to the campaign for independence.

The language has changed here from "ring-fenced" to "earmarked"; people will form their own opinions as to why. However, any organisation can "earmark" any figure it likes for spending on a specified purpose - the relevant question here is what is the source of the funds to be spent.


7. The SNP is not a registered charity and does not disclose “restricted” and “unrestricted” funds in our annual accounts. While the Electoral Commission accounts preparation guidance states a party “may” identify such reserves in its annual accounts, there is no obligation to do so.

8. There has been concern expressed in some quarters that this system does not result in a separate fund being officially recorded in the annual accounts of the Party. Hence a claim from some that the money does not exist. In fact the money is “earmarked” through the internal process set out above and will be deployed fully through future cash flow for the purpose of promoting a referendum on independence and campaigns intended to secure independence. All money raised by the Party through multiple revenue sources is managed through the books of the Party and, in common with other funds is expensed and paid when required through the normal Treasury Managed cash flow of the Party. While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible. The National Treasurer and the CEO have responsibility for managing cash flow and ensuring that all liabilities are met when they fall due.

The money "will be deployed fully through future cash flow" is essentially an admission that the SNP no longer has/does not currently have the money that was donated to it for the specified purpose.

"While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible." I'm not sure what is meant by "tangible" in this context, but whatever it's intended to mean, the important point is that the commitment is said to be "tangible", not the money.

In summary, some or all of the money donated for the specified purpose has been spent on other matters. The only way the SNP can honour its commitment to spend the total donated amount on the specified purpose is through future income sources, or borrowing against credit facilities.

Based on recent history and the political context, I don't think anyone will doubt the SNP's ability to raise the relevant figure through future income sources. However, the SNP would always have been capable of generating that future income, so the spend on other matters from the donated amount has still reduced the potential overall sum available for referendum campaigning. Notwithstanding the likely impact of campaign spending limits on the situation, donors are understandably upset by that prospect.

For the avoidance of doubt, based on the information currently available, I don't think there's been a fraud and I don't think there's been a breach of PPERA. However, as none of the pro-SNP posters on here seem to want to address, donors have clearly been misled. It's easy to use the old tactic of dismissing any SNP criticism as Unionist or Alba, but that strikes me as complacency. I want Scotland to be independent but, in order to achieve that I think it's essential to (a) keep the SNP honest, and (b) not alienate those who will donate to the independence cause.

[Block]

I don't think that's in dispute.



This is part of the problem. It appears the SNP sold some people on donating on the basis their donations would be held in a specific fund and used for a specific purpose. The SNP referred to these donations as being "ring-fenced".



This was not made clear to donors when they donated. It appears those donors were misled, knowingly or otherwise. However, I suspect most donors would be prepared to accept this position provided they could see that the SNP's end of year balance was at least the amount which was raised (minus the amount spend on the stated purpose).



The language has changed here from "ring-fenced" to "earmarked"; people will form their own opinions as to why. However, any organisation can "earmark" any figure it likes for spending on a specified purpose - the relevant question here is what is the source of the funds to be spent.



The money "will be deployed fully through future cash flow" is essentially an admission that the SNP no longer has/does not currently have the money that was donated to it for the specified purpose.

"While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible." I'm not sure what is meant by "tangible" in this context, but whatever it's intended to mean, the important point is that the commitment is said to be "tangible", not the money.

In summary, some or all of the money donated for the specified purpose has been spent on other matters. The only way the SNP can honour its commitment to spend the total donated amount on the specified purpose is through future income sources, or borrowing against credit facilities.

Based on recent history and the political context, I don't think anyone will doubt the SNP's ability to raise the relevant figure through future income sources. However, the SNP would always have been capable of generating that future income, so the spend on other matters from the donated amount has still reduced the potential overall sum available for referendum campaigning. Notwithstanding the likely impact of campaign spending limits on the situation, donors are understandably upset by that prospect.

For the avoidance of doubt, based on the information currently available, I don't think there's been a fraud and I don't think there's been a breach of PPERA. However, as none of the pro-SNP posters on here seem to want to address, donors have clearly been misled. It's easy to use the old tactic of dismissing any SNP criticism as Unionist or Alba, but that strikes me as complacency. I want Scotland to be independent but, in order to achieve that I think it's essential to (a) keep the SNP honest, and (b) not alienate those who will donate to the independence cause.

If I asked for money from contributors for my cancer treatment fund and monies raised were diverted elsewhere to spend on say buying a house, would n't that be fraud?

[Block]

Why do the unionists and Alba insist on putting themselves through this sort of thing?

Maybe because they (like me) think remaining within the free trade free movement UK is a good thing?

Maybe the Scots bawbee doesn't look so good when offered around the world?

They have a sense of humour yes but that not much they would offer us financial sympathy. I'm a Scot but a pragmatic one.

[Peevemor]

If I asked for money from contributors for my cancer treatment fund and monies raised were diverted elsewhere to spend on say buying a house, would n't that be fraud?

The SNP haven't used the money at all.

[Peevemor]

I don't think that's in dispute.



This is part of the problem. It appears the SNP sold some people on donating on the basis their donations would be held in a specific fund and used for a specific purpose. The SNP referred to these donations as being "ring-fenced".



This was not made clear to donors when they donated. It appears those donors were misled, knowingly or otherwise. However, I suspect most donors would be prepared to accept this position provided they could see that the SNP's end of year balance was at least the amount which was raised (minus the amount spend on the stated purpose).



The language has changed here from "ring-fenced" to "earmarked"; people will form their own opinions as to why. However, any organisation can "earmark" any figure it likes for spending on a specified purpose - the relevant question here is what is the source of the funds to be spent.



The money "will be deployed fully through future cash flow" is essentially an admission that the SNP no longer has/does not currently have the money that was donated to it for the specified purpose.

"While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible." I'm not sure what is meant by "tangible" in this context, but whatever it's intended to mean, the important point is that the commitment is said to be "tangible", not the money.

In summary, some or all of the money donated for the specified purpose has been spent on other matters. The only way the SNP can honour its commitment to spend the total donated amount on the specified purpose is through future income sources, or borrowing against credit facilities.

Based on recent history and the political context, I don't think anyone will doubt the SNP's ability to raise the relevant figure through future income sources. However, the SNP would always have been capable of generating that future income, so the spend on other matters from the donated amount has still reduced the potential overall sum available for referendum campaigning. Notwithstanding the likely impact of campaign spending limits on the situation, donors are understandably upset by that prospect.

For the avoidance of doubt, based on the information currently available, I don't think there's been a fraud and I don't think there's been a breach of PPERA. However, as none of the pro-SNP posters on here seem to want to address, donors have clearly been misled. It's easy to use the old tactic of dismissing any SNP criticism as Unionist or Alba, but that strikes me as complacency. I want Scotland to be independent but, in order to achieve that I think it's essential to (a) keep the SNP honest, and (b) not alienate those who will donate to the independence cause.

I disagree with your assertion that they've used the money. For the time being these specific donations have reduced their debt. Where's the harm in that? If the money is still accessible for the stated purpose I don't see how anyone has been misled.

The only people acting concerned are those who don't like Sturgeon's SNP for whatever reason.

[Future17]

I disagree with your assertion that they've used the money. For the time being these specific donations have reduced their debt. Where's the harm in that? If the money is still accessible for the stated purpose I don't see how anyone has been misled.

The only people acting concerned are those who don't like Sturgeon's SNP for whatever reason.

How can you disagree that they've used the money and then say they've used it to reduce their debt?

Even if we accept that this is possible, the debt which was reduced through the donated amount could have been reduced through other income, with spending reduced elsewhere to avoid that debt reoccurring. That didn't happen and, as a result, as I said in my prior post, the only way the SNP can honour its commitment to spend the total donated amount on the specified purpose is through future income sources or, as you appear to be suggesting, borrowing against credit facilities.

To answer your questions, the harm in such an approach is that credit facilities are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time. Even if they were, as I explained in my prior post, there's still a reduction in the potential amount available to the SNP to campaign in any future independence referendum. Ultimately, nobody should obtain cash from someone by telling them it'll be spent on one thing and then spend it on something else.

You've said the only people "acting concerned are those who don't like Sturgeon's SNP for whatever reason". To be blunt, you've no way of knowing that to be true, so I'm not sure of your motivation for saying it. I can only guess it's simply an attempt to discredit the position of those who are concerned in the eyes of those who are supporters of Sturgeon.

In any event, I know it not to be true for more than one person. These people were beyond frustrated at being unable to get straight, plain English answer to their questions. I also know those frustrations were shared by (relatively) senior people within the SNP...although I don't know if they "don't like Sturgeon's SNP".

[Just Alf]

How can you disagree that they've used the money and then say they've used it to reduce their debt?

Even if we accept that this is possible, the debt which was reduced through the donated amount could have been reduced through other income, with spending reduced elsewhere to avoid that debt reoccurring. That didn't happen and, as a result, as I said in my prior post, the only way the SNP can honour its commitment to spend the total donated amount on the specified purpose is through future income sources or, as you appear to be suggesting, borrowing against credit facilities.

To answer your questions, the harm in such an approach is that credit facilities are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time. Even if they were, as I explained in my prior post, there's still a reduction in the potential amount available to the SNP to campaign in any future independence referendum. Ultimately, nobody should obtain cash from someone by telling them it'll be spent on one thing and then spend it on something else.

You've said the only people "acting concerned are those who don't like Sturgeon's SNP for whatever reason". To be blunt, you've no way of knowing that to be true, so I'm not sure of your motivation for saying it. I can only guess it's simply an attempt to discredit the position of those who are concerned in the eyes of those who are supporters of Sturgeon.

In any event, I know it not to be true for more than one person. These people were beyond frustrated at being unable to get straight, plain English answer to their questions. I also know those frustrations were shared by (relatively) senior people within the SNP...although I don't know if they "don't like Sturgeon's SNP".With regards to your 1st para.

You believe then they should have set up a separate business account, which will have a level of fees charged and need separately managed, although on a positive there would be some interest gained?
as opposed to using their existing accounting practices which incur no additional charges and whilst there won't be interest gained there won't be overdraft fees paid, more than making up the difference. (I've always been told in the past having savings with 2 or 3 % interest is never the correct thing to do when I had loans/cards where I was paying higher rates)

As someone who donated I'm glad they're being financially prudent and managing the money in the most effective way possible to maximise the funds available to spend on the actual target reason.

As an aside, I've given to charities/causes (Inc a political party other than the SNP :greengrin ) all my life and never once has their advertising/campaign bumpf made any explanation on how their internal banking processes work.

[Peevemor]

How can you disagree that they've used the money and then say they've used it to reduce their debt?

Even if we accept that this is possible, the debt which was reduced through the donated amount could have been reduced through other income, with spending reduced elsewhere to avoid that debt reoccurring. That didn't happen and, as a result, as I said in my prior post, the only way the SNP can honour its commitment to spend the total donated amount on the specified purpose is through future income sources or, as you appear to be suggesting, borrowing against credit facilities.

To answer your questions, the harm in such an approach is that credit facilities are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time. Even if they were, as I explained in my prior post, there's still a reduction in the potential amount available to the SNP to campaign in any future independence referendum. Ultimately, nobody should obtain cash from someone by telling them it'll be spent on one thing and then spend it on something else.

You've said the only people "acting concerned are those who don't like Sturgeon's SNP for whatever reason". To be blunt, you've no way of knowing that to be true, so I'm not sure of your motivation for saying it. I can only guess it's simply an attempt to discredit the position of those who are concerned in the eyes of those who are supporters of Sturgeon.

In any event, I know it not to be true for more than one person. These people were beyond frustrated at being unable to get straight, plain English answer to their questions. I also know those frustrations were shared by (relatively) senior people within the SNP...although I don't know if they "don't like Sturgeon's SNP".Imagine I'm overdrawn by £200 on a facility with a £1k limit. My wife & her 2 sisters want me to buy a present for their parents through a work contact and each transfer me £100, meaning I'm now £100 in credit.

Have I used the money?

Have I misled them by not telling them I was overdrawn?

Can I still buy the present without a problem?

The only people who would complain against such a situation would be those who have something against me.

[lapsedhibee]

Imagine I'm overdrawn by £200 on a facility with a £1k limit. My wife & her 2 sisters want me to buy a present for their parents through a work contact and each transfer me £100, meaning I'm now £100 in credit.

Have I used the money?

Have I misled them by not telling them I was overdrawn?

Can I still buy the present without a problem?

The only people who would complain against such a situation would be those who have something against me.

Powerful analogy.

[Keith_M]

Wouldn't disagree with any of that, Gov's should be going after the big corps, they should also be leading by example imo.


:agree:


On the original point --- The whole concept of 'lobbying' concerns me no end, so everything about it should be transparent. If the current rules allow exceptions, then they need to be changed.


This is true no matter which government they apply to, Westminster or Holyrood.

[Santa Cruz]

:agree:


On the original point --- The whole concept of 'lobbying' concerns me no end, so everything about it should be transparent. If the current rules allow exceptions, then they need to be changed.


This is true no matter which government they apply to, Westminster or Holyrood.

100% agree.

[Ozyhibby]

:agree:


On the original point --- The whole concept of 'lobbying' concerns me no end, so everything about it should be transparent. If the current rules allow exceptions, then they need to be changed.


This is true no matter which government they apply to, Westminster or Holyrood.

100% agree with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I don't think that's in dispute.



This is part of the problem. It appears the SNP sold some people on donating on the basis their donations would be held in a specific fund and used for a specific purpose. The SNP referred to these donations as being "ring-fenced".



This was not made clear to donors when they donated. It appears those donors were misled, knowingly or otherwise. However, I suspect most donors would be prepared to accept this position provided they could see that the SNP's end of year balance was at least the amount which was raised (minus the amount spend on the stated purpose).



The language has changed here from "ring-fenced" to "earmarked"; people will form their own opinions as to why. However, any organisation can "earmark" any figure it likes for spending on a specified purpose - the relevant question here is what is the source of the funds to be spent.



The money "will be deployed fully through future cash flow" is essentially an admission that the SNP no longer has/does not currently have the money that was donated to it for the specified purpose.

"While these monies are not separated out, their existence in terms of the commitment as to what they will be spent on is tangible." I'm not sure what is meant by "tangible" in this context, but whatever it's intended to mean, the important point is that the commitment is said to be "tangible", not the money.

In summary, some or all of the money donated for the specified purpose has been spent on other matters. The only way the SNP can honour its commitment to spend the total donated amount on the specified purpose is through future income sources, or borrowing against credit facilities.

Based on recent history and the political context, I don't think anyone will doubt the SNP's ability to raise the relevant figure through future income sources. However, the SNP would always have been capable of generating that future income, so the spend on other matters from the donated amount has still reduced the potential overall sum available for referendum campaigning. Notwithstanding the likely impact of campaign spending limits on the situation, donors are understandably upset by that prospect.

For the avoidance of doubt, based on the information currently available, I don't think there's been a fraud and I don't think there's been a breach of PPERA. However, as none of the pro-SNP posters on here seem to want to address, donors have clearly been misled. It's easy to use the old tactic of dismissing any SNP criticism as Unionist or Alba, but that strikes me as complacency. I want Scotland to be independent but, in order to achieve that I think it's essential to (a) keep the SNP honest, and (b) not alienate those who will donate to the independence cause.

A cynic might also read something into paragraph 9:

9. In addition to the amount mentioned in paragraph 6 above that has been applied against the income already, we are budgeting to allocate much of the remainder for referendum/independence preparations this year. There may be a need for a further fund raising exercise early in 2022 as we approach critical political watersheds.

[lapsedhibee]

A cynic might also read something into paragraph 9:

9. In addition to the amount mentioned in paragraph 6 above that has been applied against the income already, we are budgeting to allocate much of the remainder for referendum/independence preparations this year. There may be a need for a further fund raising exercise early in 2022 as we approach critical political watersheds.

Peevemor's MIL gets more than one present every two years from her daughters :shocked:

[Peevemor]

A cynic might also read something into paragraph 9:

9. In addition to the amount mentioned in paragraph 6 above that has been applied against the income already, we are budgeting to allocate much of the remainder for referendum/independence preparations this year. There may be a need for a further fund raising exercise early in 2022 as we approach critical political watersheds.

So you think £600k will be enough to finance a campaign? I would say that'd be stupidity rather than cynisism.

[He's here!]

I agree. Do you mean the travesty was the SG did not class Music as a core subject as part of the cfe which left it to individual LA's to find the funding? If so, I never understood this. When my daughter was at primary school following auditions, 5 kids were selected for trumpet tuition. Their families were asked to pay a couple of hundred pounds to purchase the instrument, that was unfair on kids from families who could not afford it. When I went to school in the 70's the same school had a brass band, I moved to another primary which had an orchestra, no pupil paid for their instruments then.

Having checked, the additional funding for this manifesto pledge has only been initially agreed with COSLA for 12 months. To me this is the SNP beefing up their manifesto, not so much a new pledge, just righting a wrong of all their own making. They should be making music a core subject and providing funding to LA's to recruit permanent music teachers. I don't know of any primary schools that has one though there is plenty supply teachers in Secondary schools for this subject.

A scenario mirrored across all primary schools (my own kids' included, where this was the approach to violin tuition).

You're also right re permanent music teachers. There are numerous local authorities where there are no dedicated music teachers working in local authorities at all. When I spoke to our local head teacher at a parents' evening about the lack of musical tuition she told me the number of dedicated music teachers across Scottish primary schools has been cut by nearly 50%.

And don't get me started on the lack of art facilities and teachers...

[Jack]

:agree:


On the original point --- The whole concept of 'lobbying' concerns me no end, so everything about it should be transparent. If the current rules allow exceptions, then they need to be changed.


This is true no matter which government they apply to, Westminster or Holyrood.

It not just lobbying though it's all the wee packages our elected representatives get unsolicited 'through the post', MSPs, MPs councillors etc..

I saw a clip the other week where a fairly new MP said she was astonished at the amount of stuff she gets from a myriad of sources - all valued at just less than the amount they would need to declare.

I might suggest that along with making the rules around lobbying much more robust there needs to be rules around gifting. I don't think it would be feasible to reduce the declaration amount so would suggest (not that they're going to ask me 😉) that there's a financial limit on the organisations doing the gifting.

[Santa Cruz]

It not just lobbying though it's all the wee packages our elected representatives get unsolicited 'through the post', MSPs, MPs councillors etc..

I saw a clip the other week where a fairly new MP said she was astonished at the amount of stuff she gets from a myriad of sources - all valued at just less than the amount they would need to declare.

I might suggest that along with making the rules around lobbying much more robust there needs to be rules around gifting. I don't think it would be feasible to reduce the declaration amount so would suggest (not that they're going to ask me 😉) that there's a financial limit on the organisations doing the gifting.

Agreed. I would go further and say everything should be declared regardless of financial cost. Many employers have this requirement listed in employees contracts of employment. If the elected representatives had any integrity they would donate any gifts received to local worthy causes.

[He's here!]

There are 2 issues here for me.

The first is the police involvement. That could only be down to alleged theft or fraud. Such theft wouldn't have occurred in the pre 2020 period, as the auditors would have picked it up. It could only have occurred in the last 18 months, and none of us have any knowledge of that.

The second is the alleged spending of apparently ring-fenced funds. Having seen the accounts in question, I'm far from convinced that these have been dealt with appropriately
Spending ring-fenced funds on other activities is not illegal, and shouldn't interest the law, but it's ****house behaviour and doesn't look good.

Until yesterday I hadn't been aware that the origins of this police investigation appear to be rooted in the Wings over Scotland blog, which was chipping away at the issue for many months. Given their venomously anti-SNP stance, that must raise questions about the source/motivations behind the complaints. However, in answer to your question re where any fraud may have occurred, if you can be bothered wading through this extraordinarily exhaustive/obsessive summary you'll see that they conclude that the funds raised were used to repay a £500,000 debt to the late Colin Weir or his wife - and explain why they believe that constitutes 'common law fraud'.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-indyref-swindle/comment-page-1/

I'm guessing from your posts that you have some sort of accountancy background? If so, would you say there's any basis for such an assertion?

[Caversham Green]

With regards to your 1st para.

You believe then they should have set up a separate business account, which will have a level of fees charged and need separately managed, although on a positive there would be some interest gained?
as opposed to using their existing accounting practices which incur no additional charges and whilst there won't be interest gained there won't be overdraft fees paid, more than making up the difference. (I've always been told in the past having savings with 2 or 3 % interest is never the correct thing to do when I had loans/cards where I was paying higher rates)

As someone who donated I'm glad they're being financially prudent and managing the money in the most effective way possible to maximise the funds available to spend on the actual target reason.

As an aside, I've given to charities/causes (Inc a political party other than the SNP :greengrin ) all my life and never once has their advertising/campaign bumpf made any explanation on how their internal banking processes work.

The bit in bold - what they should have done was set up a separate creditor account (on paper only) and instead of treating the donations as spendable revenue they should have recorded them in that account as deferred revenue to be spent on future projects. If they used the term 'ring-fenced' to solicit the funds then they have badly misled the donors by not doing this - it's debatable whether there's any criminality involved but it's very poor accounting practice not to open a separate fund account.

They have an obligation to spend some of the resources they currently have on a future indyref campaign but that obligation is not reflected in their published accounts and that's just wrong.

[Ozyhibby]

Until yesterday I hadn't been aware that the origins of this police investigation appear to be rooted in the Wings over Scotland blog, which was chipping away at the issue for many months. Given their venomously anti-SNP stance, that must raise questions about the source/motivations behind the complaints. However, in answer to your question re where any fraud may have occurred, if you can be bothered wading through this extraordinarily exhaustive/obsessive summary you'll see that they conclude that the funds raised were used to repay a £500,000 debt to the late Colin Weir or his wife - and explain why they believe that constitutes 'common law fraud'.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-indyref-swindle/comment-page-1/

I'm guessing from your posts that you have some sort of accountancy background? If so, would you say there's any basis for such an assertion?

Genuinely impressive the way Wings has managed to become to go to publication for unionists. The only time links are ever posted on here to it are from unionists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

Genuinely impressive the way Wings has managed to become to go to publication for unionists. The only time links are ever posted on here to it are from unionists.


Yep, the rev. Stu was written off as a bampot by most nationalists even when he was still pro-SNP, now he's a go-to for unionists. :rolleyes:

[Berwickhibby]

Yep, the rev. Stu was written off as a bampot by most nationalists even when he was still pro-SNP, now he's a go-to for unionists. :rolleyes:

I would hardly suggest he is the go to for Unionists, I considered him a self serving parasite when he was pro SNP and now if possible a bigger clown 🤡 oh and you can also add Craig Murray and Eck Salmond to bampots.com

[CropleyWasGod]

Until yesterday I hadn't been aware that the origins of this police investigation appear to be rooted in the Wings over Scotland blog, which was chipping away at the issue for many months. Given their venomously anti-SNP stance, that must raise questions about the source/motivations behind the complaints. However, in answer to your question re where any fraud may have occurred, if you can be bothered wading through this extraordinarily exhaustive/obsessive summary you'll see that they conclude that the funds raised were used to repay a £500,000 debt to the late Colin Weir or his wife - and explain why they believe that constitutes 'common law fraud'.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-indyref-swindle/comment-page-1/

I'm guessing from your posts that you have some sort of accountancy background? If so, would you say there's any basis for such an assertion?

The Rev is not a lawyer, and neither am I; there are others on here better-placed to answer that.

However, AIUI, in all common law fraud cases, there has to be an "intent to deceive". That is always the obstacle, as it is difficult to prove.

[Peevemor]

I would hardly suggest he is the go to for Unionists, I considered him a self serving parasite when he was pro SNP and now if possible a bigger clown �� oh and you can also add Craig Murray and Eck Salmond to bampots.com

There are bampots on all sides of politics. Self-serving and dishonest people too. I have the same dislike for all of them, whatever flavour.

[Berwickhibby]

The Rev is not a lawyer, and neither am I; there are others on here better-placed to answer that.

However, AIUI, in all common law fraud cases, there has to be an "intent to deceive". That is always the obstacle, as it is difficult to prove.

I mentioned on earlier post that to commit the crime of theft ...you have to dishonestly appropriate the property i.e. Money, services etc with the intent of permanently depriving the lawful owner of it. ... this act of donation voluntary given to a political party I do not think reaches criminal threshold.... not the best advert ...but unless there is a different law for donations to political parties, No crime.

[CropleyWasGod]

I mentioned on earlier post that to commit the crime of theft ...you have to dishonestly appropriate the property i.e. Money, services etc with the intent of permanently depriving the lawful owner of it. ... this act of donation voluntary given to a political party I do not think reaches criminal threshold.... not the best advert ...but unless there is a different law for donations to political parties, No crime.

I think the suggestion here is fraud, rather than theft. As you know, that's much more difficult to prove.

[Berwickhibby]

I think the suggestion here is fraud, rather than theft. As you know, that's much more difficult to prove.

Scots law may be different but in England and Wales Fraud is still part of the Theft Act and the and the basic eliments of theft must be met.....I assumed the same would be up here.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm guessing from your posts that you have some sort of accountancy background? If so, would you say there's any basis for such an assertion?

I'm guessing you weren't a member of the forum during the demise of the club formerly known as Rangers, and now resurrected as The Rangers, or you wouldn't need to ask the question. 😉

CWG and Caversham were the go to guys on the finance side of things.

[ronaldo7]

I agree. Do you mean the travesty was the SG did not class Music as a core subject as part of the cfe which left it to individual LA's to find the funding? If so, I never understood this. When my daughter was at primary school following auditions, 5 kids were selected for trumpet tuition. Their families were asked to pay a couple of hundred pounds to purchase the instrument, that was unfair on kids from families who could not afford it. When I went to school in the 70's the same school had a brass band, I moved to another primary which had an orchestra, no pupil paid for their instruments then.

Having checked, the additional funding for this manifesto pledge has only been initially agreed with COSLA for 12 months. To me this is the SNP beefing up their manifesto, not so much a new pledge, just righting a wrong of all their own making. They should be making music a core subject and providing funding to LA's to recruit permanent music teachers. I don't know of any primary schools that has one though there is plenty supply teachers in Secondary schools for this subject.

If only the Labour party hadn't refused the alternatives which were put forward at council, with the music tuition staying in place, but no, they had to side with the Tories and ensure children were cast aside. There were big protests by the children at the time. The SNP had to step in nationally or it'd have spread to every labour/tory coalition council in the country.

Im all for beefing up our manifesto, rather than watering it down to appease Tories.

[Future17]

With regards to your 1st para.

You believe then they should have set up a separate business account, which will have a level of fees charged and need separately managed, although on a positive there would be some interest gained?
as opposed to using their existing accounting practices which incur no additional charges and whilst there won't be interest gained there won't be overdraft fees paid, more than making up the difference. (I've always been told in the past having savings with 2 or 3 % interest is never the correct thing to do when I had loans/cards where I was paying higher rates)

As someone who donated I'm glad they're being financially prudent and managing the money in the most effective way possible to maximise the funds available to spend on the actual target reason.

As an aside, I've given to charities/causes (Inc a political party other than the SNP :greengrin ) all my life and never once has their advertising/campaign bumpf made any explanation on how their internal banking processes work.

I think that would have been good practice, but I don't think it would be necessary. All that was required is that they maintained an account balance of at least the amount they told donors would be ring-fenced for spending which had not yet occurred. No need for any additional charges or interest considerations.

I think one of the things that is perhaps ignored slightly in this discussion is that the SNP spent money which, if the circa £600k is taken out of the equation, would have taken them into debt, after the bulk of the donations to the specified fund had been made. It's not a question of those donations being used to clear a debt temporarily, as has been suggested.


Imagine I'm overdrawn by £200 on a facility with a £1k limit. My wife & her 2 sisters want me to buy a present for their parents through a work contact and each transfer me £100, meaning I'm now £100 in credit.

Have I used the money?

Yes, you've used £200 of the money to reduce your debt to the bank.


Have I misled them by not telling them I was overdrawn?

That depends on what you've told them. If you told them the money would be ring-fenced, I think that would be misleading as £200 of it isn't yours to ring-fence.


Can I still buy the present without a problem?

Only by borrowing money from your bank to do so.


The only people who would complain against such a situation would be those who have something against me.

Your analogy isn't a great one for how the SNP has received and spend money and it's an even poorer one for those who might complain about the scenario.

Your analogy:

- Has one group of donors, united by common purpose in what the money should be spent on (which is different from the SNP scenario).
- Doesn't address your spending on other matters outwith the common purpose (which is a key part of the SNP scenario).
- Doesn't say what you've told your wife and sisters about how the money will be treated (i.e. "ring-fenced").

Clearly donors to a political campaign and family members contributing to a present or two totally different things and it would be worrying if you're suggesting we should apply the same principles/standards to both.

In any event, the SNP has said that at least part of the money which was donated has been spent.

[Peevemor]

I think that would have been good practice, but I don't think it would be necessary. All that was required is that they maintained an account balance of at least the amount they told donors would be ring-fenced for spending which had not yet occurred. No need for any additional charges or interest considerations.

I think one of the things that is perhaps ignored slightly in this discussion is that the SNP spent money which, if the circa £600k is taken out of the equation, would have taken them into debt, after the bulk of the donations to the specified fund had been made. It's not a question of those donations being used to clear a debt temporarily, as has been suggested.



Yes, you've used £200 of the money to reduce your debt to the bank.



That depends on what you've told them. If you told them the money would be ring-fenced, I think that would be misleading as £200 of it isn't yours to ring-fence.



Only by borrowing money from your bank to do so.



Your analogy isn't a great one for how the SNP has received and spend money and it's an even poorer one for those who might complain about the scenario.

Your analogy:

- Has one group of donors, united by common purpose in what the money should be spent on (which is different from the SNP scenario).
- Doesn't address your spending on other matters outwith the common purpose (which is a key part of the SNP scenario).
- Doesn't say what you've told your wife and sisters about how the money will be treated (i.e. "ring-fenced").

Clearly donors to a political campaign and family members contributing to a present or two totally different things and it would be worrying if you're suggesting we should apply the same principles/standards to both.

In any event, the SNP has said that at least part of the money which was donated has been spent.

How can I have "used the money" if I haven't touched it?

And yes, the SNP have said that part of the money has been spent - on the purpose for which it was donated.

[He's here!]

Genuinely impressive the way Wings has managed to become to go to publication for unionists. The only time links are ever posted on here to it are from unionists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reason I posted that link was because it contains the only detailed allegation of fraud from among the numerous reports on this investigation that I've read and I thought that worth running past CWG who was asking where/when any alleged fraud occurred.

Based on the exhaustive and detailed research they appear to have done, Wings' conclusion/allegation that the money was used by the SNP to repay a 500k loan seems reasonable.

[He's here!]

I'm guessing you weren't a member of the forum during the demise of the club formerly known as Rangers, and now resurrected as The Rangers, or you wouldn't need to ask the question. 😉

CWG and Caversham were the go to guys on the finance side of things.

No I wasn't on here back then but thanks for the feedback. I note Caversham has now also posted what seems a rational analysis of the issue in question.

[Kato]

The reason I posted that link was because it contains the only detailed allegation of fraud from among the numerous reports on this investigation that I've read and I thought that worth running past CWG who was asking where/when any alleged fraud occurred.

Based on the exhaustive and detailed research they appear to have done, Wings' conclusion/allegation that the money was used by the SNP to repay a 500k loan seems reasonable.Seems solidly reasonable until you factor in that the allegations come from one of the most unreasonable people on the internet.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

It's interesting that this isn't a lead story on the BBC, it isn't even a lead story when you go to Scotland news, not even when you go to Scotland politics. It's in the politics section but is below stories about SQA, long covid, travel lists and face masks. That suggests much ado about nothing as the beeb love a good SNP bashing. If its been instigated by wings and his followers it is likely a load of **** and will lead to the police quickly saying nothing criminal has happened. Best practice? Probably not, criminal, very unlikely. But good to see unionists holding parties to the highest level of scrutiny. Would be lovely to see them direct that holier than thow attitude to their own

[stantonhibby]

I'm guessing you weren't a member of the forum during the demise of the club formerly known as Rangers, and now resurrected as The Rangers, or you wouldn't need to ask the question. 😉

CWG and Caversham were the go to guys on the finance side of things.

They are indeed and do seem to know their stuff. Probably why none of the 'move along, nothing to see' folk have responded to Cavershams post.

[Peevemor]

They are indeed and do seem to know their stuff. Probably why none of the 'move along, nothing to see' folk have responded to Cavershams post.

Because Caversham has posted a reasoned response, including -


"what they should have done was set up a separate creditor account (on paper only) ... If they used the term 'ring-fenced' to solicit the funds it's debatable whether there's any criminality involved but it's very poor accounting practice not to open a separate fund account.


There's a fair bit of supposition but not much to disagree with or argue against (I have minimal accounting knowledge so I'm not even going to try :greengrin).

In any case, Caversham's post is totally different from some of the unsubstantiated mud chucking that we're used to.

[Berwickhibby]

It's interesting that this isn't a lead story on the BBC, it isn't even a lead story when you go to Scotland news, not even when you go to Scotland politics. It's in the politics section but is below stories about SQA, long covid, travel lists and face masks. That suggests much ado about nothing as the beeb love a good SNP bashing. If its been instigated by wings and his followers it is likely a load of **** and will lead to the police quickly saying nothing criminal has happened. Best practice? Probably not, criminal, very unlikely. But good to see unionists holding parties to the highest level of scrutiny. Would be lovely to see them direct that holier than thow attitude to their own

Strange how most of my Labour supporting Unionist friends think this is a load of old tosh, but it appears to me the person who is making the biggest noise is a former SNP campaigner "The self proclaimed Rev Campbell from Wings over Bath" he obviously feels slighted and doing everything he can to try and discredit the SNP ....making a bigger tit of himself in the progress....has he still got his begging bowl out...how much had he conned out of folk?

[Santa Cruz]

It's interesting that this isn't a lead story on the BBC, it isn't even a lead story when you go to Scotland news, not even when you go to Scotland politics. It's in the politics section but is below stories about SQA, long covid, travel lists and face masks. That suggests much ado about nothing as the beeb love a good SNP bashing. If its been instigated by wings and his followers it is likely a load of **** and will lead to the police quickly saying nothing criminal has happened. Best practice? Probably not, criminal, very unlikely. But good to see unionists holding parties to the highest level of scrutiny. Would be lovely to see them direct that holier than thow attitude to their own

It wasn't a lead story on the main BBC News (not sure if it was the news channel or BBC1) but it was mentioned either yesterday or the day before. I found it odd there was no mention of it on the Scottish News that followed.

[CropleyWasGod]

The bit in bold - what they should have done was set up a separate creditor account (on paper only) and instead of treating the donations as spendable revenue they should have recorded them in that account as deferred revenue to be spent on future projects. If they used the term 'ring-fenced' to solicit the funds then they have badly misled the donors by not doing this - it's debatable whether there's any criminality involved but it's very poor accounting practice not to open a separate fund account.

They have an obligation to spend some of the resources they currently have on a future indyref campaign but that obligation is not reflected in their published accounts and that's just wrong.

I've had another look at their 2019 accounts. :rolleyes:

There's definitely no mention of separate reserves, funds or anything that might suggest ring-fencing. However, there is £582k accrued for "Amounts owed to accounting units". This seems to be for "grant funding to help affiliated organisations develop new projects, campaigns
or events during the year".

That, arguably, is the funds under discussion. But transparent it ain't.

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Api/Accounts/Documents/22612

[Just Alf]

I've had another look at their 2019 accounts. :rolleyes:

There's definitely no mention of separate reserves, funds or anything that might suggest ring-fencing. However, there is £582k accrued for "Amounts owed to accounting units". This seems to be for "grant funding to help affiliated organisations develop new projects, campaigns
or events during the year".

That, arguably, is the funds under discussion. But transparent it ain't.

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Api/Accounts/Documents/22612Got to say, I really take note when you and Cav post on the darker arts of finance.

Whilst I still don't think the SNP have been 'bad' here, I can see how it could have been handled much better.

The good Rev has said before he wouldn't even give the SNP the steam of his.. err anyway, I don't think he'd ha been a donator, ....... however as a donator I'm still happy that ultimately the funds, and more, will be spent persuading/assuring me and many others that independence is a risky step worth taking.

[weecounty hibby]

Strange how most of my Labour supporting Unionist friends think this is a load of old tosh, but it appears to me the person who is making the biggest noise is a former SNP campaigner "The self proclaimed Rev Campbell from Wings over Bath" he obviously feels slighted and doing everything he can to try and discredit the SNP ....making a bigger tit of himself in the progress....has he still got his begging bowl out...how much had he conned out of folk?
Campbell is a complete loonball. Anyone who donated to him are the ones who have been conned. Whether that was when he was full on indy and backing SNP or where he is now as a supposedly backing indy but waging some kind of crusade against all things SNP.

[degenerated]

Campbell is a complete loonball. Anyone who donated to him are the ones who have been conned. Whether that was when he was full on indy and backing SNP or where he is now as a supposedly backing indy but waging some kind of crusade against all things SNP.His war against the SNP started just after the time his house was raised by the met and his computers were seized. He seemed to change his tune after that, just saying [emoji848]

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Caversham Green]

Because Caversham has posted a reasoned response, including -



There's a fair bit of supposition but not much to disagree with or argue against (I have minimal accounting knowledge so I'm not even going to try :greengrin).

In any case, Caversham's post is totally different from some of the unsubstantiated mud chucking that we're used to.

To be clear, the first and last sentences of my post are unequivocal. They should have raised an account for deferred income, and that should have been reflected in the published accounts. Unless the timing is out I would be concerned about the auditor's competence or integrity here - just saying, but they were HoMFC's auditors pre 2012.


I've had another look at their 2019 accounts. :rolleyes:

There's definitely no mention of separate reserves, funds or anything that might suggest ring-fencing. However, there is £582k accrued for "Amounts owed to accounting units". This seems to be for "grant funding to help affiliated organisations develop new projects, campaigns
or events during the year".

That, arguably, is the funds under discussion. But transparent it ain't.

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Api/Accounts/Documents/22612

I have no idea what that means (and that in itself is a cause for concern) but the fact that it has reduced by a fair whack from 2018 suggests that it's not what we're looking for.


Got to say, I really take note when you and Cav post on the darker arts of finance.

Whilst I still don't think the SNP have been 'bad' here, I can see how it could have been handled much better.

The good Rev has said before he wouldn't even give the SNP the steam of his.. err anyway, I don't think he'd ha been a donator, ....... however as a donator I'm still happy that ultimately the funds, and more, will be spent persuading/assuring me and many others that independence is a risky step worth taking.

You make a fair point here. I think there's a degree of incompetence that should be worrying, but given that the donors are almost certainly avid independence supporters the practical effect is not as serious as it might otherwise be.

On the other hand, it seems Trump has been raising cash for a prospective challenge to the presidential election and (allegedly) using the funds to reduce his own personal debt. Who thinks that's a good look?

[Moulin Yarns]

His war against the SNP started just after the time his house was raised by the met and his computers were seized. He seemed to change his tune after that, just saying [emoji848]

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

Why did the Met raid a house in Bath?

[degenerated]

Why did the Met raid a house in Bath?Something to do with a journalist from the express that made supposed false claims about him threatening her.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I have no idea what that means (and that in itself is a cause for concern) but the fact that it has reduced by a fair whack from 2018 suggests that it's not what we're looking for.




The reduction is some sort of reversal of accrual, which is explained in the income statement somewhere. Not that that helps. :greengrin

"Accounting units", AIUI, are local parties and associations, which have to produce separate accounts (I think to the EC).

I share your view on the auditors as well. :cb

[McD]

The SNP haven't used the money at all.


How can I have "used the money" if I haven't touched it?

And yes, the SNP have said that part of the money has been spent - on the purpose for which it was donated.


I don’t have a side in this argument at all, but you’ve contradicted yourself here

[Rocky]

The number of words that have been expended on this £600,000 issue, which as far as I can see amounts to the fact that, in the worst case,the SNP may have spent the monies on the election (thus furthering the cause of independence) rather than directly on a referendum campaign is really quite extraordinary.

The amount Dido *****ed on Test and Trace is about 62,000 times bigger but it would appear that this issue has generated 62,000 times more words.

Any way you look at it, that smacks of desperation from the unionists.

[Berwickhibby]

The number of words that have been expended on this £600,000 issue, which as far as I can see amounts to the fact that, in the worst case,the SNP may have spent the monies on the election (thus furthering the cause of independence) rather than directly on a referendum campaign is really quite extraordinary.

The amount Dido *****ed on Test and Trace is about 62,000 times bigger but it would appear that this issue has generated 62,000 times more words.

Any way you look at it, that smacks of desperation from the unionists.

People keep blaming Unionists for this nonsense…. Try blaming Campbell and the idiots in Alba who are the ones making the biggest fuss

[Rocky]

People keep blaming Unionists for this nonsense…. Try blaming Campbell and the idiots in Alba who are the ones making the biggest fuss
Fair point but they're not posting on here.

[Peevemor]

I don’t have a side in this argument at all, but you’ve contradicted yourself hereThey've used a small amount of the money for the intended purpose. They haven't eaten into the money for other purposes.

[Berwickhibby]

Fair point but they're not posting on here.

I post on here and I think the allegations are nonsense and a waste of police time and resources… oh and I am a Unionist

[Rocky]

I post on here and I think the allegations are nonsense and a waste of police time and resources… oh and I am a Unionist

Another fair point. I'll rephrase as "smacks of desperation from one or more unionists"!

[Future17]

How can I have "used the money" if I haven't touched it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "touched it" in this context. People use money all the time without physically touching it.


And yes, the SNP have said that part of the money has been spent - on the purpose for which it was donated.

The SNP have also said "In fact the money is 'earmarked'...and will be deployed fully through future cash flow for the purpose of promoting a referendum on independence and campaigns intended to secure independence."

If the money which was donated hadn't been spent, it wouldn't be necessary to rely on future cash flow to deploy it.

[weecounty hibby]

I post on here and I think the allegations are nonsense and a waste of police time and resources… oh and I am a Unionist

We have disagreed in the past but your honesty on things like this is refreshing. You are a unionist but also happy to call bull**** in stuff like this when it's applucabke. Remember you doing the same during the Salmond/Sturgeon stuff as well. Fair play. We probably won't ever agree on our constitutional politics but respect for that

[Future17]

The reduction is some sort of reversal of accrual, which is explained in the income statement somewhere. Not that that helps. :greengrin

"Accounting units", AIUI, are local parties and associations, which have to produce separate accounts (I think to the EC).

I share your view on the auditors as well. :cb

:agree:


The number of words that have been expended on this £600,000 issue, which as far as I can see amounts to the fact that, in the worst case,the SNP may have spent the monies on the election (thus furthering the cause of independence) rather than directly on a referendum campaign is really quite extraordinary.

The amount Dido *****ed on Test and Trace is about 62,000 times bigger but it would appear that this issue has generated 62,000 times more words.

Any way you look at it, that smacks of desperation from the unionists.

As I've said before, I'm not a unionist. Neither are the people I know who donated and are unhappy. For the avoidance of doubt, none of us are Salmond-worshipping, Alba disciples either. Each of us (at least to the best of my knowledge) believe Sturgeon is the right person to lead the independence campaign.

If you really want independence though, it's important to keep those leading the campaign as honest as possible and to let them know you're paying attention to what they're doing. The fact that some pro-SNP posters on here don't seem to care what the SNP has done on this subject reinforces why that's so important.

I'd agree with you that elections success for the SNP furthers the cause of independence. However, that doesn't excuse telling people something, in order to obtain their money, which simply isn't true. It's misleading at the very least.

[Rocky]

:agree:



As I've said before, I'm not a unionist. Neither are the people I know who donated and are unhappy. For the avoidance of doubt, none of us are Salmond-worshipping, Alba disciples either. Each of us (at least to the best of my knowledge) believe Sturgeon is the right person to lead the independence campaign.

If you really want independence though, it's important to keep those leading the campaign as honest as possible and to let them know you're paying attention to what they're doing. The fact that some pro-SNP posters on here don't seem to care what the SNP has done on this subject reinforces why that's so important.

I'd agree with you that elections success for the SNP furthers the cause of independence. However, that doesn't excuse telling people something, in order to obtain their money, which simply isn't true. It's misleading at the very least.

OK so it's not unionists, Alba, Salmond worshippers or my auntie Mary but some folk are sure as hell expending an absolutely disproportionate amount of words on this topic.

Makes no odds to me, I didn't donate anyway. But if anyone thinks that the outcome would be substantively different if they had a savings account with a £550,000 balance in it whilst their overdraft on another account was £550,000 bigger then they're deluded. It's like the boring old chat about whether HSL money is ring fenced for the squad or not, as if the club are going to use the money to stick some gold wallpaper in Ron's office instead.

[Smartie]

The number of words that have been expended on this £600,000 issue, which as far as I can see amounts to the fact that, in the worst case,the SNP may have spent the monies on the election (thus furthering the cause of independence) rather than directly on a referendum campaign is really quite extraordinary.

The amount Dido *****ed on Test and Trace is about 62,000 times bigger but it would appear that this issue has generated 62,000 times more words.

Any way you look at it, that smacks of desperation from the unionists.

I’m in favour of independence and whilst I’d expect the unionists to be all over this like a rash (in the absence of any positive arguments existing any more in favour of the Union) I’m actually more interested in it from a self-critical angle ie - it’s already led to a few resignations, that’s not likely to happen because of nothing.

Much of my belief in independence rests on a belief that we can and should have a politics that is cleaner, more honest, transparent and trustworthy than the corrupt mess that Westminster has become. That involves holding “my lot” to a high standard, certainly not letting them off with anything we might slaughter someone else about.

Funnily enough though, the whole episode just seems to remind me of a beleaguered Father Ted trying to explain why that money was just “resting in his account”...

[Rocky]

I’m in favour of independence and whilst I’d expect the unionists to be all over this like a rash (in the absence of any positive arguments existing any more in favour of the Union) I’m actually more interested in it from a self-critical angle ie - it’s already led to a few resignations, that’s not likely to happen because of nothing.

If I were you I'd be more concerned that this ring fencing business is a smokescreen as there's nothing about it that I can see that would justify resignations. So are the SNP using it as a dead cat on the table to deflect from the real reasons for the resignations?

[Moulin Yarns]

Something to do with a journalist from the express that made supposed false claims about him threatening her.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

Why the Met and not the local polis though?

[degenerated]

Why the Met and not the local polis though?Not sure, I'm positive I mind reading on his piece on it on his site that he was taken to London for questioning though.

Edit: rather than trawl his site a quick search shows a guardian article on it, it was Southwark station he was taken to.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/01/wings-over-scotland-blogger-cleared-over-online-harassment-claims

[Future17]

OK so it's not unionists, Alba, Salmond worshippers or my auntie Mary but some folk are sure as hell expending an absolutely disproportionate amount of words on this topic.

Makes no odds to me, I didn't donate anyway. But if anyone thinks that the outcome would be substantively different if they had a savings account with a £550,000 balance in it whilst their overdraft on another account was £550,000 bigger then they're deluded. It's like the boring old chat about whether HSL money is ring fenced for the squad or not, as if the club are going to use the money to stick some gold wallpaper in Ron's office instead.

That's a whole different discussion with regard to what the SNP would have been permitted to spend on other campaigns had the proposed spending taken them to an overdraft of £550,000. Part of the questioning is whether the amount donated for future referendum campaigning was used to cover the fact that the Party didn't have the funds it was spending on those other campaigns. As I understand it, this is what led to (at least) some of the resignations.

[Crunchie]

I post on here and I think the allegations are nonsense and a waste of police time and resources… oh and I am a Unionist
So the 4 resignations over lack of access to the accounts is nonsense? We shall see but the police wouldn't look into something that they consider to be nonsense.

[weecounty hibby]

So the 4 resignations over lack of access to the accounts is nonsense? We shall see but the police wouldn't look into something that they consider to be nonsense.

They will as a complaint has been made. See LG for an example. End result no criminality.

[Peevemor]

So the 4 resignations over lack of access to the accounts is nonsense? We shall see but the police wouldn't look into something that they consider to be nonsense.

Keep wishing!

[CropleyWasGod]

So the 4 resignations over lack of access to the accounts is nonsense? We shall see but the police wouldn't look into something that they consider to be nonsense.

They can't consider it to be nonsense until they've looked into it.

[Caversham Green]

OK so it's not unionists, Alba, Salmond worshippers or my auntie Mary but some folk are sure as hell expending an absolutely disproportionate amount of words on this topic.

Makes no odds to me, I didn't donate anyway. But if anyone thinks that the outcome would be substantively different if they had a savings account with a £550,000 balance in it whilst their overdraft on another account was £550,000 bigger then they're deluded. It's like the boring old chat about whether HSL money is ring fenced for the squad or not, as if the club are going to use the money to stick some gold wallpaper in Ron's office instead.

They wouldn't have had to open a different bank account, they just should have recorded the donations as deferred income in the same way as football clubs record season ticket money for the following season that they received before their year end. That means it goes into the balance sheet as a liability rather than the P&L account as income. What makes it look serious is that their net asset value at 31 December 2019 was only £271,916 - add a £660k creditor into that and they are technically insolvent. That looks awfy like false accounting.

The saving grace is that the 'victims' are by definition seeking independence and that is the core business of the SNP but it strikes me as a weak argument and it still looks rather dodgy to me.

For the record, I would have been a reluctant no voter if I had been given a vote, but I do not consider myself a unionist.

[Jack]

Other political parties, or even the SNP, must have received donations for 'projects' in the past.

Does anyone know how these have been recorded in the accounts?

Could it be that although it's maybe 'no the best way' to record such income that a precedent had been set in the past and is just being followed?

[Peevemor]

They wouldn't have had to open a different bank account, they just should have recorded the donations as deferred income in the same way as football clubs record season ticket money for the following season that they received before their year end. That means it goes into the balance sheet as a liability rather than the P&L account as income. What makes it look serious is that their net asset value at 31 December 2019 was only £271,916 - add a £660k creditor into that and they are technically insolvent. That looks awfy like false accounting.

The saving grace is that the 'victims' are by definition seeking independence and that is the core business of the SNP but it strikes me as a weak argument and it still looks rather dodgy to me.

For the record, I would have been a reluctant no voter if I had been given a vote, but I do not consider myself a unionist.


Other political parties, or even the SNP, must have received donations for 'projects' in the past.

Does anyone know how these have been recorded in the accounts?

Could it be that although it's maybe 'no the best way' to record such income that a precedent had been set in the past and is just being followed?

Again, going back to the statement-

https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?321648-SNP-nonsense&p=6619378&viewfull=1#post6619378

- the SNP have used the same system for recording allocating funds donated for "decades" and it doesn't appear to have been signalled as problematic before.

Is it simply that there's more than one way to skin this particular cat (genuine question)?

[Caversham Green]

Again, going back to the statement-

https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?321648-SNP-nonsense&p=6619378&viewfull=1#post6619378

- the SNP have used the same system for recording allocating funds donated for "decades" and it doesn't appear to have been signalled as problematic before.

Is it simply that there's more than one way to skin this particular cat (genuine question)?

I really can't see it. The donations were made specifically to fund an activity that has not yet taken place and the party has an obligation to the donors to use their donations for that activity. That's a financial obligation and if the accounts don't show it as such then they don't give a true and fair view of the party's financial standing. Keeping an internal running total just doesn't cut it for me - users of the accounts are entitled to know that the obligation exists.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not sure, I'm positive I mind reading on his piece on it on his site that he was taken to London for questioning though.

Edit: rather than trawl his site a quick search shows a guardian article on it, it was Southwark station he was taken to.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/01/wings-over-scotland-blogger-cleared-over-online-harassment-claims

Ta, I see it was Avon and Somerset police that arrested him.

[degenerated]

Ta, I see it was Avon and Somerset police that arrested him.If you go to his blog you will find the story where he says that were detectives from the met there.

I'll just leave it there, as it's beginning to become a bit boring now.

[Moulin Yarns]

If you go to his blog you will find the story where he says that were detectives from the met there.

I'll just leave it there, as it's beginning to become a bit boring now.

They would be there to chauffeur him back to London, but the arresting officers has to be from the local police.

If the Rev claimed he was arrested by the Met then that's another falsehood from him.

[Berwickhibby]

If you go to his blog you will find the story where he says that were detectives from the met there.

I'll just leave it there, as it's beginning to become a bit boring now.

If the alleged crime occurred in London then its is a Mets crime to investigate, standard practice is to use local officers to arrest, search and use a local custody suite. The officer in charge of the investigation would attend and conduct interview, then charge, bail, remand or discontinue

[He's here!]

They wouldn't have had to open a different bank account, they just should have recorded the donations as deferred income in the same way as football clubs record season ticket money for the following season that they received before their year end. That means it goes into the balance sheet as a liability rather than the P&L account as income. What makes it look serious is that their net asset value at 31 December 2019 was only £271,916 - add a £660k creditor into that and they are technically insolvent. That looks awfy like false accounting.

The saving grace is that the 'victims' are by definition seeking independence and that is the core business of the SNP but it strikes me as a weak argument and it still looks rather dodgy to me.

For the record, I would have been a reluctant no voter if I had been given a vote, but I do not consider myself a unionist.

Hard to argue with any of that, though I'm sure some will :wink:

I think its' fair to say that if the headlines had read something along the lines of 'Police launch fraud probe into Conservative/Labour fundraising' there would be significantly fewer folk going to such lengths to try and show that the donations have not actually been spent.

[Peevemor]

I really can't see it. The donations were made specifically to fund an activity that has not yet taken place and the party has an obligation to the donors to use their donations for that activity. That's a financial obligation and if the accounts don't show it as such then they don't give a true and fair view of the party's financial standing. Keeping an internal running total just doesn't cut it for me - users of the accounts are entitled to know that the obligation exists.

Why then have they used the same process/system for "decades", and checked by various auditors.

Is it maybe not the best way (nor the way you would do it), but a valid method all the same?

Again, I'm not doing my Petrocelli - I'm just asking.

[weecounty hibby]

Hard to argue with any of that, though I'm sure some will :wink:

I think its' fair to say that if the headlines had read something along the lines of 'Police launch fraud probe into Conservative/Labour fundraising' there would be significantly fewer folk going to such lengths to try and show that the donations have not actually been spent.

I'm sure you would. It appears that you haven't any issues with the fraudulent way government business has been conducted by the UK during the pandemic. And actual ministers have been found to have broken the law in court. If you have condemned that on these threads then we'll done, but I must have missed it.

[Caversham Green]

Why then have they used the same process/system for "decades", and checked by various auditors.

Is it maybe not the best way (nor the way you would do it), but a valid method all the same?

Again, I'm not doing my Petrocelli - I'm just asking.

I can't answer that without speculation and I don't want to go down that rocky path. I've tried to give the reasons for my views and the fact that they claim to have been using that method for decades does nothing to change my mind. It's a financial obligation so it needs to be reflected in the published accounts. In this case it appears to make a very significant difference to the view presented by those accounts which makes the whole thing rather worse.

If I had come across a similar situation as an auditor I would have insisted on an adjustment to the accounts or a qualification to my report.

[Peevemor]

I can't answer that without speculation and I don't want to go down that rocky path. I've tried to give the reasons for my views and the fact that they claim to have been using that method for decades does nothing to change my mind. It's a financial obligation so it needs to be reflected in the published accounts. In this case it appears to make a very significant difference to the view presented by those accounts which makes the whole thing rather worse.

If I had come across a similar situation as an auditor I would have insisted on an adjustment to the accounts or a qualification to my report.

OK - fair enough.

[Rocky]

They wouldn't have had to open a different bank account, they just should have recorded the donations as deferred income in the same way as football clubs record season ticket money for the following season that they received before their year end. That means it goes into the balance sheet as a liability rather than the P&L account as income. What makes it look serious is that their net asset value at 31 December 2019 was only £271,916 - add a £660k creditor into that and they are technically insolvent. That looks awfy like false accounting.

The saving grace is that the 'victims' are by definition seeking independence and that is the core business of the SNP but it strikes me as a weak argument and it still looks rather dodgy to me.

For the record, I would have been a reluctant no voter if I had been given a vote, but I do not consider myself a unionist.
Genuine question, would they really be "technically insolvent" if the obligation to spend the money isn't "technically" a liability? Is there a creditor involved that could demand the money back? Does there have to be?

Can't believe I've ended up expending words on the issue too, I don't even care! As far as I'm concerned election expenditure could easily be categorised as furthering the cause of independence, in fact their failure to obtain an outright majority in parliament has damaged the cause of independence.

And yes, I know the Scottish Parliament is designed to avoid the possibility of an outright majority, every independence supporter knows that. That fact doesn't prevent the soundbite of "no majority of the Scottish people" from landing with the rest of the population.

[Caversham Green]

Genuine question, would they really be "technically insolvent" if the obligation to spend the money isn't "technically" a liability? Is there a creditor involved that could demand the money back? Does there have to be?

Can't believe I've ended up expending words on the issue too, I don't even care! As far as I'm concerned election expenditure could easily be categorised as furthering the cause of independence, in fact their failure to obtain an outright majority in parliament has damaged the cause of independence.

And yes, I know the Scottish Parliament is designed to avoid the possibility of an outright majority, every independence supporter knows that. That fact doesn't prevent the soundbite of "no majority of the Scottish people" from landing with the rest of the population.

What I meant by technically insolvent was that the balance sheet would show a negative net asset value - i.e. liabilities exceed assets. In theory the donors could demand their money back if it was not going to be used for the purpose advertised. The real problem would come from banks assessing whether to renew an overdraft or extend a loan. In a more commercial environment it would undoubtedly put potential investors or creditors off, in the political environment it would invite mudslinging from opposing parties, but as long as they can keep paying their bills probably not much more. There is a moral aspect too, and that does make me a bit uncomfortable - they've told these donors that they would be using the funds for a referendum campaign but the accounts tell us they will be taking the funds from another source - that doesn't sit well with me.

[Santa Cruz]

Genuine question, would they really be "technically insolvent" if the obligation to spend the money isn't "technically" a liability? Is there a creditor involved that could demand the money back? Does there have to be?

Can't believe I've ended up expending words on the issue too, I don't even care! As far as I'm concerned election expenditure could easily be categorised as furthering the cause of independence, in fact their failure to obtain an outright majority in parliament has damaged the cause of independence.

And yes, I know the Scottish Parliament is designed to avoid the possibility of an outright majority, every independence supporter knows that. That fact doesn't prevent the soundbite of "no majority of the Scottish people" from landing with the rest of the population.

Would that not be resolved by forming a coalition gov with the Green's?

What's the delay with this being announced? Seeing as we're stuck with this Gov for 5 full years, I'd rather have somebody with an actual clue about Education as Cabinet Secretary. When looking at who's got the credentials/interest/passion, Ross Greer fits that bill for me.

[Rocky]

Would that not be resolved by forming a coalition gov with the Green's?



Nope, you have to remember we're living in essentially a post-truth society. Johnson just has to stand up and say "the Scottish Nationalist Party don't even have a majority in their own parliament" and it sticks.

[Moulin Yarns]

Would that not be resolved by forming a coalition gov with the Green's?

What's the delay with this being announced? Seeing as we're stuck with this Gov for 5 full years, I'd rather have somebody with an actual clue about Education as Cabinet Secretary. When looking at who's got the credentials/interest/passion, Ross Greer fits that bill for me.

I did a fair amount of analysis of the numbers at the election, and the majority of votes went to pro independence parties, and the Parliament also has a pro independence majority without the need for a formal coalition.

I don't think either party wants a formal coalition but I agree with you that Ross Greer would be a good education secretary. I also think that the Greens would be better than the SNP on the environment.

[He's here!]

I'm sure you would. It appears that you haven't any issues with the fraudulent way government business has been conducted by the UK during the pandemic. And actual ministers have been found to have broken the law in court. If you have condemned that on these threads then we'll done, but I must have missed it.

I've not been especially impressed with the way government business (nor Labour's ineffective contribution) has been conducted at Westminster or Holyrood during the pandemic. There's been a sense for much of the time that we're just making it up as we go along, which I guess is not altogether surprising in such unique circumstances. However, if I've not waded into any discussions of Westminster impropriety then nor have I gone out of my way to defend it (at least not that I can recall!).

Bottom line, this thread is entitled SNP nonsense, hence an obvious place to unload any criticism that I, or anyone else who can't abide them, deems valid. Given the balance of political opinion on the forum, however, we seem outnumbered on the thread by SNP devotees ready to rush to their defence :wink:

[He's here!]

Would that not be resolved by forming a coalition gov with the Green's?

What's the delay with this being announced? Seeing as we're stuck with this Gov for 5 full years, I'd rather have somebody with an actual clue about Education as Cabinet Secretary. When looking at who's got the credentials/interest/passion, Ross Greer fits that bill for me.

The 'trans' focus/baggage the Greens bring with them (in particular Harvie and Slater) would likely cause further schisms within an SNP party already badly split on an issue which (arguably) already attracts too much hysteria, hence the reluctance to enter into anything too formal. Greer seems agreeable enough, granted.

[Moulin Yarns]

The 'trans' focus/baggage the Greens bring with them (in particular Harvie and Slater) would likely cause further schisms within an SNP party already badly split on an issue which (arguably) already attracts too much hysteria, hence the reluctance to enter into anything too formal. Greer seems agreeable enough, granted.

Maybe you need to start a new thread to vent your hatred for the Scottish Green Party. You seem to think that there is something wrong with them.

[Ozyhibby]

The 'trans' focus/baggage the Greens bring with them (in particular Harvie and Slater) would likely cause further schisms within an SNP party already badly split on an issue which (arguably) already attracts too much hysteria, hence the reluctance to enter into anything too formal. Greer seems agreeable enough, granted.

Any split in the SNP on this issue is a bit like the Salmond/Sturgeon split. About 95/5%. A real split is when things are a lot closer to 50/50. To say the SNP is badly split on the issue is nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

The 'trans' focus/baggage the Greens bring with them (in particular Harvie and Slater) would likely cause further schisms within an SNP party already badly split on an issue which (arguably) already attracts too much hysteria, hence the reluctance to enter into anything too formal. Greer seems agreeable enough, granted.

Greer seems agreeable....he is horrible disrespectful runt with a face I would not get tired punching ...the way he had a go at the 2nd world war soldiers and airmen calling the war criminals boiled my pish

[Ozyhibby]

Greer seems agreeable....he is horrible disrespectful runt with a face I would not get tired punching ...the way he had a go at the 2nd world war soldiers and airmen calling the war criminals boiled my pish

Judging people on their appearance ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Greer seems agreeable....he is horrible disrespectful runt with a face I would not get tired punching ...the way he had a go at the 2nd world war soldiers and airmen calling the war criminals boiled my pish

There was me thinking that He's Here would be a lone voice in the rabid hatred of the Scottish Green Party, I should have known better 🙄😉

[Berwickhibby]

Judging people on their appearance ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was what he said that annoyed me...prior to that he was a irrelevance

[Santa Cruz]

There was me thinking that He's Here would be a lone voice in the rabid hatred of the Scottish Green Party, I should have known better 🙄😉

I like Alison Johnstone too, she's quite impressive. Other than her and Greer, I'm in the meh camp when it comes to the Greens.

Has there ever been any polls conducted to show if Unionists would vote for them if they didn't back Independence? Just wondering if they lose out on votes because of their stance on the issue.

[He's here!]

Greer seems agreeable....he is horrible disrespectful runt with a face I would not get tired punching ...the way he had a go at the 2nd world war soldiers and airmen calling the war criminals boiled my pish

I wasn't aware of that. I don't actually know much about the guy, just that on the rare occasions I've seen him speak I thought he seemed a bit more switched on than his party leaders. However, having read the comments you allude to I agree he comes across as a smart erse.

As Ricky Gervais has commented, Greer should be more aware that it's those who fought the second world war who ensured he has the freedom of speech to say what he wants.

[He's here!]

Any split in the SNP on this issue is a bit like the Salmond/Sturgeon split. About 95/5%. A real split is when things are a lot closer to 50/50. To say the SNP is badly split on the issue is nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New Statesman seems to think it's the greatest challenge (bar fighting for independence) that the party faces:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2021/05/how-debate-over-trans-rights-splitting-snp

[JeMeSouviens]

The 'trans' focus/baggage the Greens bring with them (in particular Harvie and Slater) would likely cause further schisms within an SNP party already badly split on an issue which (arguably) already attracts too much hysteria, hence the reluctance to enter into anything too formal. Greer seems agreeable enough, granted.

The "gender critical" (hope that's the right term) crowd have all left for Alba I think?

[He's here!]

Maybe you need to start a new thread to vent your hatred for the Scottish Green Party. You seem to think that there is something wrong with them.

Can't stand them. And it appears to be not just the Scottish Greens who seem obsessed with putting the issue centre stage:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-the-green-party-care-more-about-trans-rights-than-the-environment-

(by a transgender writer incidentally).

[JeMeSouviens]

Greer seems agreeable....he is horrible disrespectful runt with a face I would not get tired punching ...the way he had a go at the 2nd world war soldiers and airmen calling the war criminals boiled my pish

Do you have a link?

I know he called Churchill a racist mass murderer (not for WW2, for actions in India and so on) but I'm not aware of him extending that to service personnel in general?

[Peevemor]

New Statesman seems to think it's the greatest challenge (bar fighting for independence) that the party faces:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2021/05/how-debate-over-trans-rights-splitting-snpIt's not just a hot potato for the SNP though. Any party trying to introduce similar legislation will struggle. The issue goes beyond party politics and is a legal minefield.

[ronaldo7]

I wasn't aware of that. I don't actually know much about the guy, just that on the rare occasions I've seen him speak I thought he seemed a bit more switched on than his party leaders. However, having read the comments you allude to I agree he comes across as a smart erse.

As Ricky Gervais has commented, Greer should be more aware that it's those who fought the second world war who ensured he has the freedom of speech to say what he wants.

I've looked for the words by Ross Greer about ex serviceman being murderers, but can only find him referring to Churchill.

Not sure it actually happened unless the poster who asserted it as fact can produce the goods.

[weecounty hibby]

Churchill is a figure that history looks favourably on for his service during WW2 but he was a complete ******* and a delve into his past shows him turning troops onto his own people on more than one occasion to keep the working classes at bay. My grandfather detested Churchill with a passion and didn't have a good word to say about him even taking into account his efforts during the war

[Berwickhibby]

I've looked for the words by Ross Greer about ex serviceman being murderers, but can only find him referring to Churchill.

Not sure it actually happened unless the poster who asserted it as fact can produce the goods.

I know what I heard him say on the radio calling Bomber command war criminals for attacking Dresden, disrespectful towards Churchill…. I am not going to search and produce the goods he is in my opinion are little prick end off

[Moulin Yarns]

Can't stand them. And it appears to be not just the Scottish Greens who seem obsessed with putting the issue centre stage:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-the-green-party-care-more-about-trans-rights-than-the-environment-

(by a transgender writer incidentally).

That's not a member of the the Scottish Green Party though. 🙄

[Moulin Yarns]

I know what I heard him say on the radio calling Bomber command war criminals for attacking Dresden, disrespectful towards Churchill…. I am not going to search and produce the goods he is in my opinion are little prick end off

So, unwilling or unable to back up your 'opinion' 🙄

Most I can find is criticism of the Scottish Government for dealing with arms firms who have worked with middle Eastern nations

[degenerated]

So, unwilling or unable to back up your 'opinion' [emoji849]

Most I can find is criticism of the Scottish Government for dealing with arms firms who have worked with middle Eastern nationsHere's the one I remember.

https://youtu.be/Iy8Bt_V971o

[Moulin Yarns]

Here's the one I remember.

https://youtu.be/Iy8Bt_V971o

I saw that, but still nothing to support the unsubstantiated claim that British armed forces are war criminals.

[degenerated]

I saw that, but still nothing to support the unsubstantiated claim that British armed forces are war criminals.Nope, he had a well justified dig at Churchill though.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nope, he had a well justified dig at Churchill though.

Yep, but according to the Berwickhibby it was calling Bomber command war criminals, and nowhere is there anything to back up the claim.

[He's here!]

I've looked for the words by Ross Greer about ex serviceman being murderers, but can only find him referring to Churchill.

Not sure it actually happened unless the poster who asserted it as fact can produce the goods.

I was assuming he was referring to Greer's spat with Piers Morgan? I didn't watch it at the time but having read what he had to say it strikes me as little more than smug attention seeking by raising a subject which has surely been done to death. Sure there's an almost cult-like, sometimes misplaced, devotion to Churchill but for Greer to insist on applying only modern day sensibilities to the debate undermines legitimate criticism in favour of shock value.

I'd suggest his comments were childish, but if the twitter response printed from Morgan is genuine then perhaps he wins that title!!

"You're a thick ginger turd who'd be spewing this filth in German if it wasn't for Churchill".

[He's here!]

That's not a member of the the Scottish Green Party though. 🙄

Yes, I thought I made that clear?!

[Santa Cruz]

I was assuming he was referring to Greer's spat with Piers Morgan? I didn't watch it at the time but having read what he had to say it strikes me as little more than smug attention seeking by raising a subject which has surely been done to death. Sure there's an almost cult-like, sometimes misplaced, devotion to Churchill but for Greer to insist on applying only modern day sensibilities to the debate undermines legitimate criticism in favour of shock value.

I'd suggest his comments were childish, but if the twitter response printed from Morgan is genuine then perhaps he wins that title!!

"You're a thick ginger turd who'd be spewing this filth in German if it wasn't for Churchill".

I watched it. I had no knowledge on the points Ross Greer was making, so had no idea if they were true. Morgan did a Morgan and instead of conducting a reasonable interview to challenge what he disagreed with, he reverted to type and ridiculed in his predictable overly aggressive manner. Rather than Greer coming across as childish I would have described him as passionate and a little inexperienced in interviews when dealing with Morgan type characters . If I recall correctly there was possibly a Historian present who also disagreed with Greer without the unnecessary put downs. I despise Piers Morgan with a pash, he's a bully.

[Stick]

Here's the one I remember.

https://youtu.be/Iy8Bt_V971o

Haven’t seen that one before, for such a young man the way he stood up to Morgan was impressive. Three against one and he came out looking the most rational. Don’t know anything about him to be honest. I will have to pay more attention to him in the future, not someone who ever struck me as being in any way nasty.
Isn’t Morgan a horrible piece of work though?

[Santa Cruz]

Haven’t seen that one before, for such a young man the way he stood up to Morgan was impressive. Three against one and he came out looking the most rational. Don’t know anything about him to be honest. I will have to pay more attention to him in the future, not someone who ever struck me as being in any way nasty.
Isn’t Morgan a horrible piece of work though?

100%. Sorry, I never watched the clip posted, Do recall there was someone else there, didn't realise there was 3 of them.

[Future17]

Again, going back to the statement-

https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?321648-SNP-nonsense&p=6619378&viewfull=1#post6619378

- the SNP have used the same system for recording allocating funds donated for "decades" and it doesn't appear to have been signalled as problematic before.

Is it simply that there's more than one way to skin this particular cat (genuine question)?


Why then have they used the same process/system for "decades", and checked by various auditors.

Is it maybe not the best way (nor the way you would do it), but a valid method all the same?

Again, I'm not doing my Petrocelli - I'm just asking.

The difference here is that the SNP solicited donations for a specific future purpose with an unknown timeline; that's an unusual thing for political parties to do. I'd even suggest it's not some the SNP has done before.

It was probably just someone's bright idea that was stupidly signed off on, but the SNP should explain why such a pitch was used to obtain money which they appear to have always intended to spend on something else.

[Rocky]

The difference here is that the SNP solicited donations for a specific future purpose with an unknown timeline; that's an unusual thing for political parties to do. I'd even suggest it's not some the SNP has done before.

It was probably just someone's bright idea that was stupidly signed off on, but the SNP should explain why such a pitch was used to obtain money which they appear to have always intended to spend on something else.

Are you suggesting the SNP coming out and admitting to doing something incompetent would help the cause of independence that people donated to? It's a view I suppose.

[Peevemor]

The difference here is that the SNP solicited donations for a specific future purpose with an unknown timeline; that's an unusual thing for political parties to do. I'd even suggest it's not some the SNP has done before.

It was probably just someone's bright idea that was stupidly signed off on, but the SNP should explain why such a pitch was used to obtain money which they appear to have always intended to spend on something else.In your opinion. They insist the opposite is the case.

[Hibrandenburg]

This thread is a belter. Whilst the most corrupt Westminster government in my lifetime stumbles from scandal to scandal, from one lie to the next and from blunder to **** up, the Unionist obsession of finding a chink in the independence movement's armour continues relentlessly and has to make do with getting all outraged about things that never happened. It's sadly desperate but in a funny way.

[Hibrandenburg]

The difference here is that the SNP solicited donations for a specific future purpose with an unknown timeline; that's an unusual thing for political parties to do. I'd even suggest it's not some the SNP has done before.

It was probably just someone's bright idea that was stupidly signed off on, but the SNP should explain why such a pitch was used to obtain money which they appear to have always intended to spend on something else.

When the time comes and we have another referendum, if the SNP then don't at least spend the amount of money donated on the campaign, then you might have a case, until then the gun hasn't discharged any carbon particles.

[Future17]

Are you suggesting the SNP coming out and admitting to doing something incompetent would help the cause of independence that people donated to? It's a view I suppose.

I don't think it would harm it, although I agree it's arguable whether honesty in politics is really beneficial.


In your opinion. They insist the opposite is the case.

What part is my opinion?


This thread is a belter. Whilst the most corrupt Westminster government in my lifetime stumbles from scandal to scandal, from one lie to the next and from blunder to **** up, the Unionist obsession of finding a chink in the independence movement's armour continues relentlessly and has to make do with getting all outraged about things that never happened. It's sadly desperate but in a funny way.

You've obviously not read the thread or you'd know this has got nothing to do with unionism, or the corrupt WM Government for that matter. Exactly the opposite in fact.

There are plenty anti-Tory, pro independence threads on here (on which I regularly contribute). However, there's a distinct lack of acknowledgement when the SNP is at fault. I'll be honest and admit the main reason for my contributions on this subject is because that lack of self awareness annoys me, but it's also vital for the independence movement that we don't get derailed by avoidable mistakes that alienate and divide supporters.


When the time comes and we have another referendum, if the SNP then don't at least spend the amount of money donated on the campaign, then you might have a case, until then the gun hasn't discharged any carbon particles.

Again, you either haven't read the thread or haven't understood what I've attempted to explain.

For the avoidance of doubt, the SNP will obviously spend more than the donated amount when the time comes.

[ronaldo7]

I know what I heard him say on the radio calling Bomber command war criminals for attacking Dresden, disrespectful towards Churchill…. I am not going to search and produce the goods he is in my opinion are little prick end off

Thanks for the reply.

I'll take you at your word, Im surprised the Royal British Legion didn't pick up the bomber command stuff at the time. The link posted with him castigating Churchill hits the spot for me though. Ross has him bang to rights on so many issues.

He's not so little by the way. 😂

[Just Alf]

When the time comes and we have another referendum, if the SNP then don't at least spend the amount of money donated on the campaign, then you might have a case, until then the gun hasn't discharged any carbon particles.I think CWG and Cav have explained this pretty well, just because the SNP have managed their finances in a particular way for a long time (prob since the time they were a 'one man band') doesn't mean it's correct now.
On reflection it seems a bit amateurish to say the least and clearly leaves themselves open to some questions on it all that could easily have been squared off with good accounting practices.

The bottom line though is that from a 'criminal' perspective we surely won't know that until the moneys not spent as intended?

[Peevemor]

What part is my opinion?





That... "a pitch was used to obtain money which they appear to have always intended to spend on something else."

[Hibrandenburg]

The bottom line though is that from a 'criminal' perspective we surely won't know that until the moneys not spent as intended?

That's my whole point. If the worst thing that can be thrown at the SNP is archaic party accounting practices, then it's hardly worth mentioning compared to what's happening in Westminster right now. It's laughable.

[Crunchie]

That's my whole point. If the worst thing that can be thrown at the SNP is archaic party accounting practices, then it's hardly worth mentioning compared to what's happening in Westminster right now. It's laughable.
Is no one allowed to question the goings on at party HQ? There's been 4 resignations and you want everyone to shrug it off as though it's a run of the mill occurrence, now that's laughable :faf:

[Hibrandenburg]

Is no one allowed to question the goings on at party HQ? There's been 4 resignations and you want everyone to shrug it off as though it's a run of the mill occurrence, now that's laughable :faf:

Nobody is asking you to shrug it off, just maybe a bit of perspective. Just because you want it to be a scandal doesn't make it one.

[Crunchie]

Nobody is asking you to shrug it off, just maybe a bit of perspective. Just because you want it to be a scandal doesn't make it one.
4 resignations on the matter makes it more than worthy of discussion and hardly desperate or laughable as you're trying to suggest.

[Peevemor]

4 resignations on the matter makes it more than worthy of discussion and hardly desperate or laughable as you're trying to suggest.I beg to differ. The desperation from some on the unionist side is laughable. Very much so.

[Hibrandenburg]

4 resignations on the matter makes it more than worthy of discussion and hardly desperate or laughable as you're trying to suggest.

Resignations from what?

[hhibs]

Churchill is a figure that history looks favourably on for his service during WW2 but he was a complete ******* and a delve into his past shows him turning troops onto his own people on more than one occasion to keep the working classes at bay. My grandfather detested Churchill with a passion and didn't have a good word to say about him even taking into account his efforts during the war



That was exactly the view of my grandfather right down to your last sentence.

[ronaldo7]

They just keep coming. Nods to the Greens.:wink:

All residents in Scotland under the age of 22 will be eligible for free bus travel from 31 January 2022.

The Scottish Government has confirmed the timetable for the roll out of the scheme, delivered in partnership with the Improvement Service, the National Entitlement Card Programme Office and Young Scot.

Legislative changes to allow the scheme to be extended from its original commitment to provide free travel for under-19s will be introduced to the Scottish Parliament this summer.

Approximately 930,000 young people will join the third of Scotland’s population who already benefit from free bus travel through the Older and Disabled Persons Free Bus scheme.

Minister for Transport, Graeme Dey said:



https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/free-bus-travel-for-under-22s/

[Ozyhibby]

They just keep coming. Nods to the Greens.:wink:

All residents in Scotland under the age of 22 will be eligible for free bus travel from 31 January 2022.

The Scottish Government has confirmed the timetable for the roll out of the scheme, delivered in partnership with the Improvement Service, the National Entitlement Card Programme Office and Young Scot.

Legislative changes to allow the scheme to be extended from its original commitment to provide free travel for under-19s will be introduced to the Scottish Parliament this summer.

Approximately 930,000 young people will join the third of Scotland’s population who already benefit from free bus travel through the Older and Disabled Persons Free Bus scheme.

Minister for Transport, Graeme Dey said:



https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/free-bus-travel-for-under-22s/

Won’t be long before bus travel is free for all. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Won’t be long before bus travel is free for all. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would the money be raised to fund that? I presumed adult fare's would increase to cover the costs of free travel for the new initiative?

[Jack]

Won’t be long before bus travel is free for all. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would be happy for all residents.

[Santa Cruz]

I would be happy for all residents.

Who wouldn't be? In an ideal world this would happen in every country yeah. It comes down to costs. Would the money be raised through raising taxes or slashing other public services, I'm not clear?

[Ozyhibby]

Who wouldn't be? In an ideal world this would happen in every country yeah. It comes down to costs. Would the money be raised through raising taxes or slashing other public services, I'm not clear?

Maybe not shovelling billions of pounds to corrupt friends of politicians? The money saved by not getting involved in test and trace probably covers about 10 years of this on its own?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

Brilliant news for our children and young adults, making it easier for them to travel and explore the country. It’s great that we are making the country more accessible for the next generation especially so after the benefits of freedom of movement in Europe that older generations enjoyed were cruelly taken away from them via Brexit.

[Peevemor]

Trident?

[ronaldo7]

Won’t be long before bus travel is free for all. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One step at a time. :wink:

Barriers will be getting built as we type. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Trident?

You could buy everybody an electric car with the money saved on that.

[Santa Cruz]

Maybe not shovelling billions of pounds to corrupt friends of politicians? The money saved by not getting involved in test and trace probably covers about 10 years of this on its own?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not defending Tory dodgy dealings, that wouldn't even be relevant in an independent Scotland. Are you able to tell me how free travel for every Scottish Resident would be funded?

[Moulin Yarns]

How would the money be raised to fund that? I presumed adult fare's would increase to cover the costs of free travel for the new initiative?

Not how the current free travel for over 60s works.

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not defending Tory dodgy dealings, that wouldn't even be relevant in an independent Scotland. Are you able to tell me how free travel for every Scottish Resident would be funded?

No, just that it will be funded because the SG can’t run a deficit like normal countries. And their track record in balancing the budget every single year gives me confidence that they will continue to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Not how the current free travel for over 60s works.

I know. Oz is saying extend that to circa 5 million residents (under 5's are free), just wondering how that will be funded?

[Santa Cruz]

No, just that it will be funded because the SG can’t run a deficit like normal countries. And their track record in balancing the budget every single year gives me confidence that they will continue to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So just keep adding to the existing deficit then, how would that ever be reduced? Surely we don't want to have a situation where we don't work to decrease it.

[Ozyhibby]

So just keep adding to the existing deficit then, how would that ever be reduced? Surely we don't want to have a situation where we don't work to decrease it.

What deficit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

What deficit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would we not have a deficit in an independent Scotland?

[Ozyhibby]

Would we not have a deficit in an independent Scotland?

I wasn’t talking about after independence. This is happening now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

I wasn’t talking about after independence. This is happening now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Under 23's free travel is. You said it won't be long until it's free for all. That wasn't a manifesto pledge, so that won't happen in this parliamentary term. A referendum on Indy is a manifesto pledge. So my question is if it's not long until free travel is available for every Scottish resident, how will that be funded should Scotland become an Independent country?

[Ozyhibby]

Under 23's free travel is. You said it won't be long until it's free for all. That wasn't a manifesto pledge, so that won't happen in this parliamentary term. A referendum on Indy is a manifesto pledge. So my question is if it's not long until free travel is available for every Scottish resident, how will that be funded should Scotland become an Independent country?

Maybe charge rent to the rUK govt for storing Trident for however long it takes them to build a base for it down south?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

Who wouldn't be? In an ideal world this would happen in every country yeah. It comes down to costs. Would the money be raised through raising taxes or slashing other public services, I'm not clear?

I'm not sure what you mean by who wouldn't be. My original post/thought was that visitors to Scotland wouldn't be entitled to free bus travel.

With regard to how it's funded I do know its part of the idea behind old folks travel. TSG is committed to keeping and subsidising unpopular routes in terms of passengers but important to keep wee towns and villages viable so its paying for that anyway. Add to that old folk, like my wife and I, jumping on busses to these places for regular jaunts and spending a small fortune on food, drink and trinkets and its a double bonus for these wee places.

[Santa Cruz]

I'm not sure what you mean by who wouldn't be. My original post/thought was that visitors to Scotland wouldn't be entitled to free bus travel.

With regard to how it's funded I do know its part of the idea behind old folks travel. TSG is committed to keeping and subsidising unpopular routes in terms of passengers but important to keep wee towns and villages viable so its paying for that anyway. Add to that old folk, like my wife and I, jumping on busses to these places for regular jaunts and spending a small fortune on food, drink and trinkets and its a double bonus for these wee places.

Apologies, who wouldn't be happy if travel was free for all residents is what I meant. Should have made that clearer.

I get the boost to the economy for people visiting other locations negating the costs of free travel to a degree, that wouldn't be the case for everyone who uses buses to commute to work on very busy routes.

[Lendo]

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190128-the-cost-of-luxembourgs-free-public-transport-plan

Interesting article on Luxembourg making all public transport free to everyone all of the time.

[ronaldo7]

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190128-the-cost-of-luxembourgs-free-public-transport-plan

Interesting article on Luxembourg making all public transport free to everyone all of the time.

Isn't it great how small Independent countries within the EU can operate. Rather than putting up barriers to change, you'd think folk would embrace it. Maybe they're against universality, and a progressive country to live in. Well done to Luxembourg for including tourists. :aok:

[JeMeSouviens]

Apologies, who wouldn't be happy if travel was free for all residents is what I meant. Should have made that clearer.

I get the boost to the economy for people visiting other locations negating the costs of free travel to a degree, that wouldn't be the case for everyone who uses buses to commute to work on very busy routes.

tbh, I might well vote for this if it was part of a higher tax/better services package. Good for environment, helps the poorest, cuts congestion. Sounds good.

[Just Alf]

Apologies, who wouldn't be happy if travel was free for all residents is what I meant. Should have made that clearer.

I get the boost to the economy for people visiting other locations negating the costs of free travel to a degree, that wouldn't be the case for everyone who uses buses to commute to work on very busy routes.

Your comment about the busy routes/folks working is an interesting one for me.

My initial thought is why should we subsidise these people? If they can easily afford it why shouldn't they pay their way.


I did think about the free prescriptions thing, I've been told it costs just as much free as it would if it was paid due to the amount of money earned against the costs to administer it (never actually seen any proof though)

[lapsedhibee]

tbh, I might well vote for this if it was part of a higher tax/better services package. Good for environment, helps the poorest, cuts congestion. Sounds good.

Sure there's a drawback though, what is it again? Oh yes - it's communism.

[Peevemor]

Sure there's a drawback though, what is it again? Oh yes - it's communism.Public transport has been subsidised for decades.

I'd rather more was spent in Scotland than chucking money at high speed rail links in England.

[lapsedhibee]

Public transport has been subsidised for decades.

I'd rather more was spent in Scotland than chucking money at high speed rail links in England.

That's not communism but levelling up, a whole other game of balls.

[Peevemor]

That's not communism but levelling up, a whole other game of balls.There are free bus services in the town where I work, offered by a right-wing town hall in Macron's neo-liberal France.

Are there some commies in the mix that I don't know about?

[Jack]

Your comment about the busy routes/folks working is an interesting one for me.

My initial thought is why should we subsidise these people? If they can easily afford it why shouldn't they pay their way.


I did think about the free prescriptions thing, I've been told it costs just as much free as it would if it was paid due to the amount of money earned against the costs to administer it (never actually seen any proof though)

When I worked in TSG colleagues of mine worked on the free prescriptions thing as it was being introduced. I can't remember the detail but I do remember fewer than 10% of people actually paid for their prescriptions at the end. And yes it was becoming more and more 'difficult' and costly to administer for all sorts of reasons.

[lapsedhibee]

There are free bus services in the town where I work, offered by a right-wing town hall in Macron's neo-liberal France.

Are there some commies in the mix that I don't know about?

Commies everywhere. And Marxists. Does France actually feel very neo-liberal on the ground? :dunno:

[Peevemor]

Commies everywhere. And Marxists. Does France actually feel very neo-liberal on the ground? :dunno:There was certainly the feeling that it was happening then Covid kicked in.

[lapsedhibee]

There was certainly the feeling that it was happening then Covid kicked in.

:aok:

[wookie70]

How would the money be raised to fund that? I presumed adult fare's would increase to cover the costs of free travel for the new initiative?
Edinburgh could have had free bus travel in place of the Trams. Free bus travel is a progressive measure that will actually help lower earners. To me it is an essential part of trying to reduce carbon and if we can reduce car use greatly then other schemes such as electric scooters, cycle ways etc can be looked at and hopefully implemented.

[Ozyhibby]

Edinburgh could have had free bus travel in place of the Trams. Free bus travel is a progressive measure that will actually help lower earners. To me it is an essential part of trying to reduce carbon and if we can reduce car use greatly then other schemes such as electric scooters, cycle ways etc can be looked at and hopefully implemented.

It should still do it. We need to move away from private car use as much as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Edinburgh could have had free bus travel in place of the Trams. Free bus travel is a progressive measure that will actually help lower earners. To me it is an essential part of trying to reduce carbon and if we can reduce car use greatly then other schemes such as electric scooters, cycle ways etc can be looked at and hopefully implemented.

Are you saying you want the Tram system replaced by buses?

[He's here!]

Edinburgh could have had free bus travel in place of the Trams. Free bus travel is a progressive measure that will actually help lower earners. To me it is an essential part of trying to reduce carbon and if we can reduce car use greatly then other schemes such as electric scooters, cycle ways etc can be looked at and hopefully implemented.

The trams (or more accurately single tram line) should never have happened. Colossal waste of money. A revived suburban rail line reaching numerous parts of the city would have been vastly more useful. When I lived in Glasgow I loved the way you could get around the city by train, avoiding traffic and the stop-start nature of a bus journey.

I agree with the green aspects of public transport but I don't see the need for it to be free to all. Unemployed, lower earners, students etc yes, but there are plenty who don't need any help to pay a bus fare. Similarly free school meals for all, baby boxes for all new mothers...important initiatives for those in need but simply not required by many. I'd rather see any excess subsidy for such policies re-directed toward areas such as PE/sports facilities for schools, which are woefully under-resourced in non fee-paying schools. Instead we see kids in school uniform running/strolling round concrete playgrounds as they take part in the 'daily mile'. A truly uninspiring box ticking initiative which basically got off the ground because it was free.

[Just Alf]

Are you saying you want the Tram system replaced by buses?

There's a LOT of people want that! :agree:

I think in this case it's more all that money spent on trams could have gone onto the buses instead... new electric ones, free travel etc etc.


I think in the new electric world we actually need the Tram network properly expanded to cover all areas of the city with a decent (electric) bus service linking areas further away from the tram routes with a few longer routes left in place to fill gaps and add travel options, if it's all under the banner of a free bus pass it could be quite effective.
That's all for another thread I guess! :aok:

[Ozyhibby]

Turning the tram line into a tram network will be the game changer in people’s perception of its value. Even the extension to newhaven will see its use sky rocket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

The trams (or more accurately single tram line) should never have happened. Colossal waste of money. A revived suburban rail line reaching numerous parts of the city would have been vastly more useful. When I lived in Glasgow I loved the way you could get around the city by train, avoiding traffic and the stop-start nature of a bus journey.

I agree with the green aspects of public transport but I don't see the need for it to be free to all. Unemployed, lower earners, students etc yes, but there are plenty who don't need any help to pay a bus fare. Similarly free school meals for all, baby boxes for all new mothers...important initiatives for those in need but simply not required by many. I'd rather see any excess subsidy for such policies re-directed toward areas such as PE/sports facilities for schools, which are woefully under-resourced in non fee-paying schools. Instead we see kids in school uniform running/strolling round concrete playgrounds as they take part in the 'daily mile'. A truly uninspiring box ticking initiative which basically got off the ground because it was free.

The problem is the cost of administration of such schemes and it is more cost effective to make things available for all, but those who don't need them don't have to apply or accept them. I have often thought a voluntary payment for the prescriptions should be introduced.

[Santa Cruz]

The problem is the cost of administration of such schemes and it is more cost effective to make things available for all, but those who don't need them don't have to apply or accept them. I have often thought a voluntary payment for the prescriptions should be introduced.

I think it would be cost effective to streamline it in line with DWP systems by just adding a field to each claimants record that then produces an exemption certificate. For those that can afford to pay just charge a single flat fee of a fiver regardless of how many items are on the one prescription. Then invest all the money received in the NHS.

[Ozyhibby]

If benefits are universal they are better defended against Tory govts. Everyone has a stake in their preservation. Benefits that are just for disabled people or poor people or whatever are easily picked off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

If benefits are universal they are better defended against Tory govts. Everyone has a stake in their preservation. Benefits that are just for disabled people or poor people or whatever are easily picked off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought it was a universal credit that provides support for working people on tax credits and housing benefit as well as unemployment and disability benefits? Am I right in thinking the DWP also administers the state pension?

[Ozyhibby]

I thought it was a universal credit that provides support for working people on tax credits and housing benefit as well as unemployment and disability benefits? Am I right in thinking the DWP also administers the state pension?

Despite the name, those are not universal benefits. Sorry, except the pension. And it’s protected pretty well even though it’s one of the worst in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

Are you saying you want the Tram system replaced by buses? No I said Edinburgh could have had free buses instead of the Trams. I remember Tommy Sheridan said at a hustings that the bus service at the time could have been made free for 20 years for the initial cost estimate of the trams. That would have been a far better way to spend the money imo and if you have a free and reliable service you can then go in hard against cars. As it is I can get to most parts of Edinburgh cheaper in my car than on a bus and much quicker too. If I have my dog or kids there is no chance I would jump on a bus. If the buses were free though and cars charged for entering the city I may take the bus. The Trams were and are a complete disaster. The bus service should have been the backbone of making Edinburgh a much greener place. Edinburgh is probably stuck with the Trams now and would need to invest a similar amount again for them to make much sense. I still don't think they will ever be as useful as buses.

[Santa Cruz]

No I said Edinburgh could have had free buses instead of the Trams. I remember Tommy Sheridan said at a hustings that the bus service at the time could have been made free for 20 years for the initial cost estimate of the trams. That would have been a far better way to spend the money imo and if you have a free and reliable service you can then go in hard against cars. As it is I can get to most parts of Edinburgh cheaper in my car than on a bus and much quicker too. If I have my dog or kids there is no chance I would jump on a bus. If the buses were free though and cars charged for entering the city I may take the bus. The Trams were and are a complete disaster. The bus service should have been the backbone of making Edinburgh a much greener place. Edinburgh is probably stuck with the Trams now and would need to invest a similar amount again for them to make much sense. I still don't think they will ever be as useful as buses.

Understood. I don't live on the right side of town to have benefitted from the Tram system, so I'm not best placed to rate a preference for them over buses or vice versa. I didn't want the trams, I think Edinburgh has an excellent bus service. Maybe my opinion will change once the tram system is complete in the North of the City. Do you know if under 22's can use the trams for free or is it just buses?

[Stairway 2 7]

1 tram takes 320 full much more comfortably than a bus full at 75 so could be 4 busesfor 1 tram. In normal times at rush our princes street is gridlocked. They are much more accessible, no more mums having to wait for next bus in the rain or folding pram because wheelchairs or prams on board. Also more accessible to wheelchair users as its level from the road and they go in right at their seat. I know a wheelchair user that doesn't use buses at peak times, as people have to stand of bus as ramp comes out and squeeze to her position.

The numbers of users was much higher than expected but that will change even more when it goes down leith walk, as LW is the most densely populated are of Scotland. It need more routes on it, up to hospital, portobello, loop from Newhaven to Granton roseburn.

[Pretty Boy]

1 tram takes 320 full much more comfortably than a bus full at 75 so could be 4 busesfor 1 tram. In normal times at rush our princes street is gridlocked. They are much more accessible, no more mums having to wait for next bus in the rain or folding pram because wheelchairs or prams on board. Also more accessible to wheelchair users as its level from the road and they go in right at their seat. I know a wheelchair user that doesn't use buses at peak times, as people have to stand of bus as ramp comes out and squeeze to her position.

The numbers of users was much higher than expected but that will change even more when it goes down leith walk, as LW is the most densely populated are of Scotland. It need more routes on it, up to hospital, portobello, loop from Newhaven to Granton roseburn.

I'm with you.

The trams are longer term a much better solution to the transport issues in Edinburgh than more buses are. That's the key point, it's a long term project. The population and growth projections are all there for people that want to read them. Edinburgh is well on it's way to becoming the biggest and most populous city in Scotland and it needs additional mass transit capacity to meet the demand that will come with that.

More buses will play their part but it's not a problem that has a singular solution. As the tram line continues to extent more people will realise it's worth. I'm not a regular user of the service at the moment but I find them, and the small number of urban trains we have left, an infinitely more positive experience than the bus.

[He's here!]

If nothing else, those who donated and are concerned might get a straight answer to their questions.

Sorry if already posted but it seems the mysteriously missing indyref donations may have been spent on office refurbishment:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19467354.indyref2-donations-snp-may-spent-office-refurbishment/

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry if already posted but it seems the mysteriously missing indyref donations may have been spent on office refurbishment:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19467354.indyref2-donations-snp-may-spent-office-refurbishment/

This is the big one. I can feel it.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

This is the big one. I can feel it.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkMust be. The allegations are sourced via The Sunday Times.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I guess at a stretch they could claim that working in nicely decorated offices helps morale when fighting for freedom...

[Hibrandenburg]

I guess at a stretch they could claim that working in nicely decorated offices helps morale when fighting for freedom...

Or that the funds are still available when needed.

[Berwickhibby]

I guess at a stretch they could claim that working in nicely decorated offices helps morale when fighting for freedom...

:faf::faf::faf: you can't run a country without new wallpaper.....now where have I heard that before

[Peevemor]

Or that the funds are still available when needed.

Don't be stupid.

This is the smoking gun. I can feel it.

[Pretty Boy]

I couldn't care less about the SNPs finances but the more I read and hear about Peter Murrell the less I think I'd trust him to look after a youth club tuck shop.

[lord bunberry]

If the busses were free I’d still not use them but it would be great for the people that do. Someone on minimum wage having to get a bus twice a day for 5 days a week would save a considerable percentage of their weekly wage.

[Moulin Yarns]

Sorry if already posted but it seems the mysteriously missing indyref donations may have been spent on office refurbishment:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19467354.indyref2-donations-snp-may-spent-office-refurbishment/

What the hell are you doing reading that rag??? 😉

[lapsedhibee]

Sorry if already posted but it seems the mysteriously missing indyref donations may have been spent on office refurbishment:


If there's a comfy chair involved, there should be an inquisition.

[Moulin Yarns]

If there's a comfy chair involved, there should be an inquisition.

You need an anglepoise lamp as well. 😉

[Future17]

Or that the funds are still available when needed.

You/we don't know that.

[Hibrandenburg]

You/we don't know that.

I'm sure the current investigation will clarify that.

[ronaldo7]

Sorry if already posted but it seems the mysteriously missing indyref donations may have been spent on office refurbishment:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19467354.indyref2-donations-snp-may-spent-office-refurbishment/

If only Kathleen had poked her head round the door at Jackson's entry, and had a look.

This is the biggy. 😂😂😂

[Future17]

I'm sure the current investigation will clarify that.

I think that's unlikely. The only way to guarantee the funds will be available when needed would have been to actually ring-fence them. The SNP have all but confirmed that didn't happen.

[CropleyWasGod]

If only Kathleen had poked her head round the door at Jackson's entry, and had a look.

This is the biggy. 😂😂😂

There's a Carry On line in there. 😆

If only she'd looked at the accounts to see how much has been shown as refurb costs.

[Crunchie]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/joanna-cherry-attacks-snp-hierarchy-as-man-who-sent-twitter-abuse-is-sentenced-3328983


There seems to be a theme with the SNP when dealing with dissenting voices within the party.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/joanna-cherry-attacks-snp-hierarchy-as-man-who-sent-twitter-abuse-is-sentenced-3328983


There seems to be a theme with the SNP when dealing with dissenting voices within the party.

The abuse was condemned by the party at the time and now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

The abuse was condemned by the party at the time and now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So Cherry is making it up again :confused:. the SNP can do no wrong in your eyes, or should I say Sturgeon and her convenient hubby.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

her convenient hubby.

Care to elaborate?

[Ozyhibby]

Care to elaborate?

He’s always there if the housework needs done or the buckets need taken out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

So Cherry is making it up again :confused:. the SNP can do no wrong in your eyes, or should I say Sturgeon and her convenient hubby.
Out of order. Does her marital status bother you?

[Moulin Yarns]

He’s always there if the housework needs done or the buckets taken out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe he is a demon with a vacuum cleaner 😉