When will indyref2 happen?

[SandyCromarty]

47 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

With England playing Germany next week, no doubt the usual papers will be full of Battle of Britain stuff and other digs at Europe. Wonder if they'll push for England to wear the black shirts?

Yes the english media will be full of it. 

[harry94]

There is no doubt that this is the case.  The question remains where is the cash.  It certainly isn't in the bank account of the SNP.

Companies don't make separate accounts for different budget items, they do a cash flow longer term and do stress testing etc to it and will have a plan to go somewhere if they fall short.

It's a ridiculous non story that is normal practice and has just gotten legs because of the Alba people.

If they have indeed fucked up and ended up borrowing money too expensively etc, that's a completely different story all together and one of incompetence. In that case though, you can't really get at them even for that unless there's some party rule that they have to release some of that forecasting.

[The_Kincardine]

12 minutes ago, harry94 said:

Companies don't make separate accounts for different budget items, they do a cash flow longer term and do stress testing etc to it and will have a plan to go somewhere if they fall short.

It's a ridiculous non story that is normal practice and has just gotten legs because of the Alba people.

If they have indeed fucked up and ended up borrowing money too expensively etc, that's a completely different story all together and one of incompetence. In that case though, you can't really get at them even for that unless there's some party rule that they have to release some of that forecasting.

As shown in The Herald earlier in the month the SNP used to separate out restricted funds:

This is exactly what you would expect to see if an amount was raised for a specific purpose and described as 'ring-fenced' - and this is exactly what we don't see.

The true truth is that 'ring-fenced' money has been spent to keep the lights on and not for the reason it was raised so it is entirely a story.

[harry94]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

As shown in The Herald earlier in the month the SNP used to separate out restricted funds:

This is exactly what you would expect to see if an amount was raised for a specific purpose and described as 'ring-fenced' - and this is exactly what we don't see.

The true truth is that 'ring-fenced' money has been spent to keep the lights on and not for the reason it was raised so it is entirely a story.

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).

[Double Jack D]

The black and white facts of the matter are that:

1. Money was requested for a "ring fenced" indyref fund.
2. 600k+ was donated.
3. There has been no indy ref.
4. 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 

[SANTAN]

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???

[orfc]

On 23/06/2021 at 01:16, Baxter Parp said:

I'll try again, Where. Does. It. Say. That?

C'mon, easy peasy lemon squeezy, the SNPzy have spent £600,000 illegally.

Err... in the SNP's accounts

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Accounts/ST0022937

Less than 100K cash at hand. - Cash in hand and at bank

An interesting item called 'reserves' which has roughly 600k in, but half of that got spent as well - so it can't be the ringfenced money either

 

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

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’.

[harry94]

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.

[The_Kincardine]

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.

[strichener]

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.

[orfc]

3 hours ago, harry94 said:

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.

And they pay out nearly £5 and a half million a year

The link I posted above shows their outgoings exceed their incomings which eats into their reserves. They now have a net worth (assets - liabilities) of about 250k. Their cash in the bank is less than 100k. The ring-fenced 600k isn't in there, it's been unring-fenced and spent.

 

As Dickens wrote:

‘Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 19 [pounds] 19 [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 20 pounds ought and six, result misery.’

 

 

[BigDoddyKane]

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

[Baxter Parp]

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.

[Baxter Parp]

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?

[Baxter Parp]

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.

[Baxter Parp]

On 24/06/2021 at 10:48, Double Jack D said:

The black and white facts of the matter are that:

1. Money was requested for a "ring fenced" indyref fund.
2. 600k+ was donated.
3. There has been no indy ref.

You do realise the SNP could spend milliions on a future independence referendum and not get one, right?

[strichener]

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.

[Baxter Parp]

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?

[strichener]

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