It is correct to say the auditors wouldn't write the note although no one claimed that they would. The point I was making was that if the auditors weren't happy with something then they will push it back on the company they are auditing and give them the chance to correct. In the case of Gillingham then I cited Michael Anderson as an example. The actual reason for the delay in publishing the accounts might be a completely different issue.
You are confusing the difference between preparing a set of financial accounts and the act of signing them off. Scally does not have a financial back ground and would not have been involved in their preparation. The preparation would have been done by the finance team and Scally would have signed them off as a matter of trust. As I commented in a prior reply, Mike Quarrington is a qualified certified account and one of the primary reasons that companies hire certified accountants is to prepare the annual account. Personally I think Scally delegated the role of preparing the financial accounts to someone who knew what he was doing and then he added his signature to the relevant sheet when Michael Quarrington put it on his desk.
Long story short, it wouldn't surprise me if the only involvement Scally had was adding his signature in the right box.