"Back-to-back" property transactions and Michelle Thomson MP: a perplexing tale

[danny la rouge]

Lallands Peat Worrier (was not actually snp until a while back despite what danny says)

Despite what I said?

Here's a thing. Maybe people will be able to compare that independently with what I said. Maybe they'll see that you are imagining I've said things that I haven't actually said. You zoomer.

 

[danny la rouge]

No...any reasonable accusation should be investigated independently imo.

What I'm saying is....danny has spoonfed you a load of one-sided garbage, like his other thread that he never responds to anymore. I'm saying that the multi-daily onslaught that has been going on up here for years would make your jaw drop.

Read these sites. Any subject, any time over the past few years, just be random

Wee Ginger Dug
Lallands Peat Worrier (was not actually snp until a while back despite what danny says)
To September And Beyond
Bella Caledonia
Home - Newsnet.scot
The Ponsonby Post - FRONT PAGE
Wings Over Scotland

and google others after getting a general idea, look for the negative sites.....I won't quote you or tell you what 'side' to fall on...make up your own mind...cross-reference...no pointers from me

Just stop reading this shite and accepting it.

Anyway...moral turpitude, misogyny and so on.....carry on.

I've now had a chance to look at the links you provide. They're just links to the home pages of blogs, not to specific articles. In fact I have already provided a link to Lallans Peat Worrier's specific article on this matter.

One of your links, William Dugald, apparently hasn't actually blogged since before this story broke. There's certainly nothing I can see that he's written about it. (The most recent post I can see at time of writing is dated 28th September and is about Volkswagen). Four of those blogs are blogs I have linked to on several occasions myself on Urban. So I'm not very sure what your point is.

You say I have spoon-fed people a load of one-sided garbage. (Despite me linking to Lallans Peat Worrier's article on the matter). So, what specifically am I wrong about? What facts have I got wrong?

You have said I've left out facts. What pertinent facts have I left out?

What, in the end, is it specifically here that you actually disagree with me about? Why not tell us what your take on this matter is. (Other than vague retorts that I'm talking rubbish: maybe I am, maybe I'm misinformed. So point out where).

 

[ViolentPanda]

An outsider's perspective: A very interesting case, not least the seeming promptness with which the solicitors' body acted,
As for Thomson's business practices, "back to back" is as old as the hills, and should be pretty obvious to any solicitor either side of the border, so the fact that Thomson's company was assisted to do this, militates toward all parties being aware of the (to be kind) technically-fraudulent nature of the transactions. This seems to me to be another case of "doesn't everyone do this?" and a reliance on status to quash inconvenient questions.

 

[andysays]

what sort of picture does it paint of the party that this kind of business is the business of their business spokesperson? It does not reflect at all well on the party, I’d suggest.

In fact, Iain MacWhirter, the pro-independence political journalist, has suggested much the same, and has been howled down and denounced as a Unionist dupe for his troubles. But he’s right. The SNP painted itself as spotless and pure. As a new broom. As pro-working class even. Well, this kind of business transaction doesn’t speak well of their attitude to business or housing.

This is the key question, it seems to me, but I'm still slightly unsure exactly what "this kind of business" she's engaging in, or alleged to be engaging in.

There's no question, is there, that she operates a property company and makes a significant income from buying and selling property. For many here on Urban (including me) the fact that the SNP had such a person as their business spokesperson would in itself seriously call into question any claims to be pro-working class, but I'm not sure that the Scottish electorate would necessarily take the same view.

I don't fully understand the stuff about back-to-back mortages - is it a practice which is sometimes legal, but is sometimes used to mask fraud, or is it something which is always illegal? Even if it's the former, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about whether it has been used to mask fraud in this case, and only the most blinkered SNP supporter would claim otherwise, I would have thought.

 

[danny la rouge]

This is the key question, it seems to me, but I'm still slightly unsure exactly what "this kind of business" she's engaging in, or alleged to be engaging in.

There's no question, is there, that she operates a property company and makes a significant income from buying and selling property. For many here on Urban (including me) the fact that the SNP had such a person as their business spokesperson would in itself seriously call into question any claims to be pro-working class, but I'm not sure that the Scottish electorate would necessarily take the same view.

Well, that's the nub of it for me. Does the SNP really want a business person who makes money this way as their business spokesperson (as she was prior to resigning the whip)? Having now looked into how cash-back mortgage deals work, I disapprove of them even when legal.

I don't fully understand the stuff about back-to-back mortages - is it a practice which is sometimes legal, but is sometimes used to mask fraud, or is it something which is always illegal?

That was my problem before reading Tickell's article - it was all pretty Byzantine, and I couldn't get to grips with it. But as I hope I successfully conveyed in my opening posts, the only person here who has been proven to have done wrong is the solicitor, Christopher Hales. What he did wrong was not to observe the correct procedures. Those procedures are in place because certain activities can be (but are not necessarily) indicators of fraud. So he should have notified the mortgage companies that the activities had taken place. He didn't, and when found out was struck off.

None of that means there was necessarily anything illegal about the transactions. Just that they shared certain characteristics with known fraudulent activities, and therefore should have been flagged up by Hales.

As the quote I provided from Tickell says "There may be a good explanation for these transactions". And as I have said repeatedly Thomson has not been charged, and may not ever be charged. But there did have to be an investigation because these transactions shared certain characteristics with known fraudulent activities and the correct procedures they should have triggered were not observed by Hales. Some pro-SNP voices on social media had suggested that the resultant investigation was politically motivated. Tickell correctly says they were wrong to think so.

Even if it's the former, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about whether it has been used to mask fraud in this case, and only the most blinkered SNP supporter would claim otherwise, I would have thought.

Yes, there does need to be an investigation. But for me the questions raised are about what it says about the SNP (even if the investigation finds no further illegality).

Which was my point: if the SNP knew that this (ie perfectly legal cash-back property deals) was her business, and then made her business spokesperson, what does that say about their attitude to business? And to housing policy? If they didn't know, what does that say about their quality control?

 

[andysays]

Well, that's the nub of it for me. Does the SNP really want a business person who makes money this way as their business spokesperson (as she was prior to resigning the whip)? Having now looked into how cash-back mortgage deals work, I disapprove of them even when legal.

That was my problem before reading Tickell's article - it was all pretty Byzantine, and I couldn't get to grips with it. But as I hope I successfully conveyed in my opening posts, the only person here who has been proven to have done wrong is the solicitor, Christopher Hales. What he did wrong was not to observe the correct procedures. Those procedures are in place because certain activities can be (but are not necessarily) indicators of fraud. So he should have notified the mortgage companies that the activities had taken place. He didn't, and when found out was struck off.

None of that means there was necessarily anything illegal about the transactions. Just that they shared certain characteristics with known fraudulent activities, and therefore should have been flagged up by Hales.

As the quote I provided from Tickell says "There may be a good explanation for these transactions". And as I have said repeatedly Thomson has not been charged, and may not ever be charged. But there did have to be an investigation because these transactions shared certain characteristics with known fraudulent activities and the correct procedures they should have triggered were not observed by Hales. Some pro-SNP voices on social media had suggested that the resultant investigation was politically motivated. Tickell correctly says they were wrong to think so.

Yes, there does need to be an investigation. But for me the questions raised are about what it says about the SNP (even if the investigation finds no further illegality).

Which was my point: if the SNP knew that this (ie perfectly legal cash-back property deals) was her business, and then made her business spokesperson, what does that say about their attitude to business? And to housing policy? If they didn't know, what does that say about their quality control?

I suspect I think pretty similar to you, ie that it says only bad things about their attitude to business, their attitude to housing policy and their quality control, and that it casts doubt on their claim to be pro working class (rather than "Tartan Tories").

I wonder how much our views will be reflect the views of the SNP supporting electorate though, and I have no way of judging that - maybe you do.

Speaking just for myself, I'd expect a spokesperson for a genuinely pro working class party to be more familiar with back-to-back terraces than back-to-back mortages, TBH

 

[danny la rouge]

Speaking just for myself, I'd expect a spokesperson for a genuinely pro working class party to be more familiar with back-to-back terraces than back-to-back mortages, TBH

Very good. (Although in fact it's not quite so common an urban planning feature in working class Scottish towns as it is in English ones ).

 

[andysays]

Very good. (Although in fact it's not quite so common an urban planning feature in working class Scottish towns as it is in English ones ).

Not one that I'm personally familiar with either. Any that did exist in London seem to have been demolished by either the Luftwaffe or the LCC in the immediate post-war years.

 

[danny la rouge]

I hope that "like" is not misconstrued. I don't approve of the Luftwaffe flattening anywhere.

 

[andysays]

I hope that "like" is not misconstrued. I don't approve of the Luftwaffe flattening anywhere.

Not by me it won't be.

My comment was a reference to the joke that the LCC destroyed more homes after the war than the Luftwaffe had done during it, or something along those lines. I knew people whose grandparents' home had survived the Blitz etc only to fall prey to post-war "redevelopment".

Anyway, we're wandering off the subject a little here...

 

[DexterTCN]

I suspect I think pretty similar to you, ie that it says only bad things about their attitude to business, their attitude to housing policy and their quality control, and that it casts doubt on their claim to be pro working class (rather than "Tartan Tories")....

The SNP's rise to power is good news if you really care about housing

Since the creation of the Scottish parliament, housing policy north of the border has been a more progressive force than elsewhere in the union. Since the SNP secured an overall majority in 2011, its efforts have been even more radical.

Plus...8 years of freezing the council tax. That's.... 8 years of freezing the council tax.

Just thought someone who lived here should mention it. It's common knowledge. Must just have slipped some minds.

 

[andysays]

The SNP's rise to power is good news if you really care about housing

Plus...8 years of freezing the council tax. That's.... 8 years of freezing the council tax.

Just thought someone who lived here should mention it. It's common knowledge. Must just have slipped some minds.

So are you saying that because they've frozen the Council Tax we should simply dismiss or ignore the fact that the SNP's (now former) business spokesperson is a property speculator who has been involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings? I've got no particular axe to grind for or against the SNP, but you're allowing your partisanship to cloud your judgement, IMO.

It's also interesting to note the sub-heading of that story you've linked to

The SNP has stood up for the rights of renters in a way that highlights just how ignored they have been by English MPs – who are often landlords themselves

So English MPs can be criticised for being landlords (I've got no problem with criticising them on that basis, just so we're clear), but SNP MPs shouldn't be criticised for being property speculators involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings? Maybe you should be more careful in your choice of supporting testimony in future...

 

[danny la rouge]

The SNP's rise to power is good news if you really care about housing



Plus...8 years of freezing the council tax. That's.... 8 years of freezing the council tax.

Just thought someone who lived here should mention it. It's common knowledge. Must just have slipped some minds.

So that's your opinion on the questions this raised? - "Never mind that because, this".

 

[DexterTCN]

So are you saying that because they've frozen the Council Tax we should simply dismiss or ignore the fact that the SNP's (now former) business spokesperson is a property speculator who has been involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings?.....

No...you were specifically asking about the housing policy.

What do you think of it?

 

[andysays]

No...you were specifically asking about the housing policy.

What do you think of it?

I wasn't specifically asking about the SNP's housing policy (and I'm not particularly interested in commenting on it here), I was commenting on how I thought their choice of a property speculator involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings as a business spokesperson reflected on their claims to be a pro working class party.

I've said what I think, so how do you think their choice of a property speculator involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings as a business spokesperson reflects on their claims to be a pro working class party? because so far you seem unwilling to address what seems to be a central issue of this particular thread.

 

[DexterTCN]

I wasn't specifically asking about the SNP's housing policy (and I'm not particularly interested in commenting on it here), I was commenting on how I thought their choice of a property speculator involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings as a business spokesperson reflected on their claims to be a pro working class party.

I've said what I think, so how do you think their choice of a property speculator involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings as a business spokesperson reflects on their claims to be a pro working class party? because so far you seem unwilling to address what seems to be a central issue of this particular thread.

I don't actually care about her one way or the other. Like everyone else here I'd never noticed her. I care about what is happening in my community and country, she's certainly not going to derail that. If she has to resign then most likely another pro-indie candidate will take her place.

You said that her alleged doings cast a bad light on the SNP housing policy but now you don't want to comment on it? Don't bring it up then. And if you're looking for tartan tories you'll need to go back a few decades...these days we talk about the red ones.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't actually care about her one way or the other. Like everyone else here I'd never noticed her. I care about what is happening in my community and country, she's certainly not going to derail that. If she has to resign then most likely another pro-indie candidate will take her place.

Do you think someone with her business experience is an asset to the SNP team or a hindrance? When this is all cleared up, should she walk back into her job as business spokesperson, or do you think they should appoint someone else?

The question is not "what is the SNP's record in Holyrood?", but "does this - this specific case here an now - detract from the message the SNP seeks to portray?" And specifically the message that it sought to portray in its Westminster general election campaign.

Or to put it another way, does Thomson and her business background embarrass people like Mhairi Black or not?

 

[danny la rouge]

No...you were specifically asking about the housing policy.

What do you think of it?

No, he was specifically asking how this affair *reflects on the SNP*. Does it aid them in selling their housing policy or not? Is it a good advert for their attitude towards business? Is it good PR given the message they're trying to put across?

It's very much what I've also been asking since the beginning of the thread.

Do you think it *helps* the SNP to paper over these legitimate questions and pretend they haven't been asked? To act as if you imagine something else entirely is being said?

 

[andysays]

I don't actually care about her one way or the other. Like everyone else here I'd never noticed her. I care about what is happening in my community and country, she's certainly not going to derail that. If she has to resign then most likely another pro-indie candidate will take her place.

You said that her alleged doings cast a bad light on the SNP housing policy but now you don't want to comment on it? Don't bring it up then. And if you're looking for tartan tories you'll need to go back a few decades...these days we talk about the red ones.

I don't care about her as an individual one way or the other, and I don't think that danny does either.

Would you be happy if another property speculator involved in back-to-back mortgage dealings replaced her, either as business spokesperson or as an SNP MP?

What we're examining is what this story tells us about the SNP, including specifically about their claim to be pro working class. You seem very keen to divert the thread away from that particular subject for some reason...

 

[DexterTCN]

Do you think someone with her business experience is an asset to the SNP team or a hindrance? When this is all cleared up, should she walk back into her job as business spokesperson, or do you think they should appoint someone else?

The question is not "what is the SNP's record in Holyrood?", but "does this - this specific case here an now - detract from the message the SNP seeks to portray?" And specifically the message that it sought to portray in its Westminster general election campaign.

Or to put it another way, does Thomson and her business background embarrass people like Mhairi Black or not?

Is she a hindrance or an asset? Nope.

Should she walk back into her job? Doesn't matter.

Does she embarrass 'people like Mhairi Black'? What does that even mean, what 'people like Mhairi Black'?

And finally, jumping back a bit....it's not about a party's actions it's about what they say in a Westminster election? Really?

 

[DexterTCN]

...What we're examining is what this story tells us about the SNP, including specifically about their claim to be pro working class. You seem very keen to divert the thread away from that particular subject for some reason...

So first you want to talk about them, then you don't, then you do?

I'm not diverting the thread...you're asking what SNP supporters think and I'm telling you what this one does.

 

[andysays]

So first you want to talk about them, then you don't, then you do?

I'm not diverting the thread...you're asking what SNP supporters think and I'm telling you what this one does.

Yeah but no but yeah...

It's like you're reading a different thread or one written in another language.

 

[danny la rouge]

Is she a hindrance or an asset? Nope.

I can tell you're a deep thinker.

Should she walk back into her job? Doesn't matter.

So it doesn't matter to you whether or not someone whose business consists of doing cash back mortgage deals is the business spokesperson in Westminster for the SNP. Frankly that says a great deal about you, and none of it is good.

Does she embarrass 'people like Mhairi Black'? What does that even mean, what 'people like Mhairi Black'?

You know precisely what I mean. Mhairi Black comes across as decent, honourable and sincere. She keeps herself grounded in her working class background.

And finally, jumping back a bit....it's not about a party's actions it's about what they say in a Westminster election? Really?

Don't be obtuse. You know I was talking about the relevance of the questions raised by this story.

You do know that other people can remember and even look back at pervious posts don't you?

 

[danny la rouge]

 

[DexterTCN]

Is she a hindrance or an asset? Nope.

I can tell you're a deep thinker.

Now who's being obtuse?

Do you think whatever happens with Thomson will have any effect on the 2016 election or the voters in Scotland or in the progression of politics here as they are developing?

It's obvious to everyone. Don't call me obtuse because I gave the answer. No...it doesn't matter.

 

[danny la rouge]

Now who's being obtuse?

Do you think whatever happens with Thomson will have any effect on the 2016 election or the voters in Scotland or in the progression of politics here as they are developing?

It's obvious to everyone. Don't call me obtuse because I gave the answer. No...it doesn't matter.

"Will the SNP do well in the Holyrood elections next year?" Is not the same question as "is having Thomson as Westminster business spokesperson an image problem for the SNP?".

Of course they'll do well in Holyrood 16: see my thread on polling etc.

I don't think you and I can have a sensible conversation about this sort of thing, we just think too differently. I'm not a party sort of person.

Anyway I'm on holiday. Have a good weekend.

 

[DexterTCN]

"Will the SNP do well in the Holyrood elections next year?" Is not the same question as "is having Thomson as Westminster business spokesperson an image problem for the SNP?"....

And the answer is no. She is not a problem. For the same reasons the SNP will do well in that election.

Who needs deep thinking for that?

And no...we can't have a sensible conversation...at some point you'll revert to your religious-fanatic or misogynistic-or-morally-dubious epithets. We think too differently.

Hope you had a nice holiday.

 

[eoin_k]

[...]
As for Thomson's business practices, "back to back" is as old as the hills, and should be pretty obvious to any solicitor either side of the border, so the fact that Thomson's company was assisted to do this, militates toward all parties being aware of the (to be kind) technically-fraudulent nature of the transactions.
[...]

So the possible, technical fraud would be not providing the mortgage lender with full information, but there isn't anything to suggest that she was actually committing the "back to back" fraud. That would involve doing a runner with the money and letting the banks foreclose on a property worth less than the mortgage. Or am I missing something?

 

[DexterTCN]

So the possible, technical fraud would be not providing the mortgage lender with full information, but there isn't anything to suggest that she was actually committing the "back to back" fraud. That would involve doing a runner with the money and letting the banks foreclose on a property worth less than the mortgage. Or am I missing something?

Pretty much...it's a law to prevent banks from lending too much...not to protect people from selling cheap. Gotta protect those banks.

William Duguid has now blogged To September And Beyond: The Wicked Witch of Edinburgh West

Pretty much saying what I was...no-one gives a fuck.

Meanwhile the world turns, and the voters yawn, scratch their nether parts and continue waiting patiently for May 2016, when they’ll vote the way they’ve been planning to all along.

It makes no difference.

We're all infected with the poison of tommy sheridan!

 

[ViolentPanda]

So the possible, technical fraud would be not providing the mortgage lender with full information, but there isn't anything to suggest that she was actually committing the "back to back" fraud. That would involve doing a runner with the money and letting the banks foreclose on a property worth less than the mortgage. Or am I missing something?

No, there isn't any hard evidence, but the frequency of the particular type of dealings is suggestive of the possibility, which frankly she should have protected herself against - it isn't as if, as a property developer, she wouldn't have been aware of how things can be misconstrued.