Double Jack D Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 The black and white facts of the matter are that: Money was requested for a "ring fenced" indyref fund. 600k+ was donated. There has been no indy ref. There is no money Legal or not, folk have been duped. There are posters on here who would absolutely roast UK Tories for this sort of shite but are defending this from the SNP. A bit hypocritical IMO. Meanwhile Michael Gove has confirmed Boris will not agree to an indyref before next GE regardless of Covid situation. If we do end all Covid restrictions up here on 9th August, I sincerely hope the indyref 2 train is fired up on the 10th. I hae ma doots tho 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Maybe it's time to stop day dreaming and wake up into the reality that is Britannia ruling waves for all your lives and focus on the good stuff like Canzuk??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 2 hours ago, harry94 said: The 'Ring fenced' argument is about syntax - as said in my post, it's quite normal and legitimate practice for cash to flow between different budgets. As long as it ultimately ends up spent in the right place in the end and the intent is there, it's completely reasonable to have everything on the table, cash is volatile and you need to use all your reserves. Unless it has been constructed with some sort of malice or someone to run away, it's a nothing story that relies on people having a creative imagination. If you're corrupt, the worst place to create a ponzi scheme is a national political party with millions of revenue per year that have additional auditing steps. You're infinitely better trying to get on the ground of a McGarry scheme (but do it more competently). I could just about understand your argument if there was an overdraft facility in place to allow the £600k to be spent if required but I don’t think that’s the case. The truth is ‘the cash has gone’. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Just now, Dawson Park Boy said: I could just about understand your argument if there was an overdraft facility in place to allow the £600k to be spent if required but I don’t think that’s the case. The truth is ‘the cash has gone’. The central party turnover in excess of £5 million per year. Sure it's volatile but there are tangible assets and ongoing revenue streams that they can call on and budget into the cash flow with reasonable certainty. All of the major parties will have years where they run a deficit. Like any other company, they'll have guarantees of funding in writing and know what they can call on with short notice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 3 hours ago, harry94 said: The 'Ring fenced' argument is about syntax - as said in my post, it's quite normal and legitimate practice for cash to flow between different budgets. As long as it ultimately ends up spent in the right place in the end and the intent is there, it's completely reasonable to have everything on the table, cash is volatile and you need to use all your reserves. Syntax? You mean 'semantics' and no it isn't. 'Ringfenced' is a well known word and this money simply was not ringfenced but used for general expenditure as we learned this week. We also learned that the SNP will need a new fundraiser to pay for any future referendum campaign. So the donations have not been used for the purpose they were raised for. This is very poor stuff but not in the least bit surprising. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 5 hours ago, harry94 said: The 'Ring fenced' argument is about syntax - as said in my post, it's quite normal and legitimate practice for cash to flow between different budgets. As long as it ultimately ends up spent in the right place in the end and the intent is there, it's completely reasonable to have everything on the table, cash is volatile and you need to use all your reserves. Unless it has been constructed with some sort of malice or someone to run away, it's a nothing story that relies on people having a creative imagination. If you're corrupt, the worst place to create a ponzi scheme is a national political party with millions of revenue per year that have additional auditing steps. You're infinitely better trying to get on the ground of a McGarry scheme (but do it more competently). Since I have already posted all the relevant information, I won't bother doing so again. However there is no 600k in the SNP finances, there is no 592k that can be spent instantaneously and there is no referendum campaign fund. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDoddyKane Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) It was pretty clear a while ago that there was something to this story about the 600k otherwise we wouldnt have seen so many resignations from people overseeing it. It was also pretty clear a while ago that they were trying to delay/cover it up and that never ends well. Its better to just be honest and own it. Its also pretty clear that Murrell is hopeless and a complete liabilty in any normal circumstance he would have been removed from that role years ago and finally whoever thought for basic transparency ,to ensure a sense of impartiality and to have reasonable checks and controls that it was a good idea to have the ceo and leader of party a husband and wife. Its so ridiculous its difficult to believe not more people question it. He should have resigned when NS became leader, now it looks like hes still there only because of his wife. it deosnt look like it will end well Edited June 25, 2021 by BigDoddyKane 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 On 24/06/2021 at 11:32, orfc said: Err... in the SNP's accounts http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Accounts/ST0022937 https://www.thenational.scot/news/19385760.snps-new-national-treasurer-releases-statement-600-000-indyref2/ The 600k is earmarked and will be/has been spent on campaigning for Independence. I hope that puts your mind at ease. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 On 24/06/2021 at 08:22, strichener said: You must have missed that small issue of a football club from Glasgow, American power company, UK outsourcer etc. etc One last time, where is the £592k that can be spent instantaneously? https://www.thenational.scot/news/19385760.snps-new-national-treasurer-releases-statement-600-000-indyref2/ The £600k is earmarked for and will be/has been spent on campaigning for Independence. I hope that puts your mind at ease. Incidentally, why would the money need to be spent instantaneously? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 On 24/06/2021 at 16:03, orfc said: The ring-fenced 600k isn't in there, it's been unring-fenced and spent. £600,000 of donations will be spent on a future independence referendum. Bank on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 On 24/06/2021 at 10:48, Double Jack D said: The black and white facts of the matter are that: Money was requested for a "ring fenced" indyref fund. 600k+ was donated. There has been no indy ref. You do realise the SNP could spend milliions on a future independence referendum and not get one, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19385760.snps-new-national-treasurer-releases-statement-600-000-indyref2/ The £600k is earmarked for and will be/has been spent on campaigning for Independence. I hope that puts your mind at ease. Incidentally, why would the money need to be spent instantaneously? I think your reading and comprehension need some work. As for the instantaneous spending, you should direct that to the former Treasurer as it was on his official capacity that the statement was issued. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 6 minutes ago, strichener said: I think your reading and comprehension need some work. As for the instantaneous spending, you should direct that to the former Treasurer as it was on his official capacity that the statement was issued. "Up until 31st December 2020 a total of £51,760 of expenditure had been applied against this income. The balance remains “earmarked” – through the internal process explained above – for independence related campaigning." Whither instantaneous? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 54 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: "Up until 31st December 2020 a total of £51,760 of expenditure had been applied against this income. The balance remains “earmarked” – through the internal process explained above – for independence related campaigning." Whither instantaneous? Yes there is a spreadsheet somewhere that has on it "SNP owe to ref fund £615,000". That is the internal process. The problem is that the £615,000 has been spent on other things. As for instantaneous - Quote The Referendum Appeal Fund has a current balance of £593,501 and we can fully deploy those funds instantaneously - guaranteeing maximum impact when vital funds are needed most. Since you are fond of using the national as a source - Here it is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 4 minutes ago, strichener said: Yes there is a spreadsheet somewhere that has on it "SNP owe to ref fund £615,000". That is the internal process. The problem is that the £615,000 has been spent on other things. 1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said: Up until 31st December 2020 a total of £51,760 of expenditure had been applied against this income No there isn't, no it hasn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 26, 2021 Share Posted June 26, 2021 9 hours ago, Baxter Parp said: No there isn't, no it hasn't. Wow, you have zero credibility on this. To the surprise of absolutely nobody you are showing your usual SNP GooooooooD when all evidence points to the contrary. I would put it down to blind loyalty rather than stupidity but in this case even a blind man could see what has happened here. So stupidity it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 26, 2021 Share Posted June 26, 2021 1 minute ago, strichener said: Wow, you have zero credibility on this. And you do? Holy f**k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 26, 2021 Share Posted June 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said: And you do? Holy f**k. No I don't need to have credibility, just the ability to read and comprehend. When you can manage this then I'll engage with you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 26, 2021 Share Posted June 26, 2021 Just now, strichener said: No I don't need to have credibility Just as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted June 26, 2021 Share Posted June 26, 2021 Wasn't earmarked it was ringfenced, different things Say Dundee had a fundraiser that said "this money will be spent on a future European campaign" and a year later it had gone even though you hadn't qualified for europe. Would you be happy if the chairman turned round and said "aye, but it was spent in an attempt to qualify for europe so that counts", no, you'd be like "what the f**k pal where's the money"Legally there is no difference.Morally though it is not acceptable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.