When will indyref2 happen?

[HalfCutNinja]

4 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

22 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Exactly.  
"Fraud is committed when someone achieves a practical result by the means of a false pretence. ... Common law fraud is the common 'catch all' for most fraud prosecutions in Scotland. Uttering. The crime of 'uttering' occurs when someone tenders 'as genuine' a forged document to the prejudice of another person."
 
If its to be used to fight an election, you have to ask for it on that basis. If you ask for it to fight a referendum campaign, then use it to fight an election.....that's fraud mate.  That's illegal. 

Police Scotland say different. SNP finances are audited every year and examined by the Electoral Commission. There's no fraud. It's bullshit made up to excite the gullible.

No they don't. They say they're investigating a complaint right now.  They never said different at all.

And if the 600k was ringfenced, but SNP accounts show a balance of 190k, you tell me Einstein, which is a bigger number 190 or 600?  So if they only have 190k in the bank how could the 600 be 'ringfenced'.

This is what I mean its a cult now. The actual National Treasurer of the fucking party resigned yesterday over this, yet still nodding dog morons like you aren't having it.  

[HalfCutNinja]

I mean talk about gullible. Jesus Christ.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

More on the joyous and civic Natters and their determination to f**k Scotch tourism:

I hate to break  this to you, but folk stopped taking you remotely seriously here ages ago. You're basically @spongeheid15 with fewer spelling errors. 

Off you pop old man. 

 

[strichener]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

20 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Exactly.  
"Fraud is committed when someone achieves a practical result by the means of a false pretence. ... Common law fraud is the common 'catch all' for most fraud prosecutions in Scotland. Uttering. The crime of 'uttering' occurs when someone tenders 'as genuine' a forged document to the prejudice of another person."
 
If its to be used to fight an election, you have to ask for it on that basis. If you ask for it to fight a referendum campaign, then use it to fight an election.....that's fraud mate.  That's illegal. 

Police Scotland say different. SNP finances are audited every year and examined by the Electoral Commission. There's no fraud. It's bullshit made up to excite the gullible.

That's very weak.  Rangers were audited every year, Carillion were audited every year.  Keydata were audited every year and supervised by the FSA and FCA.  Co-op bank were audited and yet KPMG were later fined £5m after a £1.5m black hole was found in the accounts.  An audit is not indicative of no misappropriation, only that it hasn't been found or reported yet.

[HalfCutNinja]

8 minutes ago, strichener said:

That's very weak.  Rangers were audited every year, Carillion were audited every year.  Keydata were audited every year and supervised by the FSA and FCA.  Co-op bank were audited and yet KPMG were later fined £5m after a £1.5m black hole was found in the accounts.  An audit is not indicative of no misappropriation, only that it hasn't been found or reported yet.

This sums it up well

 

[Cheese]

Racism against Daily Telegraph readers, the last acceptable form of bigotry smh.

[Baxter Parp]

No they don't. They say they're investigating a complaint right now.  They never said different at all.
And if the 600k was ringfenced, but SNP accounts show a balance of 190k, you tell me Einstein, which is a bigger number 190 or 600?  So if they only have 190k in the bank how could the 600 be 'ringfenced'.
This is what I mean its a cult now. The actual National Treasurer of the fucking party resigned yesterday over this, yet still nodding dog morons like you aren't having it.  

Last month, Police Scotland sources told the Scottish Mail on Sunday the force had investigated complaints into the SNP, but found “no immediate evidence of fraud"

"No police investigation into SNP finances – John Swinney | HeraldScotland" https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19338823.no-police-investigation-snp-finances---john-swinney/

Hope this helps.

[Baxter Parp]

That's very weak.  Rangers were audited every year, Carillion were audited every year.  Keydata were audited every year and supervised by the FSA and FCA.  Co-op bank were audited and yet KPMG were later fined £5m after a £1.5m black hole was found in the accounts.  An audit is not indicative of no misappropriation, only that it hasn't been found or reported yet.

So everywhere that has or ever will be audited may be guilty of fraud. Helpful.

[Salt n Vinegar]

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. 

 

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

31 minutes ago, strichener said:

That's very weak.  Rangers were audited every year, Carillion were audited every year.  Keydata were audited every year and supervised by the FSA and FCA.  Co-op bank were audited and yet KPMG were later fined £5m after a £1.5m black hole was found in the accounts.  An audit is not indicative of no misappropriation, only that it hasn't been found or reported yet.

So everywhere that has or ever will be audited may be guilty of fraud. Helpful.

More helpful than your shite that there can't be anything wrong as they have been audited.

[HalfCutNinja]

8 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Last month, Police Scotland sources told the Scottish Mail on Sunday the force had investigated complaints into the SNP, but found “no immediate evidence of fraud"

"No police investigation into SNP finances – John Swinney | HeraldScotland" https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19338823.no-police-investigation-snp-finances---john-swinney/

Hope this helps.

From the same article

"A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “The complaint is still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required.”"

Read your own link cultist.

Four members of the SNP finance committee including the national treasurer have resigned over this in the last two months.

[Baxter Parp]

More helpful than your shite that there can't be anything wrong as they have been audited.

I'll take the word of Police Scotland over some arsehole on the Internet's every time.

[Baxter Parp]

From the same article
"A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “The complaint is still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required.”"
Read your own link cultist.
Four members of the SNP finance committee including the national treasurer have resigned over this in the last two months.

“no immediate evidence of fraud"

I did.

[HalfCutNinja]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

More helpful than your shite that there can't be anything wrong as they have been audited.

I'll take the word of Police Scotland over some arsehole on the Internet's every time.

You mean Police Scotland who said

 “The complaint is still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required.”

[HalfCutNinja]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

“no immediate evidence of fraud"

I did.

Yeah 'immediate', however

 

“The complaint is still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required.”

[Baxter Parp]

Yeah 'immediate', however
 
“The complaint is still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required.”

So what is immediately obvious to an Internet pleb is somehow not immediately obvious to Police Scotland. Gotcha.

[BigDoddyKane]

Whats the reason that 4 have resigned now.

its same for all 4 is it not that they feel they arent getting all the info they require for transparency of finances

 

thats the basics of why they resigned is that correct?

[HalfCutNinja]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

25 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Yeah 'immediate', however
 
“The complaint is still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required.”

So what is immediately obvious to an Internet pleb is somehow not immediately obvious to Police Scotland. Gotcha.

And to the National Treasurer of the SNP and three members of the SNP Finance Committtee yes. 

I understand it hurts. It hurts me too to see that something I care passionately about has been hijacked by a bunch of morons, charlatans, liars and careerists. But you have to face reality.  You're acting like an absolute cultist, and that isn't going to help anything. 

[HalfCutNinja]

2 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Whats the reason that 4 have resigned now.

its same for all 4 is it not that they feel they arent getting all the info they require for transparency of finances

 

thats the basics of why they resigned is that correct?

Yes, they all stated the same thing. They were denied access to the SNP's books. By Peter Murrel, as he is the one in charge.  And happens to be marrried to the First Minister.

Nothing to see here eh.

Its their actual job, what they were elected by the members to do, to analyse and scrutinise the books. Why would they be denied access to do that?  Cause Murrel knows what they'll see is why.

[Dawson Park Boy]

I would have thought that the simplest way to ‘put this to bed’ would be for the CEO to make a formal statement outlining the situation and, if necessary, asking the external auditors to prepare an urgent report on this particular matter which would be available for public  inspection within,say, 14 days.

If there is nothing sinister, surely that would be the most sensible thing to do.