SNP are lying b******s as well !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Is that against the law? Which law would that be?

I thought the accounts had been audited and given a clean audit report?

---

An unqualified audit report is no guarantee of accounts being 100% accurate. :cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

But also signed off?

---

Mere detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Raising money to campaign for an Indy ref and spending it on other things could be considered fraud which is against the law.

---

Raising money to fight for independence and spending it on fighting for independence is against the law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

An unqualified audit report is no guarantee of accounts being 100% accurate. :cb

---

What are auditors for then? What good are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

What are auditors for then? What good are they?

---

To be fair, I think even auditors ask this question.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Raising money to fight for independence and spending it on fighting for independence is against the law?

---

If I remember correctly, the person who first raised the suggestion that money raised by the SNP for independence campaign was neither a member of the SNP or had donated to the fund. It's like he had an agenda against the SNP. He probably posts on here. 😉

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

What are auditors for then? What good are they?

---

"Watchdogs, not bloodhounds" (c. Auditing 1.01)

If an auditor were to check every single transaction, no company would be able to afford them :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

That's a bridge too far. 😉

---

At least it's not an Irish Sea tunnel...

Is it really that out there to question whether NS should be suspended? It's not that uncommon for people involved in an ongoing police enquiry to be suspended (on full pay) pending the conclusion of said enquiries. Someone like Mason Greenwood would be an example in football but it happens in loads of workplaces. The innocent until proven guilty mantra still applies hence it's suspension rather than dismissal.

For all the nature of the alleged offence remains out of the public eye the fact she has been placed under arrest and interviewed under caution means she isn't merely a witness assisting Police Scotland with their enquiries.

She will now be aware of any potential charges or at least have knowledge of the specifics of what is being investigated. In many employment contracts there is a clause stating you should make an employer aware if you are accused of a criminal offence, particularly one of dishonesty.

Ultimately it's up to the SNP to decide how to deal with it and they will live or die by the decision electorally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

If an auditor were to check every single transaction, no company would be able to afford them :greengrin

---

So if any fraud had taken place within the period that a set of accounts were given a clean audit report, such fraud would be immaterial to the overall accuracy of the accounts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

But also signed off?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I mean Hearts accounts were signed off and they were declared a viable going concern about a month before Vlad fled the scene with a couple of suitcases stuffed full of cash for 'shares' and the administrators were called in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

For all the nature of the alleged offence remains out of the public eye the fact she has been placed under arrest and interviewed under caution means she isn't merely a witness assisting Police Scotland with their enquiries.

---

Isn't that just how police interviews are done in Scotland? Under caution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

She will now be aware of any potential charges or at least have knowledge of the specifics of what is being investigated. In many employment contracts there is a clause stating you should make an employer aware if you are accused of a criminal offence, particularly one of dishonesty.

---

Are you suggesting she's been accused of a criminal offence? That would be newsworthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

So if any fraud had taken place within the period that a set of accounts were given a clean audit report, such fraud would be immaterial to the overall accuracy of the accounts?

---

That would depend on the size and nature of the fraud.

"Materiality" is an important concept in audting and accounts. A book-keeper pilfering some toiletries (cf Rowling, J) probably wouldn't have an effect on the "true and fair" requirement of the Companies Acts. A Board setting up numerous companies to mask underlying losses (cf Enron) certainly would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I mean Hearts accounts were signed off and they were declared a viable going concern about a month before Vlad fled the scene with a couple of suitcases stuffed full of cash for 'shares' and the administrators were called in.

---

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. CWG will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the Hearts accounts were pretty heavily qualified as not being a going concern and being dependent on the continued support of Ukio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That would depend on the size and nature of the fraud.

"Materiality is an important concept in audting and accounts. A book-keeper pilfering some toiletries (cf Rowling, J) wouldn't have an effect on the "true and fair" requirement of the Companies Acts. A Board setting up numerous companies to mask underlying losses (cf Enron) certainly would.

---

Yeah yeah, toiletries. We want to know if raising funds for one type of pro-independence activity and spending it on another constitutes fraud? :greengrin

Edit to add: don't answer this if you think it might give rise to a possible contempt of court action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

A Board setting up numerous companies to mask underlying losses (cf Enron) certainly would.

---

But AA gave Enron a clean audit report?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. CWG will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the Hearts accounts were pretty heavily qualified as not being a going concern and being dependent on the continued support of Ukio.

---

That's correct. It was their CEO that declared they were "self-sustainable" or something similar. The auditors did have a Going Concern qualification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

But AA gave Enron a clean audit report?

---

.. which is my point. A clean audit report is no guarantee of accurate accounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Is it really that out there to question whether NS should be suspended? It's not that uncommon for people involved in an ongoing police enquiry to be suspended (on full pay) pending the conclusion of said enquiries. Someone like Mason Greenwood would be an example in football but it happens in loads of workplaces. The innocent until proven guilty mantra still applies hence it's suspension rather than dismissal.

For all the nature of the alleged offence remains out of the public eye the fact she has been placed under arrest and interviewed under caution means she isn't merely a witness assisting Police Scotland with their enquiries.

She will now be aware of any potential charges or at least have knowledge of the specifics of what is being investigated. In many employment contracts there is a clause stating you should make an employer aware if you are accused of a criminal offence, particularly one of dishonesty.

Ultimately it's up to the SNP to decide how to deal with it and they will live or die by the decision electorally.

---

It’s up to the SNP is totally correct but also this case involves the SNP very closely so all parties will have a clear idea of what is happening.
The SNP will know what happened to the money, so it maybe that it sees no need to suspend anyone.
That would not have been the case with Thomson or Greenwood etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

.. which is my point. A clean audit report is no guarantee of accurate accounts.

---

Circular argument, here we are again. So what's the point of auditors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Isn't that just how police interviews are done in Scotland? Under caution?
Are you suggesting she's been accused of a criminal offence? That would be newsworthy.

---

You can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. Been there done it and bought the T shirt. That interview can then end with you being arrested (or as in this case can take place after you have been arrested) or you can be released. It's not uncommon to be invited for interview under caution voluntarily without the need for arrest. You are free to leave a voluntary interview under caution, after arrest you are not free to leave until the Police say so or times up (or at all if you are charged and remanded in custody).

I'd say the fact she was arrested is evidence that she is a suspect in a criminal investigation, part of the arrest procedure is that you are made aware of the reason you are being arrested and the laws you are suspected of breaking. Without that information being disclosed you can't be arrested. The full arrest procedure and criteria for arrest is as below:

Police must:

Identify themselves as the police
Tell you that you’re being arrested
Tell you what crime they think you’ve committed
Explain why it’s necessary to arrest you
Explain to you that you’re not free to leave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Raising money to fight for independence and spending it on fighting for independence is against the law?

---

You know it was spent on fighting for independence, you must have inside info.

I’ve no idea what it was spent on or if it was even spent .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Circular argument, here we are again. So what's the point of auditors?

---

https://www.pwc.com/m1/en/services/a...-an-audit.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Circular argument, here we are again. So what's the point of auditors?

---

IMHO, very little.


"EY (Ernst & Young) is now banned from carrying out audits for firms of public interest in Germany for two years following an investigation into the company’s role in the Wirecard collapse."

"German payment processor Wirecard collapsed in 2020 after announcing that there was a €1.9 billion black hole in its accounts and that it was €3.2 billion in debt.

EY served as Wirecard’s auditor and certified its books, even when investors and journalists began to raise questions over the company's stability...."

https://www.fstech.co.uk/fst/EY_Audi...rd_Scandal.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

You can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. Been there done it and bought the T shirt. That interview can then end with you being arrested (or as in this case can take place after you have been arrested) or you can be released. It's not uncommon to be invited for interview under caution voluntarily without the need for arrest. You are free to leave a voluntary interview under caution, after arrest you are not free to leave until the Police say so or times up (or at all if you are charged and remanded in custody).

I'd say the fact she was arrested is evidence that she is a suspect in a criminal investigation, part of the arrest procedure is that you are made aware of the reason you are being arrested and the laws you are suspected of breaking. Without that information being disclosed you can't be arrested. The full arrest procedure and criteria for arrest is as below:

Police must:

Identify themselves as the police
Tell you that you’re being arrested
Tell you what crime they think you’ve committed
Explain why it’s necessary to arrest you
Explain to you that you’re not free to leave

---

I think being arrested helps everyone in that it allows NS’s lawyers access to specific information that the police may have and also the charges she may face? Might explain the confidence of her statement on Sunday night?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

You can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. Been there done it and bought the T shirt. That interview can then end with you being arrested (or as in this case can take place after you have been arrested) or you can be released. It's not uncommon to be invited for interview under caution voluntarily without the need for arrest. You are free to leave a voluntary interview under caution, after arrest you are not free to leave until the Police say so or times up (or at all if you are charged and remanded in custody).

I'd say the fact she was arrested is evidence that she is a suspect in a criminal investigation, part of the arrest procedure is that you are made aware of the reason you are being arrested and the laws you are suspected of breaking. Without that information being disclosed you can't be arrested. The full arrest procedure and criteria for arrest is as below:

Police must:

Identify themselves as the police
Tell you that you’re being arrested
Tell you what crime they think you’ve committed
Explain why it’s necessary to arrest you
Explain to you that you’re not free to leave

---

Missed the two most important things, entitlement to legal representation and the caution without those then interview is inadmissible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

Tried to split up the UK? Surely that would make her an enemy of the state.

I expect some future song writer will create a lyrical song about her escaping 'over the sea to Skye'...

...or at least they would if the Ferries aren't cancelled.












:greengrin

---

Rubbish, she'll be depicted Boudica like riding a camper van with razor sharp blades on the wheels, ransacking Camulodunum on route to Westminster in her struggle for justice and independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I think being arrested helps everyone in that it allows NS’s lawyers access to specific information that the police may have and also the charges she may face? Might explain the confidence of her statement on Sunday night?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yep I don't think saying NS is a suspect is all that controversial. Plenty people who find themselves as suspects are entirely innocent.

As I said above I have been interviewed under caution and whilst I was scoobied as to why I had been invited in as soon as I was there it was clear I was a suspect (though never formalised through arrest) so I didn't speak until I had a lawyer. In the end it was all fairly swiftly resolved but I'm glad I had a professional there with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

Giving money to the SNP to fight a new Independence campaign is just like giving money to the SNP.

Their whole Raison d'être is to achieve Independence for Scotland.

J

---

If they are forming a government their whole raison d’etre should be to govern, first and foremost. That’s what we, as taxpayers, pay them for.

But that explains why Humza scrapped having a minister for social security and created a minister for independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

You know it was spent on fighting for independence, you must have inside info.

---

That's what the SNP do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

If I remember correctly, the person who first raised the suggestion that money raised by the SNP for independence campaign was neither a member of the SNP or had donated to the fund. It's like he had an agenda against the SNP. He probably posts on here. [emoji6]

---

Sean Clerkin although I think wings over bath did all the spade work. It coincided with his volte face on the SNP after that time he got lifted and his computers seized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by degenerated

Sean Clerkin although I think wings over bath did all the spade work. It coincided with his volte face on the SNP after that time he got lifted and his computers seized.

---

Yip, those fine upstanding folks with no axe to grind. Sean ****ing Clerkin, a nut job of the highest order. A racist ******** thrown out if most sane indy groups. And the rev Stu. Say no more!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

If they are forming a government their whole raison d’etre should be to govern, first and foremost. That’s what we, as taxpayers, pay them for.

But that explains why Humza scrapped having a minister for social security and created a minister for independence.

---

Does the electorate trump the taxpayer? They were voted in on an independence ticket. Most people, certainly SNP supporters think they're doing a decent job of governing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

Yip, those fine upstanding folks with no axe to grind. Sean ****ing Clerkin, a nut job of the highest order. A racist ******** thrown out if most sane indy groups. And the rev Stu. Say no more!!

---

Sean Clerkin, the go to man for Glenn Campbell when the media want a photo op on nationalist nutters. Like that time with Jim Murphy, never seen anything so staged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

If they are forming a government their whole raison d’etre should be to govern, first and foremost. That’s what we, as taxpayers, pay them for.

But that explains why Humza scrapped having a minister for social security and created a minister for independence.

---

Of all the discussions going on in here today that is a good point, whilst indy was clearly on the manifesto and the SNP were voted in on that manifesto, indy IS part of "day job" but surely a Social Security portfolio is equal, if not more important as a "day job".


Going back.to.the circular argument though :greengrin

The SNP have employed folks to create various papers (gone a bit quiet recently mind) all linked to a future campaign, so arguablycorrectlyspent?, I don't remember seeing anything stating the funds would be stuck in an account and only used to print leaflets, tv advertising or other expenses etc in the run up to an actual vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

If they are forming a government their whole raison d’etre should be to govern, first and foremost. That’s what we, as taxpayers, pay them for.

But that explains why Humza scrapped having a minister for social security and created a minister for independence.

---

But without the drive for Independence they wouldn’t be in existence. You can argue what you like about what takes precedence “Governing” or achieving the aim the party was set up for. But that’s for the electorate to decide. And so far and for the last 12 years the Scottish electorate have delivered a pro Independence majority.

Point is, if that’s “all they’ve got” then it’s flimsy at best.

I’m sure we’ll find out. Police do all sorts of investigations that come to nothing. It’s literally their job.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

But without the drive for Independence they wouldn’t be in existence. You can argue what you like about what takes precedence “Governing” or achieving the aim the party was set up for. But that’s for the electorate to decide. And so far and for the last 12 years the Scottish electorate have delivered a pro Independence majority.

J

---

Their desire for independence doesn’t exist in a vacuum though. If they were elected to achieve independence they have failed miserably at it. And if they claim to be running the country, they have done a mediocre job at best.

Either way they are tired and failing. The drive for independence would be stronger if it engaged those in other political parties who supported it. But tying it to the SNP is failing the electorate and the taxpayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

But without the drive for Independence they wouldn’t be in existence. You can argue what you like about what takes precedence “Governing” or achieving the aim the party was set up for. But that’s for the electorate to decide. And so far and for the last 12 years the Scottish electorate have delivered a pro Independence majority.

Point is, if that’s “all they’ve got” then it’s flimsy at best.

I’m sure we’ll find out. Police do all sorts of investigations that come to nothing. It’s literally their job.

J

---

Whats flimsy is doing a poor job at governing, but saying hey, you elected us to achieve independence. So we will just focus on that.

That’s a cop-out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Their desire for independence doesn’t exist in a vacuum though. If they were elected to achieve independence they have failed miserably at it. And if they claim to be running the country, they have done a mediocre job at best.

Either way they are tired and failing. The drive for independence would be stronger if it engaged those in other political parties who supported it. But tying it to the SNP is failing the electorate and the taxpayer.

---

I find the whole SNP/independence thing a bit of a catch 22.

In reality it is true they are the only show in town when it comes to independence but only because the majority of those who support independence have made that the case. There are many people, including on here, who openly admit they will continue to vote SNP regardless of performance until independence is achieved.

Of course supporters will argue independence is bigger than the SNP both as a concept and as a movement but for now it is inextricably tied to the electoral performance of the SNP and the voting behaviours of people on both sides of the debate reflects that. The broad church yes movement that existed in 2014 and the preceding years seems a long time ago now.

The issue is that link between SNP and independence means a vote for anyone other than the SNP would be twisted by some as a vote against independence in the same way any vote for the SNP is viewed as tacit approval of both independence and their record in government. It's why I didn't vote in the last Holyrood election, Scottish politics is gridlocked on a single issue and I didn't want my vote interpreted by either side as something it wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Whats flimsy is doing a poor job at governing, but saying hey, you elected us to achieve independence. So we will just focus on that.

That’s a cop-out.

---

It’s what people keep voting for. Take it up with them.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

That's what the SNP do?

---

I think the point you are overlooking is that the fundraiser said the money was being raised for and would be ringfenced to spend on indyref2.

Indyref2 has not happened and is not planned to happen, key all but £97k of the money going by the last accounts remained.

Is it criminal, I have said for a long time I don’t believe it is. Is it honest and transparent. Definitely not.

By all means keep going on defending this, but really the best thing here is for sturgeon, murrell etc to just be honest on the money spent spent and it’s case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

Is it criminal, I have said for a long time I don’t believe it is. Is it honest and transparent. Definitely not.

By all means keep going on defending this, but really the best thing here is for sturgeon, murrell etc to just be honest on the money spent spent and it’s case closed.

---

The use to which the money was put was clearly explained in the SNP accounts. I know it sometimes seems that I bang on about accounts too much, but they are the official record of what the SNP has spent it's money on, and there is a very clear note in the 2021 accounts about this money. You may not agree with what the SNP did, but let's not talk about honesty and transparency - it's there for all to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Their desire for independence doesn’t exist in a vacuum though. If they were elected to achieve independence they have failed miserably at it. And if they claim to be running the country, they have done a mediocre job at best.

Either way they are tired and failing. The drive for independence would be stronger if it engaged those in other political parties who supported it. But tying it to the SNP is failing the electorate and the taxpayer.

---

In your opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I find the whole SNP/independence thing a bit of a catch 22.

In reality it is true they are the only show in town when it comes to independence but only because the majority of those who support independence have made that the case. There are many people, including on here, who openly admit they will continue to vote SNP regardless of performance until independence is achieved.

Of course supporters will argue independence is bigger than the SNP both as a concept and as a movement but for now it is inextricably tied to the electoral performance of the SNP and the voting behaviours of people on both sides of the debate reflects that. The broad church yes movement that existed in 2014 and the preceding years seems a long time ago now.

The issue is that link between SNP and independence means a vote for anyone other than the SNP would be twisted by some as a vote against independence in the same way any vote for the SNP is viewed as tacit approval of both independence and their record in government. It's why I didn't vote in the last Holyrood election, Scottish politics is gridlocked on a single issue and I didn't want my vote interpreted by either side as something it wasn't.

---

Yes, and it is a shame for that.

Looking back we had the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly, which sort of evolved into the Constitutional Convention and they were pluralist, far less binary and divisive and as a consequence drew in people of all political persuasions and none.

I’m a rationalist and a pragmatist. I don’t think the current set-up works and I have an instinctive distrust of the “othering” process that often accompanies nationalism (plus I don’t think the models proposed so far would work).

Show me something that chimes with my values and looks like it would work and it will get my vote, whether it comes wrapped in red, yellow,’blue or any other colour. I’m a Labour Party supporter and member but that’s not hardwired into me, they just generally have been closest to my outlook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

Of all the discussions going on in here today that is a good point, whilst indy was clearly on the manifesto and the SNP were voted in on that manifesto, indy IS part of "day job" but surely a Social Security portfolio is equal, if not more important as a "day job".


Going back.to.the circular argument though :greengrin

The SNP have employed folks to create various papers (gone a bit quiet recently mind) all linked to a future campaign, so arguablycorrectlyspent?, I don't remember seeing anything stating the funds would be stuck in an account and only used to print leaflets, tv advertising or other expenses etc in the run up to an actual vote?

---

Thanks for the first part. I couldn’t believe it is just me who thinks it is terrible decision-making and abysmal optics to stop having a minister for social security and replace them with q minister for ‘independence’.

Re your second point it is also worth noting that a team of civil servants were drawn together to work on the independence campaign. That is our money again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Their desire for independence doesn’t exist in a vacuum though. If they were elected to achieve independence they have failed miserably at it. And if they claim to be running the country, they have done a mediocre job at best.

Either way they are tired and failing. The drive for independence would be stronger if it engaged those in other political parties who supported it. But tying it to the SNP is failing the electorate and the taxpayer.

---

Sturgeon's legacy is, in truth, exceedingly thin.

I guess maintaining the 100% record of former SNP First Ministers to be arrested is at least something to remember her by :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Sturgeon's legacy is, in truth, exceedingly thin.

I guess maintaining the 100% record of former SNP First Ministers to be arrested is at least something to remember her by :wink:

---

And it will be 100% not guilty as well. I’m sure Yousaf will be next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And it will be 100% not guilty as well. I’m sure Yousaf will be next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Salmond must be quietly regarding all this as a bit of karma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Their desire for independence doesn’t exist in a vacuum though. If they were elected to achieve independence they have failed miserably at it. And if they claim to be running the country, they have done a mediocre job at best.

Either way they are tired and failing. The drive for independence would be stronger if it engaged those in other political parties who supported it. But tying it to the SNP is failing the electorate and the taxpayer.

---

They will ever do any more than this. They need to be able to say "we need Indy for xxx to be better".

If our economy, NHS, education system etc were running above par under the SNP, the public would then rightly ask why do we need Indy.

It's why they are so dangerous in government. The better they do at governing, the less likely the country will vote for Indy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..

They will ever do any more than this. They need to be able to say "we need Indy for xxx to be better".

If our economy, NHS, education system etc were running above par under the SNP, the public would then rightly ask why do we need Indy.

It's why they are so dangerous in government. The better they do at governing, the less likely the country will vote for Indy.

---

That makes no sense. The fact is the SNP have had to manage 13 years of Tory austerity and they have done so while providing the best govt in the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

The use to which the money was put was clearly explained in the SNP accounts. I know it sometimes seems that I bang on about accounts too much, but they are the official record of what the SNP has spent it's money on, and there is a very clear note in the 2021 accounts about this money. You may not agree with what the SNP did, but let's not talk about honesty and transparency - it's there for all to see.

---

If that is the case why don’t they just say the money wasn’t ringfenced and was spent on general snp expenditure. That’s clearly what has happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..

They will ever do any more than this. They need to be able to say "we need Indy for xxx to be better".

If our economy, NHS, education system etc were running above par under the SNP, the public would then rightly ask why do we need Indy.

It's why they are so dangerous in government. The better they do at governing, the less likely the country will vote for Indy.

---

Yip, so dangerous in government that our public services perform better than the rest of the UK. Could they be better? Of course they could. But remember that almost 700m per year is spent counteracting Tory austerity policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Sturgeon's legacy is, in truth, exceedingly thin.

I guess maintaining the 100% record of former SNP First Ministers to be arrested is at least something to remember her by :wink:

---

Not so sure. I think in the main they have governed well over her time. Sure they could have done better however you need to take into account Austerity policies from down south, covid pandemic putting an enormous burden on an already over stretched NHS likely in some part down to losing foreign staff due to Brexit plus a government down south supported by media allies hellbent on undermining them. Her election record is an excellent one also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Not so sure. I think in the main they have governed well over her time. Sure they could have done better however you need to take into account Austerity policies from down south, covid pandemic putting an enormous burden on an already over stretched NHS likely in some part down to losing foreign staff due to Brexit plus a government down south supported by media allies hellbent on undermining them. Her election record is an excellent one also.

---

I think most reasonable people can see that which is why she is still popular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And it will be 100% not guilty as well. I’m sure Yousaf will be next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Did Salmond not have one charge Not Proven ?

Remember too that it was not the British State that put Salmond in the dock but his own SNP party.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scotlan...-records-began

Well done the SG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Did Salmond not have one charge Not Proven ?

Remember too that it was not the British State that put Salmond in the dock but his own SNP party.

---

Wasn't it the police?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Did Salmond not have one charge Not Proven ?

Remember too that it was not the British State that put Salmond in the dock but his own SNP party.

---

Absolute nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Absolute nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_A...%20the%20case.


Not guilty on 12 charges , not proven on one charge .

Not 100% not guilty and not absolute nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_A...%20the%20case.


Not guilty on 12 charges , not proven on one charge .

Not 100% not guilty and not absolute nonsense.

---

I was talking about your claim the SNP put him in the dock. That was a matter for Police Scotland and the PF which was a ridiculously bad decision. Like the mess with Rangers administrators. And like the current ness they are getting themselves in with the help of the NCA. Overdue some reform I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Remember too that it was not the British State that put Salmond in the dock but his own SNP party.

---

If by the SNP you actually mean Leslie Evans, the adviser to Nicola Sturgeon which is a UK (not Scottish) Civil Servant appointed role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Salmond must be quietly regarding all this as a bit of karma.

---

His fingerprints are all over this, imo.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I was talking about your claim the SNP put him in the dock. That was a matter for Police Scotland and the PF which was a ridiculously bad decision. Like the mess with Rangers administrators. And like the current ness they are getting themselves in with the help of the NCA. Overdue some reform I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The SNP did put Alex Salmond in the dock and how spineless was it of Nicola Sturgeon to use a Covid press conference to question the jury when Alex Salmond got the Not Guilty verdict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws7pR5DtctM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The SNP did put Alex Salmond in the dock and how spineless was it of Nicola Sturgeon to use a Covid press conference to question the jury when Alex Salmond got the Not Guilty verdict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws7pR5DtctM

---

She certainly sailed close to the wind by questioning the integrity of the verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I was talking about your claim the SNP put him in the dock. That was a matter for Police Scotland and the PF which was a ridiculously bad decision. Like the mess with Rangers administrators. And like the current ness they are getting themselves in with the help of the NCA. Overdue some reform I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

In the Rangers case, that line would work as a deflection for those (many) who remain unclear about the role of the Lord Advocate. As well as being head of the prosecution service (the Crown Office) the LA is a political appointee, a minister in the Scottish Government and essentially their own lawyer. Hence James Wolffe's grovelling admission and apology over that 'illegal and malicious' prosecution which has cost Scottish taxpayers around £40 million IIRC.

Echoes of the 'tainted' and 'unawful' findings of the botched civil service inquiry into the Salmond allegations conducted by Leslie Evans who (on behalf of the SG) pursued the hopeless case against him in the Court of Session, which cost the taxpayer half a million pounds. That may not have been directly related to the decision to prosecute Salmond but the Police Scotland investigation was triggered by Evans' decision to send the results of the SG's internal inquiry to the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I was talking about your claim the SNP put him in the dock. That was a matter for Police Scotland and the PF which was a ridiculously bad decision. Like the mess with Rangers administrators. And like the current ness they are getting themselves in with the help of the NCA. Overdue some reform I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I'd advise posters not to dive into this too much. A blogger went to jail for contempt of court on the basis he revealed aspects of the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I was talking about your claim the SNP put him in the dock. That was a matter for Police Scotland and the PF which was a ridiculously bad decision. Like the mess with Rangers administrators. And like the current ness they are getting themselves in with the help of the NCA. Overdue some reform I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

If the police and the PF are overdue some reform what have the Scottish Government been doing about it for the last 16 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I'd advise posters not to dive into this too much. A blogger went to jail for contempt of court on the basis he revealed aspects of the case.

---

That was during the case while it was on going. There is no "contempt of court" law that applies to talking about cases that have already been concluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I'd advise posters not to dive into this too much. A blogger went to jail for contempt of court on the basis he revealed aspects of the case.

---

https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/stat...C9yaqjy6UuAAAA

Is it entirely responsible for Ian Murray to be demanding that Humza Yousaf "tells Scotland what he knows" about a matter that is subject to an ongoing police investigation then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/stat...C9yaqjy6UuAAAA

Is it entirely responsible for Ian Murray to be demanding that Humza Yousaf "tells Scotland what he knows" about a matter that is subject to an ongoing police investigation then?

---

To be fair if you are demanding that Humza tells you what he knows, then you don’t need to clear your diary for the next ten minutes, let alone the day :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

To be fair if you are demanding that Humza tells you what he knows, then you don’t need to clear your diary for the next ten minutes, let alone the day :greengrin

---

Doesn’t say much for Sarwar then that he can’t lay a glove on him every week at FMQ’s.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

That was during the case while it was on going. There is no "contempt of court" law that applies to talking about cases that have already been concluded.

---

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...-fife-56170459

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Doesn’t say much for Sarwar then that he can’t lay a glove on him every week at FMQ’s.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I cant comment. I gave FMQs a shot a couple of years back and it went something like

Other party leader: “Would the First Minister agree she is a numpty?”
First Minister: “I will accept no accusations of numptiness from (insert name). He is the real numpty”
etc etc

That was enough for me. PMQs can be lame at times but at least occasionally you get the chance of a BoJo sowing the seeds of his own downfall by lying to the House.

Donald Dewar must be looking down with a weary sigh......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

I cant comment. I gave FMQs a shot a couple of years back and it went something like

Other party leader: “Would the First Minister agree she is a numpty?”
First Minister: “I will accept no accusations of numptiness from (insert name). He is the real numpty”
etc etc

That was enough for me. PMQs can be lame at times but at least occasionally you get the chance of a BoJo sowing the seeds of his own downfall by lying to the House.

Donald Dewar must be looking down with a weary sigh......

---

Both are awful. PMQs is pantomime point scoring and FMQs soporific. Required viewing for political nerds only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

To be fair if you are demanding that Humza tells you what he knows, then you don’t need to clear your diary for the next ten minutes, let alone the day :greengrin

---

Bit like Murray himself unless he wants to discuss his latest union Jack clothing choice :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

I cant comment. I gave FMQs a shot a couple of years back and it went something like

Other party leader: “Would the First Minister agree she is a numpty?”
First Minister: “I will accept no accusations of numptiness from (insert name). He is the real numpty”
etc etc

That was enough for me. PMQs can be lame at times but at least occasionally you get the chance of a BoJo sowing the seeds of his own downfall by lying to the House.

Donald Dewar must be looking down with a weary sigh......

---

Is it even broadcast?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

I cant comment. I gave FMQs a shot a couple of years back and it went something like

Other party leader: “Would the First Minister agree she is a numpty?”
First Minister: “I will accept no accusations of numptiness from (insert name). He is the real numpty”
etc etc

That was enough for me. PMQs can be lame at times but at least occasionally you get the chance of a BoJo sowing the seeds of his own downfall by lying to the House.

Donald Dewar must be looking down with a weary sigh......

---

Obviously it will have it’s highs and lows but I remembering watching it one time in particular a few years ago and the debate in particular between Sturgeon, Davidson and Dugdale being respectful, honest and light years ahead of Westminster debate. It’s probably not a surprise that it’s inferior now, given the relative inferiority of all the current incumbents.

I don’t really care if it isn’t entertaining.

Call for new transport minister to be a senior role - BBC News

Hard to fathom why this isn't already a senior role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Obviously it will have it’s highs and lows but I remembering watching it one time in particular a few years ago and the debate in particular between Sturgeon, Davidson and Dugdale being respectful, honest and light years ahead of Westminster debate. It’s probably not a surprise that it’s inferior now, given the relative inferiority of all the current incumbents.

I don’t really care if it isn’t entertaining.

---

Davidson was the only one who could rile Sturgeon and spark something approaching a debate. From what I remember Goldie could go toe to toe with Salmond as well but I didn't watch it much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Obviously it will have it’s highs and lows but I remembering watching it one time in particular a few years ago and the debate in particular between Sturgeon, Davidson and Dugdale being respectful, honest and light years ahead of Westminster debate. It’s probably not a surprise that it’s inferior now, given the relative inferiority of all the current incumbents.

I don’t really care if it isn’t entertaining.

---

Tend to agree watched it a few times admittedly a few years back and thought it was night and day from the bearpit of Westminster heckling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Both are awful. PMQs is pantomime point scoring and FMQs soporific. Required viewing for political nerds only.

---

There is far too much weight attached to PMQs by the media but as much as anything it gives them something to fill the bandwidth or the column inches.

Sometimes you do see a deeper approach at play though. A good Opposition should use Qs to find its best attack lines, and likewise a sitting leader should find their best counters.

Starmer’s best lines come from knowing the detail about the impact of the cost of loving crisis. It creates a difference between him and Sunak and reminds observers indirectly that Sunak is incredibly wealthy and therefore can’t relate to ordinary people.

Sunak is still searching for his best counter. Talking about unfunded promises plays into a powerful narrative about Labour being profligate, but the Tories lost any credibility on the economy after the Truss Experiment. When Rishi starts using Corbyn (like BoJo did), it doesn’t land because there is a set narrative that Starmer and the party are ruthlessly getting rid of any hint of Corbynism.

Where Starmer has been most quietly effective is when he talks to those sitting behind Sunak, highlighting the fractures they already feel. So when Starmer talks about the Tories 43 tax rises or whatever, it is not because he is low-tax or that he thinks the public are low-tax, it is because he knows Fory backbencher are low-tax and highlighting it helps cause disunity amongst the Tories. And disunity is a massive vote-loser.

So, bringing it back to FMQs, there is probably a lesson for the other leaders. FMQs are meant to be about holding the First Minister of the day to account. Exploiting the divisions behind the FM would seem sensible - as the leadership election showed, the SNP has lot of differentiation in the views of the party members, and to an extent, the MSPs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Bit like Murray himself unless he wants to discuss his latest union Jack clothing choice :greengrin

---

Oi, find your own gags! None of that cross-party consensus here :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Is it even broadcast?

---

FMQs?

It is on BBC Parliament I think, not sure if Sky News or BBC News 24 cut to it but don’t think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

She certainly sailed close to the wind by questioning the integrity of the verdict.

---

I was surprised Nicola Sturgeon wasn't arrested for misleading parliament after Alex Salmon's not guilty verdict. No matter what anyone thinks of Alex Salmond, what he was put through by Nicola Sturgeon is unforgivable, a man of his age facing jail time and she questions the jury's verdict, it shows Nicola Sturgeon's true character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

There is far too much weight attached to PMQs by the media but as much as anything it gives them something to fill the bandwidth or the column inches.

Sometimes you do see a deeper approach at play though. A good Opposition should use Qs to find its best attack lines, and likewise a sitting leader should find their best counters.

Starmer’s best lines come from knowing the detail about the impact of the cost of loving crisis. It creates a difference between him and Sunak and reminds observers indirectly that Sunak is incredibly wealthy and therefore can’t relate to ordinary people.

Sunak is still searching for his best counter. Talking about unfunded promises plays into a powerful narrative about Labour being profligate, but the Tories lost any credibility on the economy after the Truss Experiment. When Rishi starts using Corbyn (like BoJo did), it doesn’t land because there is a set narrative that Starmer and the party are ruthlessly getting rid of any hint of Corbynism.

Where Starmer has been most quietly effective is when he talks to those sitting behind Sunak, highlighting the fractures they already feel. So when Starmer talks about the Tories 43 tax rises or whatever, it is not because he is low-tax or that he thinks the public are low-tax, it is because he knows Fory backbencher are low-tax and highlighting it helps cause disunity amongst the Tories. And disunity is a massive vote-loser.

So, bringing it back to FMQs, there is probably a lesson for the other leaders. FMQs are meant to be about holding the First Minister of the day to account. Exploiting the divisions behind the FM would seem sensible - as the leadership election showed, the SNP has lot of differentiation in the views of the party members, and to an extent, the MSPs.

---

Starmer is a far better performer than Sarwar. Sarwar can often ask good questions but doesn’t know what to do when they are answered and heads back to scripted lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

FMQs?

It is on BBC Parliament I think, not sure if Sky News or BBC News 24 cut to it but don’t think so.

---

It’s on BBC Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

FMQs?

It is on BBC Parliament I think, not sure if Sky News or BBC News 24 cut to it but don’t think so.

---

Yes Fmqs think it should be on terrestrial TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

It’s on BBC Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ok cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

I was surprised Nicola Sturgeon wasn't arrested for misleading parliament after Alex Salmon's not guilty verdict. No matter what anyone thinks of Alex Salmond, what he was put through by Nicola Sturgeon is unforgivable, a man of his age facing jail time and she questions the jury's verdict, it shows Nicola Sturgeon's true character.

---

He was facing very serious allegations she would have been crucified if he hadn't been reported

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

I was surprised Nicola Sturgeon wasn't arrested for misleading parliament after Alex Salmon's not guilty verdict. No matter what anyone thinks of Alex Salmond, what he was put through by Nicola Sturgeon is unforgivable, a man of his age facing jail time and she questions the jury's verdict, it shows Nicola Sturgeon's true character.

---

So are you saying that when he approached her asking for it to be swept under the carpet she should have e done that? Serious allegations of a sexual nature were made and you think that she done him over by reporting it? And it was ok due to his age? Interesting moral compass you have there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

I was surprised Nicola Sturgeon wasn't arrested for misleading parliament after Alex Salmon's not guilty verdict. No matter what anyone thinks of Alex Salmond, what he was put through by Nicola Sturgeon is unforgivable, a man of his age facing jail time and she questions the jury's verdict, it shows Nicola Sturgeon's true character.

---

Politicians may be duplicitous, but I'm pretty sure that's not a crime yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

So are you saying that when he approached her asking for it to be swept under the carpet she should have e done that? Serious allegations of a sexual nature were made and you think that she done him over by reporting it? And it was ok due to his age? Interesting moral compass you have there

---

I have to say I'm a bit confused at that as well.

He was 62/63 when the allegations came to light and he went to trial, was still working then and continues to work now. He was hardly verging on mentally incapable due to advanced age. I'm not sure there should be an upper age limit for investigating any crimes, but especially those against the person and of a violent and/or sexual nature. It's almost always in the public interest to prosecute in such cases and justice should be allowed to take it's course.

I thought NS was evasive, if not downright dishonest, when it came to the timeline of events and I still don't believe she 'couldn't recall' when she was first made aware of the allegations but ultimately refusing to bury them was the right thing to do and she should be commended for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

He was facing very serious allegations she would have been crucified if he hadn't been reported

---

That's not what he means. He's referring to Sturgeon being accused of breaching the ministerial code by allegedly questioning the integrity of the jury (the majority of whom were women). At one of her Covid briefings (at which she would regularly claim she wasn't there to discuss politics...unless it suited her) she said something along the lines that Salmond may have been cleared of criminality but that didn't mean what his accusers claimed hadn't happened. Whatever your personal opinion (and she and Salmond clearly despise each other) it's dangerous talk in the extreme to imply someone is still in the wrong despite being cleared by a jury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I have to say I'm a bit confused at that as well.

He was 62/63 when the allegations came to light and he went to trial, was still working then and continues to work now. He was hardly verging on mentally incapable due to advanced age. I'm not sure there should be an upper age limit for investigating any crimes, but especially those against the person and of a violent and/or sexual nature. It's almost always in the public interest to prosecute in such cases and justice should be allowed to take it's course.

I thought NS was evasive, if not downright dishonest, when it came to the timeline of events and I still don't believe she 'couldn't recall' when she was first made aware of the allegations but ultimately refusing to bury them was the right thing to do and she should be commended for that.

---

She's good at that sort of stuff.

January 22nd: I've still got plenty fuel in the tank and I'm nowhere near stepping down.

February 15th: I'm resigning (and it's got nothing to do with the impending ****storm I know is coming down the line, nothing at all. Nope, I'm just tired).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

... she said something along the lines that Salmond may have been cleared of criminality but that didn't mean what his accusers claimed hadn't happened.

---

Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

---

Not when someone has been found innocent of all charges in the eyes of the law. Maintaining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law is something you'd expect a First Minister to respect. From what I recall, it went no further than a complaint against her but it struck me as an irresponsible thing to say and probably betrayed her frustration at the monumental ****-up they'd made of the civil service disciplinary inquiry which really hung Salmond's accusers out to dry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Not when someone has been found innocent of all charges in the eyes of the law. Maintaining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law is something you'd expect a First Minister to respect. From what I recall, it went no further than a complaint against her but it struck me as an irresponsible thing to say and probably betrayed her frustration at the monumental ****-up they'd made of the civil service disciplinary inquiry which really hung Salmond's accusers out to dry.

---

Still true though, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Still true though, eh?

---

A time when everyone's taxes were going towards paying for a war which was fought to save the toffs place in the world, while the toffs paid zero taxes.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

This has been obvious for some time, but good to see it getting an airing in the media:

https://t.co/wyLST4ABbg

Quote:

---

The total cost of the police probe into the SNP’s finances is MORE than the 'missing' amount under investigation

---

Still, what price integrity, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

This has been obvious for some time, but good to see it getting an airing in the media:

https://t.co/wyLST4ABbg



Still, what price integrity, eh?

---

I don't really get why that's relevant.

If someone mugged my daughter and stole £20 from her I'd still want the proper justice process to be followed regardless of whether the cost was greater than the sum stolen.

For a variety of reasons criminal investigations are expensive but it's surely in the interests of all parties that they are seen through to a conclusion. If Police Scotland walked away because it was 'costing too much' it provides all kinds of ammunition for those who want to scream cover up.