Salt n Vinegar

I've been watching Hancock give evidence to the HoC Committees. Much is being made of the fact that Cummings hasn't yet provided any evidence to back up his earlier claims about the Government's handling of the virus. I can't quite make my mind up on this.... Is Cummings really daft enough to give evidence to Parliament that was blatantly false... or, as I must confess would be my hope, he has the evidence but won't release it until after Hancock has given his own evidence, thus making Hancock's position terminal? I don't like Cummings and wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw a bus, but I wouldn't say he was stupid. I suspect that there is a plan, somewhere.

I understand that the Tories are to go for some kind of further extension allowing sausages and mince to continue across the trade boundary. As I recall, there was a Yes Minister episode about the "eurosausage"....

Was that all she did? I mean, just being English isn't an offence everywhere.....

Eh? You said "I personally would like to know" and "where do you reckon it went?" Hardly "a state". In two posts you seemed to be asking for info. You can hardly complain if folk comment back!

Let's not get ahead of ourselves... It's the hope that kills...

Well, a quick google gave me this for 2017... Office £401,387.00 Transfers out £623,545.00 Staff £952,000.00 Fundraising £167,916.00 Campaigning £1,538,464.00 Depreciation £196,067.00 Financing charges and taxation £102,246.00 Commercial activities £0.00 Conferences £598,831.00 What sort of detail are you looking for that you expect someone on a football forum to provide? Do you take as much interest in the detail of the other political parties' accounts or is this an example of a 'SNP probably bad and up to something' attitude? I seem to recall that there are rules about accounts/documents/receipts etc which presumably the SNP will be complying with. I'm sure that you will be enforcing whatever rights you have. I suppose if that's the kind of thing you are interested in, fine, good for you. I could of course be wrong, but if there really are as many disgruntled ex-SNP members out there as folk seem to think, I suspect that someone would have caused a stink by now (maybe even with evidence?) if there were serious financial issues going back to 2014. Or, it could be a Trumpian sort of '... well, I'm just asking questions.. a lot of people are saying...' I'm sure if you get a response you'll let us all know. (Before anyone strops up at me, I am not now, and never have been, a member of any political party.)

Do you mean that you personally want to know what that money was spent on, or that you want someone else to look through the accounts and do your research for you? If you really wanted to know, I'm sure that the accounts will be around somewhere. Maybe you could look?

I've been to various countries and met nice people. It never entered my mind that I should one day have constitutional authority over them, or that they would regard members of my family as being their hereditary Heads of State. I suspect that my friends in Italy would take a grim view of that. Even if Scotland wanted to have a royal Head of State, which would be a post-indy debate anyway, plenty of other countries seem to manage that without being under the political authority of Westminster. If folk want them, fine. To me, as someone who thinks royalty is a ludicrous concept, it seems crazy to even care what they think. They might even think that a god wants to wade in to the debate, seeing as how a god apparently gave Billy's mum the job from which Billy's 'importance' emerges. If he was plain Billy Windsor, a clerical assistant in a local estate agent's office in Chelmsford, nobody here would give a t0ss about his view. Having one's view on independence influenced by this mob is as stupid as deciding whether or not to vote for a politician based on their hairstyle. As far as their political views on the implementation of the SNPs (and Greens?) election manifestos are concerned, I might give a twopenny one about Billy and Katie's views if they seemed as interested in publicly interfering in what the Tories are up to.

Meanwhile (ahem...) I see on tonight's Sky news press preview that, according to the Express, the politically neutral Royal Family are to send the possibly future King Billy and his missus to spend more time Scotland to help save the union. Have these two not suffered enough?

Is that a "Battlestar Galactica" reference, or is it a more widely used expression than I thought?

They are bound to be excited. After all, the Alba party received almost as high a percentage of the vote in Scotland as Laurence Fox received in the London Mayor election.

He doesn't need another new name... 'The cat in the hat' will do fine.

I really hope that Alex Salmond abandons this Alba Party nonsense. He was a powerful advocate for independence and fought Scotland's corner as well as anyone. "was"..... "fought"... Past tense. His time has gone. He is in danger of turning into another George Galloway. At least the Monster Raving Loony Party knew they were taking the p!ss when they submitted candidates - and so did the voters. Gubbed at one election? No problem! Just wait until the fair-minded people of Scotland come to their senses in the local authority elections... Eh? Pardon? I mean, seriously... this is a real question that needs answering - do Alba members or supporters think that winning a tiny percentage of votes and next to hee-haw (if any) seats in a couple of local authorities in 2022 will convince the SNP in Holyrood to push for a referendum even one day earlier than they want to? Earlier than when they believe they can win it? Scotland already has 2 independence supporting political parties; in the PR systems used in Council and Holyrood elections we can't have the pro-indy vote split between 3 parties. Who do Alba expect to take votes from - the Tories? The Willie Rennie Appreciation Society? Enough! Folk are in danger of forgetting the lessons learned so painfully over decades by the Labour Party throughout the UK - 1) it is hard enough for a united political party to do well in elections - just ask the LibDems. Divided political movements crash and burn in the heat of election campaigns - it can't be any different in the run-up to a referendum; 2) victory at the polling stations (in elections or referenda) CAN'T just arise from convincing members of political parties that their party's view is correct. It is the electorate that needs to be brought along. There needs to more attention paid to making the case for independence in the minds of those who are presently neutral or even opposed to it and less attention paid to stropping up over who is "really" wanting independence. There's F all point in holding a referendum unless reliable opinion polls show a sustained majority in favour of independence over a period of months. If it is called too early, without a much better than even chance of winning, that'll be it for my lifetime. I'm "only" in my early 60s. Folk who want the same outcome need to grow the f up, stop arguing with each other, and start convincing their friends and family. The Tories in Holyrood are a joke and will hopefully implode within a few months under Dross when they see how useless he is. I keep hearing about independence-supporting Labour voters - and I know some. They are the ones we need to convince to put their votes in the "Yes" box. Labour in England are a spent force for at least the next 2 general elections, probably more - surely Scottish Labour voters can't put up with that.

Not a dinosaur at all. The great unwritten rule of football is "thou shalt not p!ss about on the edge of thine own penalty area, lest disaster fall upon thy net and great shall be the wrath of thy fans upon thy heid".

Ah well....

Time up ref...

He's a Tory and a football match official. He should be used to being on his own and folk not being keen to spend time with him.

You missed out - Foreign negotiator "tell you what, gie's a shot of the wheel and the horn an' aw' and we'll accept Westminster rule!"

Ah, yes, the bulldog. Interesting choice to represent Britishness/unionism. From a site called "puppyleaks" "Over the years the Bulldog’s physical traits have been bred to be more extreme. The face has become flatter, the legs have shortened, the head has grown larger, and the underbite has grown. Most Bulldogs can’t breed without human intervention, both in the actual mating & birthing process. If it weren’t for this intervention in breeding the Bulldog as it stands now would become extinct. As many as 95% of Bulldogs are delivered by Cesarean section. Their head has been bred to become larger over the years, and as a result these dogs cannot birth them naturally through the pelvic canal. They have problems with their breathing and respiratory systems due to the enlargement of the soft palate and narrowing of the oropharynx. They’re also known for problems with their heart, hips, eyes, and skin. Bulldogs are extremely intolerant of heat due to their short snouts. They’re unable to regulate their temperature through panting as well as other dogs, and even normal activities in intense heat can cause heatstroke. " Good choice to represent Unionism.

For the sacrifices she is making I'd expect her to be in the House of Lords by Christmas. Edit... Perhaps "Baroness Tolerant of Muck"?

I'm certainly no expert on the religion involved, but as I understand it BoJo's religious wedding was allowed because Bojo's previous weddings weren't "real" marriages because they weren't RC weddings and BoJo had taken time off from being RC at the times these previous - what should I call them - parties? took place. (Other reasons/ excuses for a religion pandering to the desires of the powerful might be available.) I wonder if the earlier "weddings" were "real" for the brides/wives, or for the guests who travelled to and witnessed these pretend events and perhaps paid for hotel accommodation, no doubt bought new clothes and presents. Maybe the resulting household units' children thought they had married parents? Were there solemn promises of fidelity given in front of witnesses by both parties at these earlier social events and did BoJo know at the time he made his that they were worthless because they weren't given in the correct sort of ceremony in the correct sort of building? Those millions who trust BoJo's honesty and judgement have clearly not been paying attention. I'll leave the moral gymnastics of the religious organisation involved to those who support myth worship. If they think that BoJo is a religious person, they WILL believe anything. Personally, I'd rather that religious leaders didn't believe in magic, but that might be just me. Given BoJo's track record, if the new Mrs J has any sense, which in the circumstances can't be taken for granted, she should be placing more faith in a good 'pre-nup' than in her new husband's promises, regardless of the building in which they were given.

Ffs... Just checked again... Still there! I don't usually have a punt over the summer but the Euros are on....

It is normal for someone setting out a serious allegation to provide slightly more information than I've seen so far. That being the case, it would be helpful if those shouting "fraud" could show us - - The terms under which this money was said to have been raised; and - The statement setting out in unambiguous terms what the "ring fenced" money would be spent on. A statement from someone that money allocated from within the funds of an organisation would be ring fenced for a particular purpose does not, as far as I know, prevent that organisation from changing its mind. If there was a separate appeal for funding in a distinct fund-raising campaign then there might be a point to this row. From the little I've seen we are some distance from that. I've only seen one article on this, (can't honestly say I've looked much) from that hugely influential periodical "Daily Record" where the "fraud" situation is not exactly watertight. A statement on social media by a "party strategist" about the future use of party funds is not exactly a legal commitment. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-commits-60000-independence-referendum-23538919 Pending that, I'll await the trial, like the "fair-minded" people surely ought to.

Just tried tod that... It just apologises for not being able to cash them out and they just stay there.... Maybe one day it'll just vanish.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in these matters, but as a layman, it doesn't seem particularly outrageous to spend independence-related funds on electing a pro-independence government, without which an independence outcome would seem rather unlikely. I doubt I'll be manning a barricade over the issue