I see it was actually 6 months ago that the SNP auditors resigned and they haven't found anyone willing to take the job on yet.
That definition contains a bewildering range of social constructions making it very difficult to employ with any accuracy unless we take the position that ‘race’ means anything you want it to mean.
The Equality Act is worded in such a why as to stop idiots trying to get round its intentions.
For example calling someone a "****" is very clearly racist. The Equality Act doesn't allow people to get round that by letting them claim that ****stani is not a race therefore the term isn't racist.
Unfortunately some people have decided to take the provisions within the Act to completely bypass common sense and make ridiculous claims. See recent example.
Edit: Apologies I didn't realise that the P word wouldn't go through the swear filter.
If it is bigotry and prejudice based on nationality which this is then its racism by all common definitions.
Prejudice based on nationality can be racist but doesn't have to be. Which is why the Equality Act is worded the way it is.
I see it was actually 6 months ago that the SNP auditors resigned and they haven’t found anyone willing to take the job on yet.
FWIW you only need an Auditor when you need one from a legal/regulatory perspective AKA you don't need one 'on contract'.
you do not get to tell the people of Scotland that negative stereotyping based on being scottish is not racism
I don't think you get to decide who does and doesn't get to tell Scottish people things. There's millions of us, anyway, I think we can take it.
I'm Scottish as ****, and wasn't offended by that cartoon. In fact I found it quite funny.
Sorry.
I thought the cartoon was rubbish but this 'we don’t have any heroin, is a lager ok? made me chuckle. This is how it could/should have been done. Strap yourself in, TJ.
I reckon Mr Sturgeon's baws must be black'n'blue from the repeated kickings he's been getting from Nicola the last week.
I’m Scottish as ****, and wasn’t offended by that cartoon. In fact I found it quite funny.
I think the intention was to ridicule Scottish nationalists, rather than Scots, hence paraphrasing Wallace.
I have no idea if you are a Scottish nationalists but if you aren't that might explain to a degree your lack of offence.
I have no idea why you found it quite funny though, I guess humour is a very personal thing.
I thought it was a load of cringey shite, rolled my eyes and got on with my day. As per Bruce it's many things but racist isn't really one of them.
If it is bigotry and prejudice based on nationality which this is then its racism by all common definitions
Scottish isn't a nationality but it is an ethnicity, see 2022 census categories: ****stani, Scottish ****stani and British ****stani
Ethnicity can be considered separately to nationality and so can be racist under The Equality Act 2010
A Scottish person is British until independence.
Very much a nationalist (small 'n'), in fact my folks met at Edinburgh Nationalists club and my mother went on to work for the SNP in the late 60's so I've been brought up with it from a young age.
I'm just not a fan of the divisive anti-english, blame westminster for everything, rhetoric of the modern SNP.
I reckon Mr Sturgeon’s baws must be black’n’blue from the repeated kickings he’s been getting from Nicola the last week.
Depends if she was aware of her husband's alleged arrangements before or not.
Very much a nationalist (small ‘n’)
I don't really know what nationalist with a small n means but the other obvious reason that you might not have been offended was because you chose not to be.
As a general rule I choose not to be offended by what people say, especially when it is people for whom I have no respect, such as Guido Fawkes.
I still don't understand why you found it quite funny though. It struck me as remarkably childish, and not in a funny way.
I wasn't offended. Just tired of cringy racist tropes
Not seen any cartoon, but the words guido fawkes means i won't go hunting it, it's a weird ending for Nicola, even Salmond is showing his face now and giving the SNP a kicking, after the sh*tshow he left behind.
It's sad to see, i don't agree with all she said or says, i don't like the way the SNP push a message at times, with more jingoism, or negativity of other parties and politicians being used rather than positivity, but Sturgeon was a good politician, only seen a few over the last few years, the recent power play in the SNP showed that they don't have that many left either!
irc
Full MemberI see it was actually 6 months ago that the SNP auditors resigned and they haven’t found anyone willing to take the job on yet.
"Willing to" is a strange phrase. The auditors resigned, and haven't yet been replaced, yes. People have been implying that the auditors left under some suspicious circumstances, that the mere fact of them resigning is a sign of problems or a cause for concern but as far as I can see we have no idea why they resigned
(the term "resignation" is a legal one here, there's strict rules about auditors stepping down and they're required to formally "resign" and give reasons why, but it's not unusual to do so) Maybe there's something there but so far, I don't think there's been any evidence of it, just allusions and insinuations?
Incidentally, you can go and read Johnson Carmichael's comments on their last audit from June 2022, the main takeaway is:
"In our opinion the financial statements: • give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Scottish National Party as at 31 December 2021 and of its deficit for the year then ended; • have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice, and • have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000"
As for not being replaced... My understanding is their accounts need to be audited annually, but that there's no requirement to have auditors other than that- they don't do the accounts or oversee the accounting process, spending etc, that's the National Treasurer's job. They oversee the financial statements that the National Treasurer produces once a year. It's presumably sensible to have business continuity and to have the contracts in place, and a six month gap with a new report due in 3 months or so seems amateurish maybe, but again it just seems to be allusions and implications rather than actually being wrong. They have to submit their accounts by July, still 3 months away, I think they're basically 4 months into a 7 month window from end of accounting year to submission of accounts.
(I'm not sure about this; some people have said that their accounts must be audited before submission but the electoral commission say that they will appoint an auditor for any accounts that haven't been audited so that doesn't seem right. Perhaps it's just a case of "if you want to choose who does it, do it before you submit")
The "nobody is willing to do it" line, I've heard elsewhere as well as in that post but it's just totally made up isn't it? Nobody knew that there was a 6 month gap til just now and yet already people have reasons for it.
Basically, it seems like everyone's talking about audits and making lots of insinuations and assumptions, but there's next to no facts and nobody really seems to be talking about what the audits and auditors are for and what's actually legally required (and what's not legally required but is good practice- there's obviously ways an org can do things badly without breaking the legal rules). I don't know much about accounts and audits so I was sort of convinced that this was unusual and maybe suspicious by all the reporting, especially with Yousaf's comments. But after digging just a little it seems like it's just not that much of a thing?
It also makes me wonder if any other political party's auditors have resigned in the past few years, and if so, if we ever heard about it, or in fact if we ever heard anything about political party auditors til this story? It's definitely not something that's easy to find out, which probably tells its own story- I think you basically have to dig through their annual reports and compare names, unless you're the Electoral Commission. The nearest thing I found with googling is that there's been a 21% increase in auditor resignations in the last year due to regulatory changes.
To me, it's also kind of interesting that last week media, MPs and MSPs were talking about how significant it was that the auditors had apparently resigned amidst the police investigation, and now we're hearing about how significant it is that they didn't...Schrodinger's auditors.
Good christ. If someone else posted that, I wouldn't read it, but I got really fascinated by it when I was typing it and thinking about the subject. I'm such a dork 🙁
I used to work (briefly) for an accountants. I don’t think they just decide to resign as auditors because y’know they are a bit bored with the account. If you google ‘why do auditors resign?’ the answers all concern the auditors fearing something dodgy. In the context of the police investigation & the SNP Treasurer resigning a couple of years back due to a ‘lack of information’ you have to say that this looks to be forming a suspicious pattern. Time will tell.
The auditors resigned, and haven’t yet been replaced, yes. People have been implying that the auditors left under some suspicious circumstances
I think newspapers and media put out some bullshit (just read any story in a field you have some knowledge in if you need conformation) but auditors generally don't rid themselves of clients as well known as the SNP just 'because' Even if there's the merest whiff that something wasn't straight will have a reputationally aware organisation running for the hills, and that reaction will set the tone for their replacement. If you're an auditor and you knew that the auditors before you had dumped the SNP before any possible charges had been bought against anyone, would you be willing to take them on? I think I'd be chary
My guess - the auditors passed the books last year and now something dodgy has come to light in the books they are running away as fast as they can because they know questions will be asked about last years audit
I'll also guess that the outcome of this will be a fine for the SNP for dubious accounting under electoral law and a fine of tens of thousands. Similar to the (at least) two times the tories have been guilty of similar things
Depends if she was aware of her husband’s alleged arrangements before or not.
Of course she bloody knew. It'd be even more disappointing (in her as an operator) if she didn't know.
Not to make light of it but that’s small fry compared to the conservatives cash for honours, dodgy PPE contracts and the list goes on.
From one POV absolutely, but at least Boris got a generous buisnessman to pay for tarting up his flat, rather than pilfering from party funds.
Cartoon is a stereotypical trope. Dressing up as C U Jimmy is fine.
Well that makes sense.
My guess – the auditors passed the books last year and now something dodgy has come to light in the books they are running away as fast as they can because they know questions will be asked about last years audit
Another subject you know little/nothing about.
I made my comment as I've been working as an Auditor, both external & internal, since the early 90's.
Auditors resign and are replaced continually across private/public companies & organisations and I for one have no idea why they resigned, but I do know that when an auditor resigns (or the organisation decides to replace them), they'll put out an RFP/tender. Also depends on how much notice the auditor gave.
Is there an issue - again, no idea.
Correct.
I am sorry you do not understand the nature of anti scots racism
Would you like me to explain?
Auditors don't just quit for no reason; they're not very choosy. If they get fired, there's usually a hundred other firms waiting to get the work. If the SNP still haven't appointed auditors, that suggests either they haven't got around to it (which is pretty shambolic - but perhaps that is SNP MO) or no auditor will touch them (which is worrying).
To me, it’s also kind of interesting that last week media, MPs and MSPs were talking about how significant it was that the auditors had apparently resigned amidst the police investigation, and now we’re hearing about how significant it is that they didn’t
The police investigation started in 2021, so the former is correct. I'm neither an auditor nor a policeman but I assume that the auditors would have been part of the very first line of enquiry in a fraud investigation?
I am sorry you do not understand the nature of anti scots racism
If it involves telling jokes based on traditional Scottish stereotypes then I have to admit I'm as anti-Scots racist as they come. And I was born, and live, here.
Its the negative sterotyping not the joke - as I am sure you know
Dressing the ex leader up in a victorian imaginary idea of a clan chieftain outfit to mock her is different as I am sure you realise to a self deprecating joke
The police investigation started in 2021, so the former is correct. I’m neither an auditor nor a policeman but I assume that the auditors would have been part of the very first line of enquiry in a fraud investigation?
All depends on the nature of the enquiry and I've worked for organisations that have suffered from financial frauds (including leading the internal investigation), often the only work that the external auditors will do is 'report' it in the annual report, and only then if it is 'significant' to the organisation (as a whole).
Dressing the ex leader up in a victorian imaginary idea of a clan chieftain outfit to mock her
Point of order, it wasn't "victorian imaginary idea of a clan chieftain", it was Mel Gibson's.
Which comes from the victorian imaginary idea of a clan chieftain
The cartoon showed Sturgeon with a blue painted face, that has nothing to do with Victorian imaginary.
or no auditor will touch them (which is worrying).
There has been occasional mentions in Private Eye and a few other places about financial issues for quite a while.
So I would guess most auditors would have decided to err on the side of caution and decline to bid.
Doesnt mean there is something wrong just that unless you are absolutely certain there wasnt anything wrong or the bill was really really large its unlikely to be worth the possible negative press.
Dressing the ex leader up in a victorian imaginary idea
Is this just when its used in a negative light or do you want it removed in all cases?
Point of order, it wasn’t “victorian imaginary idea of a clan chieftain”, it was Mel Gibson’s.
I lived a few doors down from the SNP's HQ in the late 90s and they were more than happy to put pictures of Mel Gibson in their window back then 🙂
I assume that the auditors would have been part of the very first line of enquiry in a fraud investigation?
Not necessarily, imnshe. The work that auditors do is very limited in scope and they rely heavily on representations by the subject of the audit. People (including clients that don't read the engagement letters...) think that because an auditor has signed off on the accounts, it means every transaction is legit. But at best it means that the accounts are materially correct at a high level, if everything the company/entity has told the auditors is true. To be fair to the auditors, it would be a massive undertaking to verify even a tenth of all transactions.
You do realise,TJ, that Sturgeon isn’t being parodied as a generic Scot? She is being lampooned as Mel Gibson/William Wallace. Hence the outfit
That’s how I seen it. Where as a wearing a tartan hat and ginger wig does fit in with the old trope.
@intheborders and @politecameraaction - thanks for the response/insight.
I see claims that the motorhome was bought as a "battle bus" for campaigning during Covid. One does wonder why the SNP would need this given that they already have a gravy train...
As for not being replaced… My understanding is their accounts need to be audited annually, but that there’s no requirement to have auditors other than that- they don’t do the accounts or oversee the accounting process, spending etc, that’s the National Treasurer’s job. They oversee the financial statements that the National Treasurer produces once a year. It’s presumably sensible to have business continuity and to have the contracts in place, and a six month gap with a new report due in 3 months or so seems amateurish maybe, but again it just seems to be allusions and implications rather than actually being wrong. They have to submit their accounts by July, still 3 months away, I think they’re basically 4 months into a 7 month window from end of accounting year to submission of accounts.
The BBC says : 'New leader Humza Yousaf confirmed on Tuesday that long-time accountants Johnston Carmichael had quit last year.
The SNP has told the Electoral Commission it is having difficulty identifying a replacement ahead of its accounts deadline'
Yeah, well, that's just the unionist media, or something...
The SNP has told the Electoral Commission it is having difficulty identifying a replacement ahead of its accounts deadline’
AKA still in procurement
Are the accountants coming on the ferry?
thisisnotaspoon
Full Member
Are the accountants coming on the ferry?
They'll probably get to the ferry before the mechanics do
There may be nothing in the resignation of the auditors for the SNP; there may be nothing in finding a replacement, it is just taking time. The problem is that when this is added onto a long list of finance issues affecting the SNP then it gives an impression of something going on.
- Where is the "missing" £667k?
- Why was the SNP treasurer not given the information necessary for him to do his job, so he resigned?
- Why has the SNP SEC not been presented with detailed financial information for them to do their job?
- Why did the then leader of the SNP (NS) tell the SNP NEC not to worry about the finances?
All of this may be perfectly normal, but..
