Aye, they saw a business opportunity using a crossing that had been dismissed in the past. They look to have got themselves a really good deal by leasing out the Alfred as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Printable View
Aye, they saw a business opportunity using a crossing that had been dismissed in the past. They look to have got themselves a really good deal by leasing out the Alfred as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
https://twitter.com/thescotsman/stat...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Humza needs to learn to count real quick on this issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a separate thread for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The same as politicians from every other major party then? I wonder how many MPs in the Conservative Party were silently opposed to the bedroom tax or the rape clause, but just went along with it anyway for a quiet life? I wonder how many Labour MPs are silently opposed to Keir Starmer's u-turning on major policy pledges, but are saying nothing for a quiet life?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Bit of a crossover and I thought on balance it belonged on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Well, technically Pentland got a lot of taxpayers' money for the use of the MV Alfred :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
But in reponse to your point, I didn't "get this idea of 'provider of last resort'" It's an expression in relatively common use in the public sector to describe a fallback option when all the planned options have failed.
For example, carers who work in people's homes. The majority in Scotland work for private sector companies but sometimes those companies fail. In that instance the local authority is usually deemed to be the 'provider of last resort' and requires to deploy its own resources and staff to address the shortfall.
Sometimes it has a more formalised status, so for example the energy regultor has a process in place by which should your energy supplier suddenly go out of business, you aren't left stranded as another provider, in this case the 'supplier of last resort', is required to step in. This is an example of where the private sector can be the 'POTL' as well as causing the need for it.
With Pentland, SG have used them as a de facto provider of last resort - the planned service provision has singularly failed and money has had to be found to pay someone else to step in, presumably until such time as a more permanent arrangement can be put in place.
In some respects the armed forces could be seen as a 'provider of last resort'. I think SG requested this at one stage for the ferries, and I think the UK government requested this in the English Channel. It is different from what's described above however, as the armed forces can't be 'contracted' to do so. This is because they all form part of the state, or more accurately 'the Crown' and tone part of the Crown can't enter into a legal contract with another. That's why they use Memorandums of Understanding, or service-level agreements. All moot anyway because the RN wanted nothing to do with the small boats in the Channel and I suspect wanted nothing to do with the bigger boats in the Minch, or wherever.
So, you quoted two of my questions but I don't see you answering them (although in fairness you're not the transport minister I assume).
The islanders have lost a significant service and it's reasonable to ask what SG intend to do about it, and especially whether they put undue pressure on Pentland to rush a ferry back to sea to allow the Alfred to move to the west coast.
It's also reasonable to ask whether the process was thorough in evaluating risk. It involves a lot of taxpayers' money.
The good news is he has reached double figures. And most importantly, he did it by himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default...5&v=1679699954
Angry ex-government minister Fergus Ewing rips up fishing plan - BBC NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
You certainly couldn't accuse Fergus Ewing of saying nothing against his party for a quiet life. Following his diatribe against their partnership with the Greens last week he's literally been ripping up government policy in parliament today.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...45971e1a84.jpg
The marine protected areas debate should be interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So do you think politicians should speak out against policies they can't morally support from their own perspective or should they keep quiet and toe the party line?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...7-907279448730
Great work by Humza.[emoji122]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But the rumours said nobody would touch them. Why are the rumours wrong on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Rumours by who… you phone up a set of chartered accountants who provide an audit service and agree a deal … cannot even see why this is newsworthyQuote:
Originally Posted by Kato
They weren't rumours. Both Flynn and Yousaf confirmed they were having trouble finding new auditors - presumably because the Murrells had kept them in the dark about the previous ones quitting months ago and leaving them scrabbling around to find new ones at the 11th hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Their absence was def newsworthy in the unionist media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They'll be gutted. Or should that be on the protected fishing grounds thread which will no doubt be trawled. 🎣Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It's newsworthy when they "can't find" an auditor but not when they hire one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
The "British" media will be looking for yet another SNP bad story to focus on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
How much are the auditors costing? Is it more than the other parties registered in Scotland (delete Scottish Labour, Tories, and Lib dems)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven79
Front pages will be on here soon enough. 😂
I wonder if the police holding all these documents will cause the auditors a problem?
I'll let the accountancy company and professional conspiracy theorists sort that one out 😆
Newsworthy …nah …incompetent for not hiring a company to complete the task…definitelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Or alternatively, auditors resign, no rush to get new ones as you only really need them at year end, police investigation and subsequent media feeding frenzy(looking increasingly desperate) makes it seem worse, year end approaches, new auditor appointed. Pretty straight forward really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
I wonder when the police will raid her mammy's house in ayrshire to look for the brand new tesla and years supply of biros?Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
You believe what you wish, but 6 months without an auditor is not normal practice, what reason did the auditors give to leave paid employment, why have the SNP taken on an English Company to complete their audit. Smells like the treasurer and Accountant management incompetence to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Of course it does, but it always will to you. No matter what you say the fact that more than two years since the investigation started there is none, zero, nada, zilch evidence of illegal wrongdoing it looks like a complete farce. And after two years I would say that incompetent would be a good description of the police. But unionists everywhere will continue to claim all sorts, aided and abetted by the msm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Why wouldn't they take on an English company? I would suggest that it is a good thing. No chance of any claims of SNP bias. I believe the last auditors said that they were rationalising their customer base and the SNP weren't the only one that they stopped working with.
I will add as always that if there is any illegality then those involved deserve everything coming to them.
Yeah I agree, incompetence but with the Procurator Fiscal who is leading this investigation as the police cannot pull the plug or end this investigation. If you recall the initial complaints made were ignored by police as it did not reach evidential evidence threshold to start an investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
What a disgrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by easty
What wrong with English people that we can’t hire their companies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Goes against the SNP mantra about Scottish jobs for Scottish people :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I would suggest that AMS will be able to claim a greater level of independence than Scottish-based firms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Think you might be confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Westminster's fault no doubt...Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Every day is a school day. Never had you down as an expert on audit practices but there you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
As an aside, when I joined this forum oh so long ago, I never thought there'd be so much discussion about auditors!
You know that's not how it was. Even Yousaf has acknowledged they'd been left scrabbling for new auditors after the Murrells didn't see fit to let him (and most of their party by the sounds of it) know that there were no auditors in place, and had not been for many months. The 'nothing to see here' approach (deployed by the more devout SNP disciples when anything critical of the party surfaces) really doesn't cut it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
I don't actually know anything, and neither do you. But I'd really like you to try to explain what there is to see. Two years of investigation on spurious claims from Sean ****ing Clerkin throw up absolutely nothing. As Berwick mentions above, and something I forgot, the police actually dismissed the claims. Si coming then and tell us what is happening. No innuendo, no made up claims, no hearsay. Let us know what is going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Your obsession is way worse than anybody I see on here that you claim to be devout followers of a cult. Can't be healthy
Not that surprising given the SNP have managed to make their party's own auditor's recruitment process more of a priority than the missing allocation of funding for the higher education sector. Another useful distraction?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Except it appears that there's nothing to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Their previous auditor left, and had justifiable reason to do so other than criminal wrongdoing by figures within the SNP. Auditors aren't all that easy to come across in the current climate. The SNP get hit with several major distractions along the way, cut some deadlines a bit fine then find an auditor.
Quite a dull story really, no matter how many luxury pots and pans you chuck at it.
I didn't realise it was the same people doing the accounts for the SNP that look after the nations accounts for the Scottish Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Every day's a school day.
I could not begin to imagine the response if this was Labour or the Tories in this situation. Every nationalist keyboard warrior in christendom would be screaming from the rooftops:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Not an expert but my own businesses accounts and the other guys I know who run businesses don’t have 6 months gaps in auditing and maintaining their accountsQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
There were 19 complaints received by Police Scotland over the missing funds but it suits the more devout 'nothing to see here' SNP disciples to brush it all off as just the spurious claims of a single eccentric.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
As for the auditors I'm not suggesting anything other than it's bizarre in the extreme that the incoming party leader had to acknowledge he no idea they'd departed months ago. Why would the Murrells keep him in the dark about that?
A useful distraction hyped up by the British Media?Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Not getting this. Surely the SNP sorting out their party affairs is a positive news story for them, it's reported on the BBC website. No mention of allocated funding being slashed as yet. I think their media team likely release updates in the order of priority they set. Hardly anyone reads the Scotsman in comparison to hits on the BBC site.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I'm very happy with my business' accountants/ auditors - but if, for any reason, they decided they weren't going to do it any more I'm pretty sure I'd leave it for a while before remembering that I need to do something else about it. There would be a deadline where clearly something would need to be done but that could easily be more than 6 months, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Do these things not need to be done annually? Therefore a break of 6 months or so with nobody in place (or where the previous auditors if they were still in place would be doing nothing, waiting for the time of year when they have to do something again comes around) isn't that unusual?
Admittedly, if there is a deadline of the start of May to have stuff submitted then they've cut it fine.
19 complaints from a membership at that time of over 100,000. I understand that complaints came from Clerkin, Murray, the Rev Stu and a handful of others who may or may not have been speaking to the police regarding other matters at the time. As I have said if anything illegal has happened then hell mend them and they deserve punished. I am still to see anything at all, even after raiding the garden shed at the Murrells house and the Kitchen at Colin Beatties that they're is any evidence. Unless a pair of secateurs and a bag of tea bags were bought inappropriately.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
And once again "devout SNP disciples" I'd wager that you have posted more than any other poster on .net about the SNP. An unhealthily obsession perhaps
I see Steven Flynn is behaving like a true Tartan Tory by supporting Sunak to attack Starmer 🙄 in the commons
I'll bet there's only maybe a couple people on here know who Hibs auditors are and maybe even the last time they were changed.
We all have a big interest in Hibs (probably) and more than a few of us will be shareholders. We should all know these things 😆
Except he didn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
He skewered Starmer and his reversal of his pledge on tuition fees.
Very good it was too. :aok:
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/s...42993390592002
Was he supporting Sunak? Or are you making things up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Took me 30 seconds to find Hibernian’s auditorsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Thomson Cooper 3 Castle Court Carnegie Campus Dunfermline
Fife
KY11 8PB
Really ffsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I just watched that, and that is one interesting take on what happened.... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
What support does he give Sunak?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Pretty funny and looks to be taken in good spirit by all.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
AMS Accountants Group formed 4 years ago and has 2 employees , both of whom are the directors.
Not sure that it really matters but their website shows 9 people of associate director and above.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
https://www.groupams.co.uk/meet-the-team/
A quick sketch at linked in shows about 20 people working for them currently, that's just the ones that showed up so no idea how many there are actually.
You're starting to sound like a Celtic fan that expects Hibs fans to share their bigotry. Are the SNP tories because they attack the Labour leader after he's just made an outrageous u-turn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
No the SNP are Tories as historically they have backed them hence the term Tartan ToriesQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Berwickhibby? Sure its not Punxsutawneyhibby?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
My personal favourite is when the SNP jumped into bed with the tories in 2014 to campaign against the sovereignty of our nation, then recommended an even weaker devolution proposal to the Smith Commission than the tories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Or am I getting mixed up?
[emoji1787]Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Are not getting confused about when the SNP crossed the chamber to side with the Tories and the ushering in of ThatcherQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Your turning into another boring troll.[emoji849]Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean following the previous time Labour shafted Scotland over devolution? How many Labour MPs crossed the chamber that day? And why did Labour not take advantage of the 'pairing convention' when one of their own MPs was too unwell to attain the confidence vote? Labour ultimately decided to let Thatcher in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
What!! so stating the truth is now trolling….very good 😊 The SNP echo chamber is returningQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They were, however, happy to do a deal with the Tories in 2007 in the Scottish Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I suppose Labour were just too far to the right to work with the SNP, even back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
No, I think the Tories were comfy bedfellows.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I don't recall Labour stepping up in 2007 to offer their services to the winning party. Clearly they were very bitter about losing out in that election and were hoping that no coalition could be formed.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
When you say crossed the chamber, that implies they were part of the governing party i.e Labour at that time. They were not, they were in opposition to Labour who had shafted them just a few months earlier. They were in no way beholden to the Labour government and actually were one of a number of parties that voted against Labour. It is actually a very interesting political story. Labour had chances to at least tie the vote but didn't take it with matched voting or allowing the ill member (can't remember his name)to come to Westminster but chose not to use both options. In reality it brought in Thatchers fascists just a few months earlier than would have happened naturally. But it is complete Labour revisionism to suggest that it was all the SNPs fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
It wasn't a coalition. The SNP and Tories did a deal that the Tories would prop up the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
If it's not a coalition, then they're not propping up the government. What you're left with is a minority government working with parties over individual policy issues. That's how minority government's have to function. Labour in Scotland have had their thumbs in theirs mouths since that election and have made themselves notoriously difficult to work with.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Your last sentence. Which party was first to campaign for rent freezes and ending period poverty?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
What party was the first to implement it? Labour are good at campaigning for things when they're not actually in a position to implement what they're campaigning for. As soon as it looks like they're going to be in power, the u-turns come flying out, as we're seeing with Keir Starmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Won’t be long before everyone is blaming everyone else over rent freezes. Scottish rents already rising faster than everywhere else in the UK due to it. It will get worse. Especially for new tennant’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was an informal coalition. The Tories didn't have ministers, but they supported the SNP budget in a deal with Salmond. If they supported the budget in a deal that was propping up the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Minority Governments operate on a series of "informal coalitions". Any effort to equate the SNP with the tories, just because they were the only opposition party grown up enough at the time to allow for a functioning government is beyond straw clutching.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
On the contrary, defending the Tory SNP deal while criticising deals in local authorities is the height of hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Difference is, the SNP worked with the tories as the leading party, because the alternatives flat out refused to work with them. Labour didn't need to do deals with the tories in local councils, especially councils where the SNP won the highest vote share. You're creating false equivalences.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
They can't implemement policy in opposition. The policies were initially rejected before being adopted by the SNp. You started off having a go at the Scottish Labour party then when it's pointed out they've made helpful policy contributions you turn on Starmer. What about the u-turn on free school dinners for secondary pupils by the SNP, the then Ed Sec vowed to pilot that scheme, what's your opinion on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Which is very convenient for Labour as they are quick to perform policy u-turns when it looks like they're about to be in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
There is no such thing as "policy contributions" from a party that is neither in power or in coalition. All they can do is make policy recommendations. You also assume that these policies weren't already in the pipeline before Labour went public about them as if they were their own idea. As for policies being initially rejected then being adopted. It's more likely that the policy legislation needed to be adjusted before it could be properly implemented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
I don't think it is an assumption, why would Monica Lennon receive thanks from the committee convener for bringing the Bill to parliament and raising awareness if that was the case. Do you not have an opinion on the free school dinners pilot u-turn by the SNP?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Just because a politician brings a bill into parliament to "raise awareness", doesn't mean that the awareness wasn't already there. Fair play to her though, it was a nice wee stunt that got her a bit of publicity and made it look as if it was Labour's idea all along even if it was already being worked on by government in the background.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
I'm not aware of any official u-turn that has been made on that policy thus far. I believe you got it from an article that was suggesting that a u-turn "could" be made, based on something Yousaf said. Although I'm not sure how it could even be classed as a u-turn when the policy in question hasn't even been put into practice yet in order for it to be u-turned on.
Sorry, meant to come back to you on another unrelated point. Listened to the Jeane Freeman podcast, thought it was really good. The blokes who host the shows are really good at what they do. Also enjoyed the Ruth Davidson one. Podcasts are new to me, find them a good alternative to reading which I don't have as good concentration with anymore. Thanks for posting the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It was opposed because of, believe it or not, cross border Tampax raids! https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...ampon-21469707Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Your first para is just incorrect, ML camapaigned for a long time on that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Your second para explained in link below.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...-free-28074209
So, not content with kicking the party, let's now kick their auditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The bit about the "overdue" Confirmation Statement is pure nonsense. It was filed on 11 April, 2 weeks before the deadline.
But, they're wee, therefore they're no very good. :rolleyes:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/20/honourable-behaviour-by-whips-that-led-to-thatcherQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
That story of the 'pairing convention' revealed an honour among party whips that it's all but impossible to imagine occurring today.
The SNP's decision to help pave the way for Thatcher, however, cost them dear, losing 9 of their 11 seats at the subsequent GE.
But ultimately they did implement it which would suggest that tweaks were made to the original bill put forward by Labour (and backed by the tories) to make the policy workable while limiting abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I thought it was the Greens who backed the original bill, I might have that wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Or they were shamed into it!Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
You can frame it however you like. It was Labour's own responsibility and they ultimately took the decision that led to a Thatcher Government. I'm sure both Thatcher and Labour were delighted with the impact that it had on the SNP considering their joint anti-devolution agenda. Worked out for the SNP in the long run though.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
SNP deals with Tories - good. Labour deals with Tories - bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Nope. Read the article. Jackson Carlaw fully backed the original bill with it's flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Or made to look as if they were shamed into it, when the devil was in the detail of the original bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
You make very overly simplistic equivalences that you know yourself are nonsensical.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Nothing non-sensical about it. You hate deals with the Tories except when the SNP do it. But maybe we can agree on this, that coalitions, informal or otherwise, are legitimate when circumstances require them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee