Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

how was the barnet formula going to work when scotland took control of more of its own income and spending?

It's a formula, not a set amount. I guess that will be up to the Treasury to work out.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's a formula, not a set amount. I guess that will be up to the Treasury to work out.

It seems the IFS says there is no fair way (i.e. without detriment to either the scots or the rUK).

I was genuinely wondering if anyone knew that that meant.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because whatever the outcome, aunty Nicola will scream that the scots are being robbed.

Just drag it out until May, keep up the whinging and SNP get 110% of the votes.

Then the new referendum.

elantan

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My take.



In light of





Why appoint a lawyer to simply to answer Police questions.

Take those RTG's off.

Sometimes you just need a lawyer ... even if you have nothing to hide ... I would've thought that obvious

We will see what transpires through time I'm sure

Might not renew my WFI membership though

No point if they ain't getting the money

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Sometimes you just need a lawyer ... even if you have nothing to hide ... I would've thought that obvious

We will see what transpires through time I'm sure

Might not renew my WFI membership though

No point if they ain't getting the money

I'm shocked

A real scot wouldn't doubt a SNP MP for a single moment.
We all know that SNP people are as white as the driven snow.

You are falling for another English plot

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Sometimes you just need a lawyer ... even if you have nothing to hide ... I would've thought that obvious

We will see what transpires through time I'm sure

Might not renew my WFI membership though

No point if they ain't getting the money

If I'd been arrested for fraud then I'd be using a lawyer. The same as if I'd been arrested for anything I could go to prison for, i.e. anything.

If you do anything else then you're either a lawyer or an idiot.

To give WFI their due they've done the right thing. There's often a tendency with these things to brush it all under the rug so as not to tarnish The Cause. WFI on the other hand have said there is a problem and gone to the police.

elantan

Yep I totally agree they did the right thing going to the police, it certainly shouldn't be brushed under the carpet

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Yep I totally agree they did the right thing going to the police, it certainly shouldn't be brushed under the carpet

Unfortunately many institutions don't react like that.

If you have the stomach for it Google, 'Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse'.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Sometimes you just need a lawyer ... even if you have nothing to hide ... I would've thought that obvious

We will see what transpires through time I'm sure

Might not renew my WFI membership though

No point if they ain't getting the money

It's the Paypal thing that raises big flags for me. There are all sorts of scams, 3% fee's and hacks. And I seriously doubt in an organisation of that size WFI has only ONE person with access to that account. I also found it a bit gobsmacking they have so much money ! I remember them on Twitter for months looking for donations to 'keep going' after the referendum. While it's a good organisation, it wasn't for me and I never joined.

While Thompson was accused of unethical practices. These accusations are of just plain theft. And I'm really struggling to believe that someone like McGarry would destroy her entire career nicking money from a PAYPAL account !.. Especially someone who has grown up in a political environment. She's Tricia's niece. (Holyrood Presiding Officer). It was McGarry that put forward the accounts to the Electoral Commission, which were all checked and found to be in good order.

For me, there's something just not ringing true about the whole Paypal thing. It must be the simplest thing in the world for someone's Paypal history to be thoroughly checked. Withdrawal's out of it and to where especially. And, as someone suggested on Twitter earlier.. I really hope if they've raised upwards of 60k that they've factored in those all those 3% Paypal fees on donations. Surely they will have though. I'm failing to understand why checking a Paypal account would take months like WFI are saying.

Strange affair.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's the Paypal thing that raises big flags for me. There are all sorts of scams, 3% fee's and hacks. And I seriously doubt in an organisation of that size WFI has only ONE person with access to that account. I also found it a bit gobsmacking they have so much money ! I remember them on Twitter for months looking for donations to 'keep going' after the referendum. While it's a good organisation, it wasn't for me and I never joined.

While Thompson was accused of unethical practices. These accusations are of just plain theft. And I'm really struggling to believe that someone like McGarry would destroy her entire career nicking money from a PAYPAL account !.. Especially someone who has grown up in a political environment. She's Tricia's niece. (Holyrood Presiding Officer). It was McGarry that put forward the accounts to the Electoral Commission, which were all checked and found to be in good order.

For me, there's something just not ringing true about the whole Paypal thing. It must be the simplest thing in the world for someone's Paypal history to be thoroughly checked. Withdrawal's out of it and to where especially. And, as someone suggested on Twitter earlier.. I really hope if they've raised upwards of 60k that they've factored in those all those 3% Paypal fees on donations. Surely they will have though. I'm failing to understand why checking a Paypal account would take months like WFI are saying.

Strange affair.

facts are always useful in these matters
all of us are innocent until proven guilty (well I guess not quite in scotland)

but anyway
-it's inconceivable that any politician could be dishonest
-apparently even SNP supporters are above suspicion

I guess income and expenditure need to be explained and reconciled with the cash balance.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

facts are always useful in these matters
all of us are innocent until proven guilty (well I guess not quite in scotland)

but anyway
-it's inconceivable that any politician could be dishonest
-apparently even SNP supporters are above suspicion

I guess income and expenditure need to be explained and reconciled with the cash balance.

Well, we'll await the outcome. But in my own opinion it's a strange case. And of course you're aware that those that passed information leading to Police Scotland investigating.... 7 or 8 of them are standing as SNP candidates in May ?

But McGarry has resigned the whip, which will lead to her automatic suspension. I'm growing a little tired to be honest of the knee jerk reaction to these trials by media. It seems all anyone in the SNP has to do in order to resign the whip is be 'linked' with something. I do think the SNP have to toughen up a bit. Most especially when facts and the basis of criminal offences are still to be as yet established. Once they are, a different story of course.

“Fortunately in our legal system we still believe in a presumption of innocence. What has been reported to Police Scotland are financial discrepancies, yet they have not even established whether criminality is involved.

“Yesterday at Natalie’s request I contacted Police Scotland to advise them that she would speak to them if they wished to. Today I have instructed forensic accountants to obtain all the necessary information which will then be provided on Natalie’s behalf to WFI as well as Police Scotland to assist them in reaching a swift conclusion, until that happens Natalie will on legal advice be making no further comment.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14100325.Glasgow_East_MP_Natalie_McGarry_has_resigned_the_SNP_whip/