The Fall Out Continues - thread 6

[TheShadowyFeminist]

New 🧵

Thanks @SempreSuiGeneris, I haven't seen that series so will try to catch it. The Dundee element just jumped out at me from the stats alone

@happygolurkey

fair enough Cismyfatarse you disagree with policies. But a great many posts over about six (I think) reincarnations of this thread made great play of how Salmond had bombshell evidence that proved this that and the other. Turned out it did no such thing, and in fact, 'warped' the words of innocent people who ultimately have no way of answering back. Sad that that was all aided and abetted right here and then conveniently never mentioned again.

And as we all know the 9 ladies lied in court......never understood how they got away with that. Not that I’m a Salmond supporter

@StarryEyeSurprise Drug deaths in Scotland aren’t just deaths where patients had drugs in their system. I’m guessing what you’re referring to is how we count poisoning by legal drugs, but for it to be included in drug deaths there has to also be illegal drugs in their system. So for example if someone overdosed on paracetamol but had also been smoking marijuana this would count in Scotland but not in England - on average these kinds of situations account for three cases a year.

There is a whole separate form medical pathologists have to fill out for drug deaths to make sure they are registered properly with NRS. It’s not an over-reporting problem.

wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-indyref-swindle/

Cismyfatarse. .

[quote Cismyfatarse]wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-indyref-swindle/[/quote]
How do people manage to even read that Wings over Scotland garbage? It takes so long to navigate through the pictures, tiny 3 line paragraphs and arrogance to find any content - most of which is inaccurate and heavily biased.

What gets me is that as a professional working in a relevant field, I would actually get other professionals in fairly good jobs at the time of the last independence referendum, telling me to read the Wings over Scotland fan fiction stuff, so I would "understand" the issues around independence better. Suffice to say they are no longer friends.

I did try it, to give myself a balanced overview. But its even worse than trying to wade through something like The News of the World. It makes the Daily Record seem like a bastion of journalistic accuracy. It is so incredibly badly written and presented that I struggle to believe that anyone with half an education could take it seriously. I can't even look at people who advocate it in the same way.

Can the SNP explain their way out of this. ?

@GreenlandTheMovie have you read the article Cis has shared? It looks pretty well researched to me.

[quote Blurberoo]@GreenlandTheMovie have you read the article Cis has shared? It looks pretty well researched to me.[/quote]
Very funny. As I said, I did try to read it, but the standard of writing was so babyish and biased that it actually hurt my brain. As for the research, where are the sources? Theres no Harvard or OSCOLA referencing, so this isn't even a standard undergraduate level of research. Theres no critical analysis, balanced weighing up of arguments before reaching a conclusion justified by evidence - it is simply the presentation of a biased, once sided opinion in a purposive way (in which the the answer is decided before the argument is presented).

I'd rather read this - have you? Do you read a variety of different sources to challenge yourself and expand your knowledge, or do you just read things that appeal to what you already think?

curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-333/14

Or try this, if you prefer a properly researched articles written at mainly Scottish universities:

Cairney, P (2013) How Can the Scottish Parliament Be Improved as a Legislature, Scottish Parliamentary Review, 1(1). Accessible at dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/16408#.VWoy3JWJjIU

Tomkins, A, Scotland and the EU, 29 August 2014, available at
notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/scotland-and-the-eu/

Kennedy, D and MacLennan, S, Sincere Co-operation, Respect for Democracy and EU Citizenship Sufficient to Guarantee Scotland's Future in the EU" ELJ 7 July 2014 591

Chamon, M and Van der Loo, G, The Temporal Paradox of Regions in the EU Seeking Independence: Contraction and Fragmentation Versus Widening and Deepening 22 May 2013 ELJ 613

MacCormick, N, ‘Is There a Constitutional Path to Scottish Independence?’ (2000) 53 Parliamentary Affairs 72

Douglas-Scott, S, How Easily Could an Independent Scotland Join the EU? (July 2014) Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 46/2014. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=2462227)

Griffith, J in G Gee & G Webber, What is a Political Constitution, (2010) 30(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 273, 277

Page, A, Its Not Just About the Scottish Parliament's Powers, Scottish Constitutional Futures Forum (no page references possible). Available at www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4550/Alan-Page-Its-Not-Just-About-the-Scottish-Parliaments-Powers-.aspx

Essentially there is money missing, supposedly ring fenced for a 2nd referendum. 3 people resigned when not allowed to view the accounts.

Wings asserts that the missing money has been used to repay a debt to a lottery winner who lent the SNP 500k and has now died (presumably as part of the winding up of their estate).

The money was to be banked by the SNP but was not for party funds.

Murrell must know where the money is and, if there is an innocent explanation, why not just say where it is?

It is not purporting to be academic research any more than my pupils are doing so when they write ghost stories. It is a tabloid style blog with a particular journalistic style.

You certainly don't have to read it. And I am not holding it up as a great piece of writing.

But it is an interesting question. Where is the money?

Anyone who hates wings/can't follow what he's saying, can have a look at the accounts directly from the electoral commission website:

2019 accounts

2018 accounts

2017 accounts

2016 accounts

I can't work out the accounts but wings explanation & article is effectively saying that Colin Weir & Christine Weir both gave £500k loans to the SNP in March 2016. Brexit referendum took place in June 2016. March 2017, Scottish Parliament voted in favour of a 2nd indyref "before the UK leaves the EU". And the referendum campaign fund was also launched by the SNP in March 2017. Which is where the £600k comes from.

1 £500k loan was paid back at some point in 2016 as it's in the 2016 published accounts.

The 2nd £500k loan was repaid sometime in 2017, as that's in the 2017 published accounts.

The implication is the indyref fund was used to repay the £500k loan in 2017.

The published accounts I find difficult to interpret so if anyone who understands these things wants to have a go at wading through them to either explain or debunk what's being said, I'd love an idiots guide to help the rest of us (well, me!) understand.

Yes I'm sure all those random academic articles are really helpful to the PP as they try to read about the alleged missing SNP money

Why in the name of all that is Holy would you direct someone looking to read about SNP finances to an article about an independent Scotland joining the EU?

So if I start with the Wings over Scotland "article" (its not properly published but lets run with it), it begins with:

"It’s probably past time that we put this all in one post for easy reference."

And then follows a graphic image with the words "The Great IndyRef Swindle" printed in large, colourful letters, with the words "The Proclaimers" crossed out (presumably to make vulnerable minds think that their favourite part of Scots culture is in danger of being lost?)

Theres some pictures of faces at the bottom, with names such as "Kid Vicious", "Nancy Rotten", "Pull Cock" and "Daddy Bear", and similar presentation of words such as "The Twitler Youth".

The follows another sentence! "Herald journalists with no idea what a story is, start here.

Our tale begins in March 2016, when lottery winners Chris and Colin Weir each issued a loan of £500,000 to the SNP, which logic would suggest was intended to assist with fighting that year’s Holyrood election seven weeks later."

Then theres 4 more poster type colourful pictures and a few more lines of very basic descriptive stuff that most people already know.

And this is the way it continues.

You could summarise the information it gives in about 3 short sentences. Being succinct is not a great talent of that chap in Bristol, is it?

In summary, it appears to narrate a squabble concerning funding within the SNP, but takes hours to tell the story.

Now, I don't know many people gullible enough to be responsive to that sort of writing, thankfully, although it clearly appeals to some. But surely even the most diehard SNP fan cannot mistake it for proper journalism, of the form which people actually pay to read?

As I say, so much material...

@forfucksakenett

Yes I'm sure all those random academic articles are really helpful to the PP as they try to read about the alleged missing SNP money

You're not suggesting that Scottish people are too stupid to read academic articles again, are you? Controlling much? You don't want people getting above their station, do you?

Only basic writing with nice pictures for Scots, eh? Know your place, don't get above yourself, read what you're told to read and don't question too much?

@Cismyfatarse

Essentially there is money missing, supposedly ring fenced for a 2nd referendum. 3 people resigned when not allowed to view the accounts.

Wings asserts that the missing money has been used to repay a debt to a lottery winner who lent the SNP 500k and has now died (presumably as part of the winding up of their estate).

The money was to be banked by the SNP but was not for party funds.

Murrell must know where the money is and, if there is an innocent explanation, why not just say where it is?

Well the published accounts are accessible to anyone interested in trying to work out if the questions over the missing indyref 2 funds have any basis or not.

See below

No I'm suggesting that if someone wants to read about the SNP accounts then it's pretty stupid to point them in the direction of articles about Scotland joining the EU.

Everyone on this thread is more than capable of reading any of the articles you've posted I'm sure.

The only person moaning about struggling to read something is you.

If you don't like it then you don't need to berate other people just because they do.

@forfucksakenett

No I'm suggesting that if someone wants to read about the SNP accounts then it's pretty stupid to point them in the direction of articles about Scotland joining the EU.

Everyone on this thread is more than capable of reading any of the articles you've posted I'm sure.

The only person moaning about struggling to read something is you.

If you don't like it then you don't need to berate other people just because they do.

Actually, a poster did previously ask me to give her a list of academic articles on the topic on this thread.

Again, I ask you why you are assuming that such articles are beyond the understanding of Scottish people? They're perfectly readable, particularly the ones by Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics at Stirling University. He writes a lot on the problems with the constitutional settlement and the committee system in Scotland, and his writing is very accessible, certainly a damned sight more so than the drivel Wings puts out.

The average acquittal rate for crimes overall in Scotland is 6%. For rape and attempted rape this is 52% and for sexual assault this is 39%. Conviction rates for sexual assaults are at an all time low.
Seems there's an awful lot of lying women in Scotland. Should they 'get away with it.'?

@GreenlandTheMovie nowhere did I say that academic articles were beyond the people of this thread or indeed the people of Scotland.

Please feel free to point out where I said or even implied that.

@GreenlandTheMovie I am no fan of the SNP, not will I ever vote for independence.

Leaving aside your distaste for anything but academic articles, is it possible that (however the Wings article is written) is could have a point about fraud?

I am an English teacher and know a fair bit about writing. But, something does not have to be well written to be factually correct or worthy of consideration.

Otherwise, we would never listen to children or read fiction.

Anyway, does anyone see any substance in the allegations?

Why, if so very wrong, have they not be refuted as they have been in quite a few papers recently.

[quote forfucksakenett]@GreenlandTheMovie nowhere did I say that academic articles were beyond the people of this thread or indeed the people of Scotland.

Please feel free to point out where I said or even implied that.

[/quote]
Lets pose a better question.

Why do you want to keep the work of Scottish academics on relevant issues secret and suppress them being publicised on the internet?

Why are you yourself not posting such articles, since you claim to be so knowledgable about this and related issues?

[quote Cismyfatarse]@GreenlandTheMovie I am no fan of the SNP, not will I ever vote for independence.

Leaving aside your distaste for anything but academic articles, is it possible that (however the Wings article is written) is could have a point about fraud?

I am an English teacher and know a fair bit about writing. But, something does not have to be well written to be factually correct or worthy of consideration.

Otherwise, we would never listen to children or read fiction. [/quote]
Maybe "we" don't always want to read fiction or listen to children, or indeed read propoganda. Maybe some of us would rather read something that is properly researched and presented, without silly little posters and made up names?

Is that really beyond the realms of your imagination?

And I don't have "distaste" for anything beyond academic articles, I do enjoy well written newspaper articles or something like Private Eye, but the press is woeful at present in Scotland at holding the Executive to account.

As an English teacher, surely if the Wings article does indeed have a point to make, surely you must see how its impossible for many people to read that level of gibberish? Surely you must teach students to write in plain English?