The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

On your expenses point ( that you have made previously ) is the clue in your 2nd post that contains the subtle backtrack ( highlighted ). Are we going to play a game of smoke and mirrors when you will claim that if the comfy party had 1 mp and he shamelessly over claimed by 1pence ( once ) then he would be worse than the Tories, Labour, Libs etc ?

You'd have to be pretty damned stupid and know nothing of the expenses scandal to ever think I didn't mean proportionally.

There were 6 SNPs. There were >300 MP sanctioned for taking the piss.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

I'm asking you to give some evidence/reasoning to your assertion.

Thank you very much.

344 were 'shamed', 4 of which were SNP MP's - so 66% 67%* of SNP MPs were taking the piss.

(*maths according to snippers )

Now, given that 66% is greater than the overall proportion of MPs that were taking the piss, it might start to be dawning on you that my claim is likely to stand up.

I'll let you well-educated Scots do the detailed counting and working out of averages if you're so included.

[LondonTom]

Instead all you have are gifs of animated smileys.

I think they are PNGs to be fair

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.png

[viberunner]

What I did find is the SNP getting a 100% hit rate in the initial Telegraph revelations

The SNP had six seats, so pretty easy to get high percentage figures. It's unsurprising members from Scotland had expenses claims.

Mike Weir claimed £1,300 per month rent for his second home in London plus bills for utilities, telephone, council tax and food

Alex Salmond claimed for food and trying to impeach Blair

Stewart Hosie claimed for furnishings. (This one was dodgy IMHO).

Angus Robertson got a stereo. (Not a great fan of this one).

Peter Wishart claimed for a London home.

Most of these are outright reasonable and none of them are the tens-of-thousands profiteering cash-grabs the Labour and Tory members - and front benches - were engaged in.

So yes, a 100% hit rate on having claimed on expenses. But not a 100% hit rate on unreasonable expenses, and you'd struggle to find any of them with anything like the egregious cases that quite rightly upset the public at large.

[eFestivals]

The SNP had six seats, so pretty easy to get high percentage figures. It's unsurprising members from Scotland had expenses claims.

It's unsurprising they had expenses claims.

It's surprising they had fraudulent claims, and at a greater rate than other parties.

Most of these are outright reasonable and none of them are the tens-of-thousands profiteering cash-grabs the Labour and Tory members - and front benches - were engaged in.

PMSL

Salmond was claiming £400pm for food for his London home even when Westminster was shut for two months.

I guess he's too busy to be honest, just like so many tories, Labour, etc, etc, etc.

So yes, a 100% hit rate on having claimed on expenses. But not a 100% hit rate on unreasonable expenses, and you'd struggle to find any of them with anything like the egregious cases that quite rightly upset the public at large.

I didn't claim they had a 100% hit rate on dodgy expenses.

And what you're saying is they shouldn't be criticised too much, because they're not very good at being fraudsters.

Oh, that's all right then.

Edited June 8, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

Spreadsheet messed up Here`s the link. Click " Party " to sort...........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8493634.stm?table=party&order=asc#mprepayments

Wow. Between Bernard Jenkin (CON) and Barbara Follett (LAB) that's £100,000 (in round figures).

The entire SNP party was asked to return £3361.95.

There were about 75 MPs (Con, Lib, and Lab) who over-claimed more than the ENTIRE SNP party combined.

[eFestivals]

Wow. Between Bernard Jenkin (CON) and Barbara Follett (LAB) that's £100,000 (in round figures).

The entire SNP party was asked to return £3361.95.

There were about 75 MPs (Con, Lib, and Lab) who over-claimed more than the ENTIRE SNP party combined.

They're all equally fraudsters.

Some were better at being fraudsters, and some were incompetent fraudsters.

If you're gonna be accepting of fraudsters you're better off accepting the ones who do it well, as you might actually get some benefit back from it.

[viberunner]

It's surprising they had fraudulent claims, and at a greater rate than other parties.

No it isn't. I know maths is about as strong as your integrity even so I'll put it in terms you can understand: very low absolute numbers of a group have a disproportionate affect on percentages.

For example, if a mono-white village gains a new resident, a refugee from Somalia, and he commits a crime then that means statistically speaking 100% of all black men commit crimes. On the the other hand if he as an individual doesn't commit a crime then 100% of black men are crime-free. But I would't rely on either 100% to be applicable to a larger population sample.

Another example: ComRes could go out an poll a single person at random about voting elections. Assuming they hit they hit a tofu nutjob at random they could then post the result that 0% are going to vote Tory, Liberal, Labour, SNP, or UKIP, but 100% of the British electorate are going to vote Green.

[viberunner]

They're all equally fraudsters.

If you're gonna be accepting of fraudsters you're better off accepting the ones who do it well, as you might actually get some benefit back from it.

First, four of the six were asked to repay. The Telegraph said all six claimed on expenses, but the BBC site said only 4 were asked to repay.

Second, that's not what fraud is. There were many cases of fraud - that is using dishonesty to claim for money that was not entitled, e.g. the forging of receipts - but putting in an open and truthful claim that was accepted, then a reversal happened after the story, is not fraud. Fraud requires intentional deception.

There was plenty of that going on but I have yet to see evidence the SNP committed fraud.

Some open but unwise claims, but no evidence of fraud that I have yet seen but I'm happy to be corrected.

[eFestivals]

No it isn't. I know maths is about as strong as your integrity even so I'll put it in terms you can understand: very low absolute numbers of a group have a disproportionate affect on percentages.

For example, if a mono-white village gains a new resident, a refugee from Somalia, and he commits a crime then that means statistically speaking 100% of all black men commit crimes. On the the other hand if he as an individual doesn't commit a crime then 100% of black men are crime-free. But I would't rely on either 100% to be applicable to a larger population sample.

Another example: ComRes could go out an poll a single person at random about voting elections. Assuming they hit they hit a tofu nutjob at random they could then post the result that 0% are going to vote Tory, Liberal, Labour, SNP, or UKIP, but 100% of the British electorate are going to vote Green.

OK, OK, it's just badly unlucky that when Scots voted for a party claiming whiter-than-white-ness they elected a greater proportion of crooks than got found out in other parties.

Happy now?

Yeah, I know. They're your crooks and that makes them better than other crooks.

[eFestivals]

First, four of the six were asked to repay. The Telegraph said all six claimed on expenses, but the BBC site said only 4 were asked to repay.

Yes, that was the Telegraph highlighting what they'd found that looked like expenses abuse, before any context was given to them that could make any particular claim OK within the rules. 2 SNP MPs obviously came up with reasons/excuses that were accepted by the expenses regulator.

Second, that's not what fraud is. There were many cases of fraud - that is using dishonesty to claim for money that was not entitled, e.g. the forging of receipts - but putting in an open and truthful claim that was accepted, then a reversal happened after the story, is not fraud. Fraud requires intentional deception.

To use an extreme example, you're trying to suggest that it was possible to think a duck house classed as a reasonable expense onto the public purse. I say you're talking cock.

When it came down to it, the MPs were consciously choosing to abuse the rules and often abusing people who classed as their employees (so not in any place to refuse) if they didn't immediately sign the expenses off.

MPs like to suggest they've been shafted by rules being applied retrospectively. It's complete bollocks.

The real truth is that they only got repremanded for less than 10% of the piss takes, because they felt they were covered by the ambiguity of some bits of wordings and the regulator bottled out of testing it.

(PS: I can just imagine you arguing this line at the height of that scandal, and at also a time where you'd yet to find your one true love .. there's no position a snipper won't take in defence )

There was plenty of that going on but I have yet to see evidence the SNP committed fraud.

Some open but unwise claims, but no evidence of fraud that I have yet seen but I'm happy to be corrected.

Fraud. They claimed things as legitimate claims for expenses made as part of their work which they knew were not that.

But anyway ... the SNP were at it like all the others, and second only to the tories for it.

[viberunner]

OK, OK, it's just badly unlucky that when Scots voted for a party claiming whiter-than-white-ness...

Yeah, I know. They're your crooks

Do you have a source or citation for either allegation?

Salmond claimed he is not whiter-than-white. But I can't find much on the SNP front from criminality. They have suspended a Glasgow councillor Billy McAllister for being shouty and aggressive, and one local councillor was convicted of kerb crawling (with actual precious little actual evidence).

Compare this to Scottish Labour peer who tried to burn down a hotel full of sleeping guests, and having failed in his bid of mass-murder and having spent time in jail he was readmitted to the party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Watson,_Baron_Watson_of_Invergowrie#Fire-raising_conviction

The SNP are not whiter than white but we're not quite as mucky as that.

[viberunner]

Yes, that was the Telegraph highlighting what they'd found that looked like expenses abuse,

Nope. Two of them were for having a 2nd home in the capital and that's entirely reasonable and rational (as they have to work in London but also represent a Scottish constituency).

[viberunner]

To use an extreme example, you're trying to suggest that it was possible to think a duck house classed as a reasonable expense onto the public purse. I say you're talking cock.

A Duck House is neither a reasonable expense nor, if it was claimed openly as a duck house, an act of fraud. The two are very different.

I'd also argue decorating a second, London home (that you in effect require to live in two locations at once) is not unreasonable though some costs might be.

I'd also say an MP within a short drive or train journey from Westminster, greater London or some of the more accessible home counties, you shouldn't take a 2nd home but even by the time you've hit the midlands it's entirely reasonable let alone any further north.

[Comfy Bean]

Balls to the waterboys anyway, the cool kids will be at sinkane on west holts.

I'm hearing the cool kidz need to be in the kidz field around that time getting ready for Dynamo who is some sort of sorcerer I gather :-)

Anywayz, I thought you might of agreed with some of that waterboys song. Sticking his flag where it ill belongs... but still he sings an empire song etc...

He often tweaks the words to include a line about thatchers lies.

[LJS]

So Neil has decided that the best way to decide the title of most corrupt politician is the highest proportion of mp's caught out in the expenses scandal.

Is it really though? Is it right to compare as like for like Barbara Follet, Labour's champion (£42,458), with the SNP's champion Pete Wishart (£1600)?

Is it accurate to say "the snipper MPs have their noses in the trough as deeply as anyone else - more deeply than Labour, and more deeply than the LibDems" when the average claims (after appeals) looks like this?

Con = £3913

Lab = £2440

Lib = £1720

SNP = £840

Or what about the fact that the highest placed SNP mp in the table is at number 155 in the league table - in other words 154 mp's were trousering more than him.

So, yes Neil, proportionally the SNP are the worst but by any sane & rational way of looking at it they are actually the best least bad.

Thanks to Comfy for the time & effort to expose Neil's bollocks.

[Comfy Bean]

Was that bit earlier about Salmond spending £400 per MONTH on food in LONDON accurate?!?

No wonder he lost so much weight :-)

[LJS]

nationalisation.

It'll happen eventually anyway.

Everywhere.

Or we all die a horrible death.

It's one or the other.

very funny

I take it this is your way out of an argument you were losing?

It's quite a complex issue as I tried to point out. Too complex for you i guess.

[eFestivals]

Salmond claimed he is not whiter-than-white.

And the facts prove it.

- expenses fiddler

- liar to the Scottish people

- waster of tax-payers money.

[eFestivals]

A Duck House is neither a reasonable expense nor, if it was claimed openly as a duck house, an act of fraud. The two are very different.

outside the rules is outside the rules.

They didn't take a penny off any MPs who hadn't 100% clearly broken the rules.

They let every one of them off loads of clear abuse, because despite being clear abuse (expenses that couldn't be justified as reasonable for the public purse to pick up), the rules were not always explicit enough to nail those things as abuse.

Viberrunner - the supporting voice for fraudsters, particularly when they're those hated Westminster MPs. Nice.

I see you paid as much attention to the facts around the expenses scandal as you've paid to everything about Scottish indie.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So Neil has decided that the best way to decide the title of most corrupt politician is the highest proportion of mp's caught out in the expenses scandal.

I see you're playing the man.

It must be because I told a lie, right? :lol:

[eFestivals]

Was that bit earlier about Salmond spending £400 per MONTH on food in LONDON accurate?!?

No wonder he lost so much weight :-)

Not "spending".

"Claiming".

Fraudulently.

You know, like any fraudster.

[eFestivals]

No we won't. I haven't been able to find a definite date for the current Scotland Bill coming into effect but I did find a quote from David Mundell (SOS for Scotland) that he hoped it would come into effect by 2019. Until then we won't have any real ability to use the tax system in a redistributive way.

Note, this is not me saying this is what the SNP would do - It's what I'd like to see them do.

I've read in a Guardian report this morning that the Smith extra powers are expected to come into force in April 2017 or April 2018.

I'm guessing that which one it is will depends on what the SNP do to delay the bill's passage thru the house.

[LJS]

I see you're playing the man.

It must be because I told a lie, right? :lol:

Your point is clearly addressed in the crest of my post which you conveniently omitted to quote.

[LJS]

I've read in a Guardian report this morning that the Smith extra powers are expected to come into force in April 2017 or April 2018.

I'm guessing that which one it is will depends on what the SNP do to delay the bill's passage thru the house.

Why would the SNP want to delay it? Some English Labour & Tory mp's might but, whilst the SNP may not be keen on "instant" ffa, they clearly want additional powers as soon as possible. Whatever the implementation date, it clearly won't be next year, which was your initial claim.