Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 13 minutes ago, strichener said: The SNP are not a charity so your point above is completely irrelevant. The website that the donations were provided through didn't even have the SNP mentioned it was all about Indyref2. You had to go past the donation page before you found out who was raising the money. It's hard to then justify spending it on SNP running costs. What does IndyRef 2 mean here. The SNP Executive can argue spening on national elections is spending to get Indy Ref 2. The other thing that strikes me is if the donators wanted this money specifically for indy Ref 2 official campaign spending, and not on the broader campaign to achieve indyref2, why give it to the SNP who did not run the official Yes Scotland campaign. A political party isn't really the place to park money. If they were smart they would have set up their own investment account and increased the pot in the intervening years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 43 minutes ago, StellarHibee said: Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall a court case that effectively made Scottish Democracy completely irrelevant. Every year since 2015? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orfc Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 7 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: What does IndyRef 2 mean here. The SNP Executive can argue spening on national elections is spending to get Indy Ref 2. The other thing that strikes me is if the donators wanted this money specifically for indy Ref 2 official campaign spending, and not on the broader campaign to achieve indyref2, why give it to the SNP who did not run the official Yes Scotland campaign. A political party isn't really the place to park money. If they were smart they would have set up their own investment account and increased the pot in the intervening years. Put it this way. If your club got it's supporters to donate to a ringfenced European campaign fund, finished 7th, and you went "oh well the money's there if we do ever qualify though" and then they said "ah but we spent the money trying to get into Europe", what would your reaction be? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 10 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: What does IndyRef 2 mean here. The SNP Executive can argue spening on national elections is spending to get Indy Ref 2. The other thing that strikes me is if the donators wanted this money specifically for indy Ref 2 official campaign spending, and not on the broader campaign to achieve indyref2, why give it to the SNP who did not run the official Yes Scotland campaign. A political party isn't really the place to park money. If they were smart they would have set up their own investment account and increased the pot in the intervening years. It was for an Indy2 campaign. You know that one the the SNP kept promising but failed to deliver. That one. Your other point would be valid if it was clear at the point of donation that it was going into SNP coffers but it wasn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 (edited) 38 minutes ago, strichener said: The SNP are not a charity so your point above is completely irrelevant. The website that the donations were provided through didn't even have the SNP mentioned it was all about Indyref2. You had to go past the donation page before you found out who was raising the money. It's hard to then justify spending it on SNP running costs. The original poster was talking about the legal definition of ringfencing - charitable donations are the only type of donations where there are specific rules in place regards ringfencing of donations. Political donations are only governed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and there it is more concerned with registering larger donors than anything else. Don't get me wrong - I've said that what's been done is unacceptable irrespective of the law. Perhaps the lesson from this, even if there were no criminal proceedings, is that there needs to be updated legislation governing party political donations and funding. In the meantime. I suggest the SNP should be reviewing and reforming their own finances so this fiasco never happens again. An apology or two wouldn't go amiss either. Edited April 5, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 5 minutes ago, strichener said: It was for an Indy2 campaign. You know that one the the SNP kept promising but failed to deliver. That one. Your other point would be valid if it was clear at the point of donation that it was going into SNP coffers but it wasn't. A campaign or the official campaign like the one run by Yes Scotland in 2014? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 The Polis usually let you rot for most of the 12 hours captivity in a cell. Probably only interviewed for an hour maximum. Wonder what he got for Lunch ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 (edited) Go and somebody cleverer than me re-photoshop the caption on the bottom of this… Edited April 5, 2023 by George Cowley 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 2 minutes ago, superbigal said: Wonder what he got for Lunch ? Heartburn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 16 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: The original poster was talking about the legal definition of ringfencing - charitable donations are the only type of donations where there are specific rules in place regards ringfencing of donations. Political donations are only governed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and there it is more concerned with registering larger donors than anything else. Don't get me wrong - I've said that what's been done is unacceptable irrespective of the law. Perhaps the lesson from this, even if there were no criminal proceedings, is that there needs to be updated legislation governing party political donations and funding. In the meantime. I suggest the SNP should be reviewing and reforming their own finances so this fiasco never happens again. An apology or two wouldn't go amiss either. The SNP used to state that they ringfenced funds and showed these separately in their accounts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 2 minutes ago, strichener said: The SNP used to state that they ringfenced funds and showed these separately in their accounts. Where is this stated? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 15 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: A campaign or the official campaign like the one run by Yes Scotland in 2014? #ScotRef The video with Nicola Sturgeon posted on the site stated that donations would "greatly help the campaign". Take from that what you will. However, the SNP also responded to Labour with a statement that the money raised on the site would be ringfenced for the purposes stated on the site. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unleash The Nade Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 1 minute ago, strichener said: #ScotRef The video with Nicola Sturgeon posted on the site stated that donations would "greatly help the campaign". Take from that what you will. However, the SNP also responded to Labour with a statement that the money raised on the site would be ringfenced for the purposes stated on the site. So Sturgeon the leader of the SNP is talking about an SNP campaign would be my take. And not a campaign from an official Independence Referendum group like YES scotland. And of course an SNP campaign for independence includes campainging for legislative elections to pursue independence through legal means. So again it isn't really to do with ring-fencing money, it is about what counts as an independence campaign. (assuming of course Murrell hasn't just pocketed the cash for himself or otherwise up to no good) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 12 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Where is this stated? In their accounts that the have to lodge with the Electoral commission. They used to have restricted and unrestricted funds listed separately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 5 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: So Sturgeon the leader of the SNP is talking about an SNP campaign would be my take. And not a campaign from an official Independence Referendum group like YES scotland. And of course an SNP campaign for independence includes campainging for legislative elections to pursue independence through legal means. So again it isn't really to do with ring-fencing money, it is about what counts as an independence campaign. (assuming of course Murrell hasn't just pocketed the cash for himself or otherwise up to no good) That's one take on it for sure. An absolute mental one but each to their own. In the SNPs own words "the funds are ringfenced for the purpose stated on the website.". There is nothing on the website that would lead anyone to think that the money would be spent on SNP office costs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 Just now, strichener said: That's one take on it for sure. An absolute mental one but each to their own. In the SNPs own words "the funds are ringfenced for the purpose stated on the website.". There is nothing on the website that would lead anyone to think that the money would be spent on SNP office costs. What does it state on the website. Maybe you should post that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 Just now, strichener said: The SNP used to state that they ringfenced funds and showed these separately in their accounts. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying - I just think that proving an individual donation is to be ringfenced may be a different matter - it very much depends on the wording of the donor form. Perhaps someone who did donate can clarify? As I've said, it may well be possible for no criminal offence to have taken place - but that doesn't make it ethically right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalkirkBairn2021 Posted April 5, 2023 Share Posted April 5, 2023 Think WoS raises some interesting points on his blog. There was an astonishing amount of manpower across the different locations yet only one individual was questioned. 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.