Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Nicola Sturgeon's time is up

It was also contempt.

Tricky thing Scottish law , if only somebody reasonably competent had been setting the rules
 
I'm not convinced that Scottish jurisdiction re contempt of court extends beyond Scotland.
No, I'm wrong. It's not a separate Scottish law. The relevant legislation is the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which applies both sides of the border and is enforced more enthusiastically yonder.


So we have to be careful what we say on here.
 
The auditors have resigned. That's really not good.
This is something that puzzled me earlier. It doesn’t sound good. But haven’t those same auditors been passing the annual accounts for the past ten years, including therefore the years under question?

I’m not asking anyone to fall foul of contempt of court rules. But it was my understanding that the point of having a professional auditor is that they certify against their good name that it all looks fine?
 
This is something that puzzled me earlier. It doesn’t sound good. But haven’t those same auditors been passing the annual accounts for the past ten years, including therefore the years under question?

I’m not asking anyone to fall foul of contempt of court rules. But it was my understanding that the point of having a professional auditor is that they certify against their good name that it all looks fine?
Yeah, in my experience the auditors tend to do exactly as you say and rubber-stamp accounts presented to them. Occasionally they may have a few questions that need a bit of work to supply the information, but not every time. Also depends on who actually does the auditing, as with many professional services firms a small team of junior staff will do the bulk of the work then pass it to a senior manager or partner for sign off.

If an auditor resigns it might be to do reputational risk management, IE difficult questions will be asked if they continue to be auditors for a particular client so much so that they might lose other clients.
 
Well still the point of charge, but in Scotland you're charged at the point of arrest.

You're an expert in Scottish law now? :hmm:

Only the BBC is reporting...

Police investigating the SNP's finances this week searched the home of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell - Nicola Sturgeon's husband. He was arrested and released without charge. LINK
 
This is something that puzzled me earlier. It doesn’t sound good. But haven’t those same auditors been passing the annual accounts for the past ten years, including therefore the years under question?

I’m not asking anyone to fall foul of contempt of court rules. But it was my understanding that the point of having a professional auditor is that they certify against their good name that it all looks fine?
Sounds like 'reputation management ' on their part. At some point they may have to choose between looking incompetent or dodgy. Allegedly.
 
Yeah, in my experience the auditors tend to do exactly as you say and rubber-stamp accounts presented to them. Occasionally they may have a few questions that need a bit of work to supply the information, but not every time. Also depends on who actually does the auditing, as with many professional services firms a small team of junior staff will do the bulk of the work then pass it to a senior manager or partner for sign off.

If an auditor resigns it might be to do reputational risk management, IE difficult questions will be asked if they continue to be auditors for a particular client so much so that they might lose other clients.

Given the spectacular failures in auditing, one wonders if any of the big firms are fit for purpose. Enron for example.
 
Hypothetically the auditors may have been raising issues with the client over a number of years, but if the client provides sufficient justification and information then there's probably not much they can do, if there is no actual clear evidence of a crime.

They can walk, which they now have done.

What an utter shower the SNP are, rotten to the core, but with the hubris to castigate others for financial impropriety.
 
Given the spectacular failures in auditing, one wonders if any of the big firms are fit for purpose. Enron for example.

Carillon got a clean bill of health from the auditors about six months before it fell into a multi-billion black hole.

Accounting isn't even that difficult. Considering what people get paid for it you'd think it was some rare and special skill, not something that can be done by anyone with a basic grasp of maths and a copy of excel.
 
Carillon got a clean bill of health from the auditors about six months before it fell into a multi-billion black hole.

Accounting isn't even that difficult. Considering what people get paid for it you'd think it was some rare and special skill, not something that can be done by anyone with a basic grasp of maths and a copy of excel.
But of a simplification! A lot of it can be to do with the way costs are entered onto the balance sheet (or not).

I often work with an accounts team on the capitalisation of intellectual property, which is a way of getting tax relief on some IP costs. But it's usually not worth doing unless there is a clearly defined sales and revenue stream for a particular product. It also depends on exactly what IP costs can be capitalised, as not all of them can be - and not all of them will be separated out. So this aspect - one of so very many - requires knowledge of IP, regulations, tax guidelines and so on. It really isn't just basic maths and a copy of excel.

And don't even get me started on R&D tax credits, that's a whole other specialised world of pain.
 
Bit of a simplification!

Oh, I don't know, I mean what's the point of doing years of training followed up by ongoing training when all you need is a basic grasp of maths and a copy of excel?

Ditto with solicitors, no one needs them, when a basic understanding of the magna carta and maritime law will ensure you'll always get off in court.
 
Oh, I don't know, I mean what's the point of doing years of training followed up by ongoing training when all you need is a basic grasp of maths and a copy of excel?

Ditto with solicitors, no one needs them, when a basic understanding of the magna carta and maritime law will ensure you'll always get off in court.
Real names aren’t legal. Or whatever it is.
 
Oh, I don't know, I mean what's the point of doing years of training followed up by ongoing training when all you need is a basic grasp of maths and a copy of excel?

You need the training to understand all the voodoo nonsense the accounting profession has invented down the centuries to justify its own existence. Just like economics. When something goes horribly wrong with accounting (as it did with Carillion and however many other examples) it becomes very clear that the whole field is basically a lot of self-referential mumbo jumbo nonsense piled on top of what is, or should be, just simple bookkeeping.

Bookkeeping says, you can't pay for this yet because you haven't been paid for that yet. Accounting says of course you can, just shuffle everything around a bit, wrap it up in some impenetrable layers of bullshit until you appear solvent. Even though you're actually now less solvent than you were because you've just added a shitload of accounting fees to your liabilities.

And when your business goes under, who is it paying themselves £1,000 an hour to pick the carcass clean? Accountants. Would you trust a GP who was also an undertaker on the side?
 
To be Nicola did give a press conference from her front lawn yesterday.

It's all a bit odd really :hmm:
 
Wasn’t sure where to put this, but despite the death spiral of the SNP, the other parties in Scotland are still only landing own goals. The Scottish Tory leader yesterday called for Scottish voters to vote Labour. Upsetting both his own party and Labour.

Douglas Ross: Tories reject Scottish leader's Labour vote call Douglas Ross: Tories reject Scottish leader's Labour vote call
 
Back
Top Bottom