| Topic: And on it goes |
|---|
| 1. Author: Tenruh Date: Wed 3rd Jun 2026. 19:56 Absolute charlatans....tick tock [url]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9we9djzdkqo[/url] Reply |
| 2. Author: ipswichpar Date: Wed 3rd Jun 2026. 20:22 Something a little coincidental that people called Salmond and Sturgeon have ended up being a wee bit fishy. Post Edited (Wed 03 Jun 20:23) Reply |
| 3. Author: Tenruh Date: Wed 3rd Jun 2026. 20:23 ipswichpar, Wed 3 Jun 20:22 No comment.... Reply |
| 4. Author: Tenruh Date: Wed 3rd Jun 2026. 20:45 Plenty info here if you understand bookkeeping. [url]https://wingsoverscotland.com/up-the-hill-and-down-the-slope/[/url] Reply |
| 5. Author: wee eck Date: Thu 4th Jun 2026. 14:02 I don`t know if the writer understands `book-keeping` but he certainly doesn`t understand the role of the auditors. Their report takes up 4 pages of the 2021 accounts and is unqualified. It sets out their responsibilities and what they did to fulfil them. It`s all pretty standard stuff. Presumably they were satisfied the `camper van` (as reclassified by Murrell via a false invoice) was a business asset but did they physically verify it? The media don`t seem to be much interested in their role in this fiasco. Reply |
| 6. Author: NMCmassive Date: Thu 4th Jun 2026. 18:46 Having just had a quick read, it’s pretty clear he’s questioning why “ring-fenced” money wasn’t “ring-fenced” and in fairness, he’s using the SNP’s accounts so he’s no just pulling it out of the air. I also think he’s correct that they’ve never offered a satisfactory explanation. Eck, what’s supposed to happen to finances that have been ring fenced? Can you keep them in a general account? COYP Reply |
| 7. Author: wee eck Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 00:09 I`m not familiar with the specific legislation pertaining to the accounts of political parties but generally there is no legal requirement to keep `ring-fenced` funds in a separate bank account although many organisations would do so as a means of keeping track of the inflow and outflow of such funds. An alternative method could be to keep spreadsheets of these amounts to calculate how much is included in general funds. I see the Financial Review in the 2021 accounts includes cumulative figures of funds raised and applied from `Referendum Appeal` and a statement that any sums raised will go towards securing a referendum on independence. I believe Police Scotland have confirmed that the independence fund had already been investigated as part of the Murrell probe and that no further action would be taken as it stood. Reply |
| 8. Author: NMCmassive Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 10:20 I didn’t think they had to have it in a separate account per se but they were supposed to have some controls over it. I don’t know what the wording on ring fenced funds is. Since they are the ones who came forward with the proposal, if they had enough grey area wording could it be near impossible to prosecute them for anything? I do think that what they presented publicly was growing a fund that will directly go towards the funding of Indiref 2 and I don’t think that has been the outcome. IMO they’ve further damaged their reputation. I actually looked at the police statement “the independence fund had already been investigated as part of our inquiries and no further action will be taken at this time.” It’s not totally shutting it down but it does tell me they need further information as they don’t have enough for CPS to prosecute. “At this time” seems to leave it open ended. COYP Reply |
| 9. Author: jake89 Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 12:22 Ring fenced funds wouldn`t sit in a separate account. Even an individual wouldn`t set up their banking in that way. What needs understood is how the expenditure of the ring fenced money was recorded. Presumably there was an agreed list of expenses? The interesting thing now will be the tax perspective. For example, was the camper a genuine business expense? I actually think it was given it allegedly wasn`t even used! Being honest, when you see the things Murrell bought, he seems like there may be some undiagnosed mental health issues. You`d think his wife would notice that. Reply |
| 10. Author: NMCmassive Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 13:37 Eck will know more but I’m pretty sure it can be “ring-fenced” just by using controls like spreadsheets/accounting programs - Sage/Quickbooks etc I think it just needs to be recorded on the balance sheet 🤷🏻♂️ What I don’t know is once an organisation says something is “ring fenced” what defines what should be ring fenced, what constitutes that ring fenced money being used appropriately. Like if they say “we are ring fencing funds for an indyref 2” then take a load of money in, are they then able to use that money how they see fit because they’d argue we’re the SNP and independence is our main objective 🤷🏻♂️ COYP Reply |
| 11. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 13:56 I don`t know if the writer understands `book-keeping` but he certainly doesn`t understand the role of the auditors. Their report takes up 4 pages of the 2021 accounts and is unqualified. It sets out their responsibilities and what they did to fulfil them. It`s all pretty standard stuff. Presumably they were satisfied the `camper van` (as reclassified by Murrell via a false invoice) was a business asset but did they physically verify it? The media don`t seem to be much interested in their role in this fiasco. I doubt the political media know much about accounting (and I don’t imagine that the accountancy media (if they exist) know much about politics). One might have hoped that they would find out, but they seem largely disinclined. With regard to the motorhome, I see it appears under “Motor Vehicles” in the Balance Sheet, but under “Office/Computer Equipment” in the notes. This seems a little odd. No matter. But would it be correct to assume that as an apparently major asset, its purchase would be scrutinised carefully for validity? I assume that there is scope to use a different valuation method from the normal depreciated book cost (or whatever) if the circumstances warranted it. Furthermore, when you ask if the asset was physically verified, are you suggesting that this would be standard practice for a large purchase? A quick dash across the bridge to check whether the MoHo was in decent nick and not a pile of junk? Count the wheels, peer through the window at the odometer (4 miles on the clock) and decide nothing to see here? Why it was bought would be up to the NEC or whoever. Again, its purpose is questionable, but not my question to ask. However, there is lots of chat in the standard auditors’ statement about identifying fraud. I would have thought that there was a clear concentration of risk given the identity of the personalities involved, and the arrangements that permitted Murrell to approve his own expenses. More red flags than you would see at Anfield as I said previously and the auditors seem to have missed this. Don’t auditors assume that everyone is incompetent or a trickster until they find evidence to the contrary? (Maybe they don’t say this out loud). Perhaps they raised concerns off the record and then quit when those were not addressed. When an auditor resigns or is removed from an appointment are they obliged to advise putative successors if they have professional concerns? The SNP seemed to have difficulty getting a replacement. (Of course, there were subsequent rumours of other malpractice that have come to naught). Post Edited (Fri 05 Jun 14:07) Reply |
| 12. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 13:58 The ringfenced money is a different issue. It was not physically ringfenced, merely notionally so, but this should not matter. It would be a simple task to keep tabs on it via old fashioned ledgers or spreadsheets. Not hard for an accountant, I would imagine. The money was spent – Swinney has finally admitted that, after years of denial (in fact, wasn’t Alyn Smith denying this only last week?). It seems clear that some donors (probably not all, there was more than one appeal) were misled, but securing a conviction was always a high bar to clear. There is a difference between behaviour that is criminal, and that which is incompetent, or sleazy, or simply bad practice. Being cleared of criminality should not excuse the other charges. John Swinney seems unable to appreciate this distinction, which may explain a lot. How did Murrell get the gig in the first place? What qualifications did he have, other than being an old pal of Swinney and Salmond? Should the Electoral Commission up their game? I think they’d take the view that they were relying on auditors doing their job properly – you can’t expect them to do an independent independent audit – but using their publication of the accounts as approval suggests either ignorance or deceit on the part of SNP managers. There was chat at the time about the difference between “earmarked” and “ringfenced”. There seems to have been the view that it was OK to borrow and spend the money as long as you intended to put it back. Possibly that was Peter Murrell’s defence as well… By the way, it’s been quite amusing to read some of the contemporaneous comments in the light of recent events. Is Nicola Sturgeon still regarded as the greatest politician ever, or is she in the official dog-house as well? Reply |
| 13. Author: wee eck Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 14:35 `Ring-fenced` isn`t really an accounting term. My experience of such funds related to charities where funds were either `unrestricted` or `restricted`. Restricted funds were funds received from a donor who stipulates a particular purpose they must be used for eg a legacy to restore a particular building. The charity had no power to change the specified purpose of these funds. Unrestricted funds had no strings attached. Within the category of unrestricted funds an organisation might decide to set aside funds for a particular purpose but this could be temporary and reversed or changed if circumstances changed. These are called `designated` funds but sometimes the term `ring-fenced` is used colloquially for them. Funds raised by a particular appeal could be classified as `restricted` but I suppose it would depend on the terms set out and the wording of the appeal. I don`t know if such detailed guidance as is recommended for charities is also applicable to organisations such as political parties or whether any breach would be considered a criminal offence. The camper van intrigues me too. The two cars and robotic lawnmower were `lost` in expenses by falsifying invoices and accounting entries but it seems Murrell was audacious enough to account for this as a vehicle although he reclassified it as a camper van rather than a motor home. Maybe the amount meant it was difficult to lose it in expenses but this seemed a bit risky for, as long as it was in the fixed assets register, it could attract investigation. Reply |
| 14. Author: wee eck Date: Fri 5th Jun 2026. 14:52 Just read McCaig`s Tower`s comments. I`m in no position to answer his speculative questions but I can tell him it is normal practice to verify the existence of a major fixed asset purchase and if the answer was `it`s parked at my mother`s in Dunfermline` alarm bells would start ringing. Without knowing how the auditors conducted their audit and who they communicated with it`s difficult to come to conclusions but Murrell seemed to be in control of finances. Reply |
| 15. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Sat 6th Jun 2026. 20:38 I confess that any distinction between "camper-van" and "motor-home" had eluded me. What`s the difference, and why is it important? I assume that the audit had thresholds for purchases and so on, above which the transaction would attract greater scrutiny (such as expensive motor vehicles). I guess a number of purchases just below any such threshold would attract suspicion. Reply |