wingsoverscotland--2020-07-22--Return To Arsehole Mountain

Return To Arsehole Mountain

The Scottish media is in a total frenzy this morning over the long-delayed publication of the “ Russia Report ” into alleged interference by Vladimir Putin ’ s regime in UK politics .
The Herald , Scotsman , Mail , Express and the i all lead their front pages with the story today , and the Telegraph did it yesterday .
So we thought you might like to see the entirety of the indyref coverage that ’ s actually in the 55-page report .
Here it is : That ’ s all of it .
The whole thing .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a single paragraph , so redacted that it doesn ’ t make any sense , based on a single example of something that had allegedly happened AFTER the referendum , and which was in any event supposedly intended for a Russian domestic audience , not voters in Scotland .
The meaning of the phrase “ credible open source commentary ” is explained very well by Craig Murray here , but will already be familiar to Wings readers under the name “ The Some Arsehole Doctrine ” .
All it means is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the UK government happens to want you to believe ” .
In this particular case the clown is Hugh “ Ben ” Nimmo , a man incapable of even being honest about his own name , and who ’ s paid £5,000 a month by the UK government specifically so he ’ ll say what it wants him to say under the auspices of the amusingly Orwellian-named spook bureau “ Integrity Initiative ” .
He ’ s aided and puffed up by demented Reds-under-the-bed witch-hunter David Leask – formerly of the Herald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his imbecile apprentice Jennifer Jones , literally a random nobody , who between them two years ago penned one of the most infamous pieces of completely evidence-free conspiracy gibberish ever seen in the pages of the Scottish press .
And then in turn that gibberish is cited as “ credible open source commentary ” and the whole thing operates as a mutual circle of support , in which the media reports that the government said that the media had reported something the government said and that must therefore prove that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to this tissue of fantasy nonsense , of course , has been to swallow the report and the media ’ s presentation of it in the most craven way imaginable .
The party ’ s defence spokesman astonishingly even urged his followers to read Leask ’ s endless paranoid ramblings on the subject .
Along with a bunch of other nutters including Edward Lucas , who in 2018 warned that Russia would poison the England team at that year ’ s World Cup to prevent them from winning the trophy , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not win a World Cup .
And naturally it ’ s also been deployed against Alex Salmond : Of course , it IS true that there was direct and overt interference in the independence referendum from political leaders in a foreign country : But there remains not a single solitary atom of evidence that Russia had any part in it – except for the time when Vladimir Putin , at the apparent urging of David Cameron , said “ One should not forget that being part of a single strong state has some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ” .
The mountain of hysteria that ’ s overshadowing the Scottish political sphere today isn ’ t even built from a molehill .
It ’ s built on literally nothing .
Not one single material fact .
But the media simply presents it as if there is and relies on the fact that nobody will read the actual document .
The Russia report is indeed full of truly shocking scandal , most of which concerns the complacency and recklessness of the British security services and the mind-boggling amounts of Russian money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including its Scottish branch office .
But not an atom of it is anything to do with the indyref , and anyone who tells you otherwise almost certainly has something to hide that they ’ re desperately trying to distract you from .

The Scottish media is in a total frenzy this morning over the long-delayed publication of the “Russia Report” into alleged interference by Vladimir Putin’s regime in UK politics.
The Herald, Scotsman, Mail, Express and the i all lead their front pages with the story today, and the Telegraph did it yesterday. So we thought you might like to see the entirety of the indyref coverage that’s actually in the 55-page report.
Here it is:
That’s all of it. The whole thing. The total evidence of “Russian meddling” is a single paragraph, so redacted that it doesn’t make any sense, based on a single example of something that had allegedly happened AFTER the referendum, and which was in any event supposedly intended for a Russian domestic audience, not voters in Scotland.
The meaning of the phrase “credible open source commentary” is explained very well by Craig Murray here, but will already be familiar to Wings readers under the name “The Some Arsehole Doctrine”. All it means is “any old rubbish written by some clown that the UK government happens to want you to believe”.
In this particular case the clown is Hugh “Ben” Nimmo, a man incapable of even being honest about his own name, and who was paid £5,000 a month by the UK government specifically so he’d say what it wanted him to say under the auspices of the amusingly Orwellian-named spook bureau “Integrity Initiative”.
(It’s very much like the way the Scottish Government funds womens’ and LGBT groups on the strict condition that they adopt “trans-inclusive” policies, so that the Scottish Government can then say those groups conveniently support its trans policies when it comes to consultations and the like.)
He was aided/puffed up by demented Reds-under-the-bed witch-hunter David Leask – formerly of the Herald, now freelancing for The Times – and his imbecile apprentice Jennifer Jones, literally a random nobody, who between them two years ago penned one of the most infamous pieces of completely evidence-free conspiracy gibberish ever seen in the pages of the Scottish press.
And then in turn that gibberish is cited as “credible open source commentary” and the whole thing operates as a mutual circle of support, in which the media reports that the government said that the media had reported something the government said and that must therefore prove that it’s true.
(We gather Nimmo now performs much the same work of fabrication and innuendo for Nick Clegg at Facebook, persumably for even more money. Nice gig if you can get it.)
The SNP’s response to this tissue of fantasy nonsense, of course, has been to swallow the report and the media’s presentation of it in the most craven way imaginable.
(The report showed ABSOLUTELY NO “links to the 2014 independence vote”.)
The party’s defence spokesman astonishingly even urged his followers to read Leask’s endless paranoid ramblings on the subject.
And those of a bunch of other nutters including Edward Lucas, who in 2018 warned that Russia would poison the England team at that year’s World Cup to prevent them from winning the trophy, as if England ever needed any help to not win a World Cup.
And naturally it’s also been deployed against Alex Salmond:
(We’re not quite sure in what way the SNP intends to exert “pressure” on Salmond over his RT show, given that he’s a private citizen who isn’t a member of their party. It sounds, well, almost like the sort of thing you’d expect the Russian government to do.)
Of course, it IS true that there was direct and overt interference in the independence referendum from political leaders in a foreign country:
But there remains not a single solitary atom of evidence that Russia had any part in it – except for the time when Vladimir Putin, at the apparent urging of David Cameron, said “One should not forget that being part of a single strong state has some advantages, and one should not overlook this”.
If Putin meddled with Scotland’s independence referendum, it’s only because Tories asked him to – as well as Obama, Barroso, the Queen… #indyref pic.twitter.com/2IIDNpYeYG — Phantom Power (@PhantomPower14) July 21, 2020
The mountain of hysteria that’s overshadowing the Scottish political sphere today isn’t even built from a molehill. It’s built on literally nothing. Not one single material fact. But the media simply presents it as if there is and relies on the fact that nobody will read the actual document.
The Russia report is indeed full of truly shocking scandal, most of which concerns the complacency and recklessness of the British security services and the mind-boggling amounts of Russian money being openly funnelled to the Conservative Party, including its Scottish branch office.
But not a solitary atom of it is anything to do with the indyref, and anyone who tells you otherwise almost certainly has something to hide that they’re desperately trying to distract you from.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-23--Nationalism rejection of the day

Nationalism rejection of the day

Maybe the flag could have been a bit bigger , but a solid 8/10 for the staunch rejection of all @ @ @ @ @ and tweet .
Jamie Halcro Johnston , incidentally , secured a whopping 4.1 % of @ @ @ @ @ Tories in the 2016 election , losing his deposit in the party ’ s lowest @ @ @ @ @ nadir of a long slide from 23 % in 2003 ) , so we ’ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s qualified to speak on behalf of the whole constituency , but we ’ @ @ @ @ @ this time in the light of such an absolutely stunning rejection of nationalism .
Trebles @ @ @

Maybe the flag could have been a bit bigger, but a solid 8/10 for the staunch rejection of all things nationalistic in this picture and tweet.
Jamie Halcro Johnston, incidentally, secured a whopping 4.1% of the Orkney vote for the Tories in the 2016 election, losing his deposit in the party’s lowest vote share ever (the nadir of a long slide from 23% in 2003), so we’re not absolutely sure he’s qualified to speak on behalf of the whole constituency, but we’ll let that one go this time in the light of such an absolutely stunning rejection of nationalism. Trebles all round.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-24--View from the green benches

View from the green benches

The closure of the UK Parliament for the summer holidays this week marked the end of my first political “ year ” with the SNP Group at Westminster , albeit a truncated one under unusual circumstances .
Having served in Holyrood much is similar and familiar , even if anachronistic in style and reeking of snobbery .
Staff are remarkably helpful and individual members can be exceedingly pleasant .
But this isn ’ t our Parliament and we ’ re most certainly not amongst friends .
The whole structure of the system ’ s geared towards HM Government with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a third party , let alone one that openly seeks to bring about the end of the British state , are limited indeed .
It ’ s always been thus .
I recall the lonely furrow that was ploughed for many long years by Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart .
It must have been so much harder for them with far fewer resources and less public support for the cause .
But our party has never been bigger , and independence has never had greater support .
Yet rather than seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scots more generally , the actions and attitude of the Tory government have been to close down opposition and reduce the role of Scots , with English Votes for English Laws unleashed and relentless barracking of Ian Blackford ( even if the latter has lessened as they ’ ve realised how boorish it looks ) .
The 2019 election with SNP gains and Tory losses , responded to by packing of the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MPs .
Petty prejudices compound the institutional blockages , with a refusal to term an office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formerly been the Liberals ’ .
Instead the term “ third party ” was imposed , neutering nationalist representation .
It ’ s only going to worsen as the Tories face down another independence referendum .
There ’ s no doubt that my colleagues have worked hard .
But the question is to what purpose ?
What is the role of SNP members at Westminster , especially as a Tory government turns the screw on devolution and takes actions that are deeply harmful to our society and economy ?
Action is needed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sceptical about SNP involvement at Westminster even , although I accept its necessity .
Scots won ’ t vote for an abstentionist party as happens in Northern Ireland with Sinn Fein .
A refusal to go at all would simply result in a querying of why you ’ re standing .
Votes wouldn ’ t be won and seats vital to promote the cause of independence would be lost .
Do we really want more Scottish Labour MPs back ?
Time has also moved on and UK power has been greatly centralised since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , firstly under Charles Stewart Parnell and then under John Redmond , used Westminster rules and procedure to great effect .
Additionally , the SNP neither has the numbers that they had nor holds the sway they did , when they held the balance of power between Liberal and Tory .
That doesn ’ t mean that nothing can be achieved .
Jim Sillars , when famously elected in the Govan by-election , used it very successfully as a platform to campaign around the country against the poll tax .
Both then and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in the House of Commons that have resonated in Scotland and been important for the cause .
Sometimes it ’ s important to vote even in the knowledge of certain defeat , highlighting the futility of Westminster and the need for independence .
The importance of that equally shouldn ’ t be overplayed .
Many more excellent contributions go unreported and unnoticed , and the rules of the Westminster game will always be set against us .
So , using the platform and building of the constituency base is essential .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the resource for the cause is essential .
But dutiful attendance and supine acceptance of anything and everything most certainly isn ’ t .
What is the purpose of serving on committees where scrutiny is almost entirely of English and Welsh legislation ?
In 2015 Angus Robertson sat SNP MPs down on the green benches with the stated intention of being the real opposition .
Now that could never be .
By its very ethos it was wrong , let alone by virtue of numbers being impossible .
That has been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributions .
Indeed , it was partly responsible for the debacle of 2017 , but another opportunity has been given and the SNP must use it .
For everything has changed with the election of 2019 .
No more are there any close votes where SNP intervention could be crucial .
Instead whether on Brexit , immigration or trade , Tory majorities have rammed home legislation deeply damaging to Scotland .
Rather than respecting Scotland ’ s views , Johnson is intent on rejecting them .
There ’ s work to be done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituencies , building the base as we confront Tory intransigence .
In Westminster SNP must be an insurgency .
Attacking when it can , participating only when it ’ s necessary and for Scottish interests .
That ’ ll enrage unionists more than abstentionism .
Our strategy must change .
*Kenny MacAskill is an SNP MP and the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice .

The closure of the UK Parliament for the summer holidays this week marked the end of my first political “year” with the SNP Group at Westminster, albeit a truncated one under unusual circumstances. Having served in Holyrood much is similar and familiar, even if anachronistic in style and reeking of snobbery. Staff are remarkably helpful and individual members can be exceedingly pleasant.
But this isn’t our Parliament and we’re most certainly not amongst friends.
The whole structure of the system’s geared towards HM Government with a slot for the official opposition. Opportunities for a third party, let alone one that openly seeks to bring about the end of the British state, are limited indeed.
It’s always been thus. I recall the lonely furrow that was ploughed for many long years by Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart. It must have been so much harder for them with far fewer resources and less public support for the cause. But our party has never been bigger, and independence has never had greater support.
Yet rather than seeking to appease independence supporters, let alone charm Scots more generally, the actions and attitude of the Tory government have been to close down opposition and reduce the role of Scots, with English Votes for English Laws unleashed and relentless barracking of Ian Blackford (even if the latter has lessened as they’ve realised how boorish it looks). The 2019 election with SNP gains and Tory losses, responded to by packing of the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MPs.
Petty prejudices compound the institutional blockages, with a refusal to term an office wing the SNP block though it had formerly been the Liberals’. Instead the term “third party” was imposed, neutering nationalist representation. It’s only going to worsen as the Tories face down another independence referendum.
There’s no doubt that my colleagues have worked hard. But the question is to what purpose? What is the role of SNP members at Westminster, especially as a Tory government turns the screw on devolution and takes actions that are deeply harmful to our society and economy? Action is needed and quickly.
I’ve always been sceptical about SNP involvement at Westminster even, although I accept its necessity. Scots won’t vote for an abstentionist party as happens in Northern Ireland with Sinn Fein. A refusal to go at all would simply result in a querying of why you’re standing. Votes wouldn’t be won and seats vital to promote the cause of independence would be lost. Do we really want more Scottish Labour MPs back?
Time has also moved on and UK power has been greatly centralised since the days of the Irish Parliamentary Party, firstly under Charles Stewart Parnell and then under John Redmond, used Westminster rules and procedure to great effect. Additionally, the SNP neither has the numbers that they had nor holds the sway they did, when they held the balance of power between Liberal and Tory.
That doesn’t mean that nothing can be achieved. Jim Sillars, when famously elected in the Govan by-election, used it very successfully as a platform to campaign around the country against the poll tax. Both then and now questions have been asked and speeches made in the House of Commons that have resonated in Scotland and been important for the cause.
Sometimes it’s important to vote even in the knowledge of certain defeat, highlighting the futility of Westminster and the need for independence. The importance of that equally shouldn’t be overplayed. Many more excellent contributions go unreported and unnoticed, and the rules of the Westminster game will always be set against us.
So, using the platform and building of the constituency base is essential. The political profile for the individual is important and the resource for the cause is essential. But dutiful attendance and supine acceptance of anything and everything most certainly isn’t. What is the purpose of serving on committees where scrutiny is almost entirely of English and Welsh legislation?
In 2015 Angus Robertson sat SNP MPs down on the green benches with the stated intention of being the real opposition. Now that could never be. By its very ethos it was wrong, let alone by virtue of numbers being impossible. That has been a counsel of despair, despite valiant individual contributions. Indeed, it was partly responsible for the debacle of 2017, but another opportunity has been given and the SNP must use it.
For everything has changed with the election of 2019. No more are there any close votes where SNP intervention could be crucial. Instead whether on Brexit, immigration or trade, Tory majorities have rammed home legislation deeply damaging to Scotland. Rather than respecting Scotland’s views, Johnson is intent on rejecting them.
There’s work to be done but it’s in mostly our constituencies, building the base as we confront Tory intransigence. In Westminster SNP must be an insurgency. Attacking when it can, participating only when it’s necessary and for Scottish interests. That’ll enrage unionists more than abstentionism. Our strategy must change.
.
*Kenny MacAskill is an SNP MP and the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-24--On the other hand

On the other hand

Alert readers will probably have noticed that earlier today we featured a post by SNP MP Kenny MacAskill making the seemingly-unsurprising statement that the purpose of his party is to “ bring about the end of the British state ” .
So we thought he might have wanted to check with his colleague Stewart McDonald , the SNP ’ s defence spokeman and an obsessive Russophobe , when we saw a snide quote from him in a Belfast Telegraph story disparaging former leader Alex Salmond ( who ’ d advocated the reunification of Ireland during a chat with ex-Taoiseach Bertie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ proposing the disruption of the United Kingdom ” .
It later transpired that there ’ d been an error and the quote should have been ( and now is ) attributed to a Scottish Conservatives spokesman .
But we couldn ’ t help noticing the complete lack of shock with which the comment was received on social media in the several hours between its publication and correction , as if nobody thought it at all implausible that McDonald would have said such a thing .
( And indeed , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Salmond ’ s RT show . )
There were plenty harsh criticisms of him , but we didn ’ t see a single tweet suggesting that a mistake might have been made .
Never more so than in 2020 , sometimes fiction is more believable than truth .

Alert readers will probably have noticed that earlier today we featured a post by SNP MP Kenny MacAskill making the seemingly-unsurprising statement that the purpose of his party is to “bring about the end of the British state”.
So we thought he might have wanted to check with his colleague Stewart McDonald, the SNP’s defence spokeman and an obsessive Russophobe, when we saw a snide quote from him in a Belfast Telegraph story disparaging former leader Alex Salmond (who’d advocated the reunification of Ireland during a chat with ex-Taoiseach Bertie Ahern) for the heinous crime of “proposing the disruption of the United Kingdom”.
It later transpired that there’d been an error and the quote should have been (and now is) attributed to a Scottish Conservatives spokesman.
But we couldn’t help noticing the complete lack of shock with which the comment was received on social media in the several hours between its publication and correction, as if nobody thought it at all implausible that McDonald would have said such a thing. (And indeed, it’s barely different from what he HAS said about Salmond’s RT show.) There were plenty harsh criticisms of him, but we didn’t see a single tweet suggesting that a mistake might have been made.
Never more so than in 2020, sometimes fiction is more believable than truth.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-27--The pieces of the jigsaw

The pieces of the jigsaw

Late last week , Wings finally received a long-overdue full response to the queries we first made to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) in early April , regarding several matters connected to the failed prosecution of Alex Salmond .
The unmappable fog-filled labyrinth that COPFS ( under the Lord Advocate , W. James Wolffe QC ) , the Scottish Government and the civil service are attempting to construct around these matters is so tangled that it ’ s taken us a few days to sit down and make some sense of it , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ painfully slowly , into the light is one that paints a truly disturbing picture .
We invite you to examine it for yourself and see if you disagree .
Firstly you should see the letter in its entirety : I refer to your emails dated 28 May 2020 and 1 June 2020 , and to previous correspondence in this regard .
May I firstly apologise for the delay in replying to you .
This has been a result of pressure of other business but nevertheless I accept that you should have received a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In your emails you pose questions regarding proceedings which are currently live before the Court in relation to Craig Murray and Mark Hirst .
As those cases are live it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them in detail but there are some general issues which I can respond to .
In your email dated 28 May 2020 you pose a number of questions regarding the involvement of the Lord Advocate in decision making in relation to the criminal proceedings against Alex Salmond and associated proceedings which have arisen during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and who is responsible for those proceedings .
As you have anticipated in your email , the Lord Advocate recused himself from involvement in the case against Mr Salmond .
As such , he has had no personal involvement in the criminal investigation of , or the criminal proceedings against , Alex Salmond or in the associated investigations and proceedings which have arisen during and after that case .
The same applies to the Solicitor General for Scotland .
In any case where the Law Officers are not , for whatever reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their normal decision-making function .
That has been , and is , the position in relation to these cases .
However , the Lord Advocate is constitutionally responsible for the systems of prosecution of crime and investigation of deaths in Scotland , and is answerable to the Scottish Parliament for the operation of those systems .
That remains the position , regardless of whether or not he has been personally involved in the decision-making in any individual case .
We do not name the individual member or members of Crown Counsel involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advocate who is responsible for their decisions .
The final question in your email dated 28 May 2020 asks about the Crown ’ s position in relation to the individuals who were named by you in your email dated 5 April 2020 to COPFS .
As you were advised in our email to you dated 1 June 2020 it is not intended to take action against those individuals .
I will address this further in my response to your response to that email , also dated 1 June 2020 .
The first issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 2020 is a demand to know the name of the official who had responded top your earlier email .
With the greatest of respect , your correspondence is with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service .
It is not personal correspondence from an individual member of staff who replies on behalf of COPFS .
I do not accept your assertion that it is unacceptable that you received an anonymous response .
In the event that you wish to escalate matters there is a complaints procedure available on the COPFS website The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said email is to question why it would be inappropriate for COPFS to provide detailed information regarding the reasons for taking no action against the individuals named by you in your email dated 4 June 2020 .
As previously advised , each of the publications you referred to were carefully considered and a decision taken not to take action .
As with any allegation of contempt of court the Crown requires to consider each case on its own facts and circumstances , having regard to both the content and context of the publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there has in fact been a breach of the legislation and if it is in the public interest to take action .
It is not appropriate for COPFS to provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to a decision in each case and I shall not do so .
Further , you ask for advice on whether or not you can publish specific materials .
I have to advise you that it is not the role of COPFS to provide legal advice to journalists .
It is the responsibility of individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own independent legal advice about contempt of court when considering whether or not to publish articles .
If they decide to publish prejudicial information in respect of live criminal proceedings in Scotland , or as in the current circumstances in breach of an order of the court , then consideration may be given to petitioning the court for contempt of court proceedings in terms of the 1981 Act .
Finally , notwithstanding the above , having regard to your comment that there are no live proceedings I should remind you that on 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which prohibits the publication of the names and identity and any information likely to disclose the identity of the complainers in the case of HMA v Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond , and that that order remains in force .
Now let ’ s unpack it a little .
It ’ s interesting to have it confirmed that COPFS and the Lord Advocate are answerable to the Scottish Parliament – and therefore primarily to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice , Humza Yousaf – because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May this year we received a reply from Mr Yousaf to the effect that he and the rest of Parliament in fact held no power over COPFS or the Lord Advocate : So immediately we have the Lord Advocate saying he ’ s answerable to Parliament , and the Parliament ’ s justice secretary saying he isn ’ t .
It ’ s not the best of starts .
The next interesting part concerns the failure to prosecute the newspaper journalists who for the sake of brevity we ’ ll call the Garavelli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather revealing line in particular in it : What ’ s fascinating about that is that COPFS is very carefully refusing to tell us whether it thinks the Garavelli Six committed a contempt of court by publishing information that enabled “ jigsaw identification ” of one of Alex Salmond ’ s accusers ( which they obviously and demonstrably did ) , but is saying that even if they did it might not be in the public interest to prosecute them for it .
That ’ s because if it answers the former question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) if they did commit contempt COPFS has to prosecute them or come up with a very convincing reason why not , or ( 2 ) if they didn ’ t commit contempt then COPFS has to tell us that we ’ re allowed to reproduce the paragraph from Garavelli ’ s article , which would reveal unmistakeably that they DID commit such a contempt and take us right back to ( 1 ) .
That paragraph , pictured below but redacted by us , which is still available for the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original Tortoise Media piece and the repeat on the Scotsman website – which the COPFS has elected not to bring a prosecution over OR demand the removal of , but which it repeatedly refuses to tell us we can quote – is at the heart of this entire mess .
COPFS is caught in a cleft stick .
For the reasons noted above , it can neither admit the paragraph is contempt , nor say that it isn ’ t .
The only way COPFS can prosecute Craig Murray but not the Garavelli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state of permanent quantum uncertainty , like Schrodinger ’ s Cat .
The paragraph must at all times be potentially contemptuous , so that nobody can use it to show how selective , inconsistent and manifestly biased the prosecution of Craig Murray alone is , and so that it can be used to threaten anyone who interjects on his behalf that they might be next in the dock , as Ms Miller is keen to remind us : Yet at the same time the paragraph must be not contemptuous , so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any action against those it considers its friends and allies .
And when you poke at that contradiction , it gets very huffy .
The above passage from Ms Miller ’ s letter is palpably untrue .
The COPFS is not just another legal opinion when it comes to matters of contempt .
It is not comparable to a lawyer that a journalist might hire for a view .
COPFS is the referee – it ’ s literally the entity that decides whether contempt has occurred and should be put before a judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it thinks they would be breaking the law by publishing certain facts , not to protect the journalists but to protect the people whose identity is being concealed by the court ’ s order .
That ’ s because the job of the institutions of law is not only to solve crime but wherever possible to prevent it from happening in the first place .
If you walk up to a police officer and say “ Excuse me , but I ’ m thinking of smashing that shop window and walking off with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you tell me if that would be a crime or not ?
” it ’ s their job to tell you and thereby save the poor shop owner from suffering the theft , not advise you to contact a lawyer for an opinion and only start chasing you once there ’ s broken glass all over the street .
And as it happens , we have some backup for that view .
It comes from a letter sent a few days ago to SNP MP and former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill – who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these issues – and it comes from no less a figure than.. the Lord Advocate himself .
While repeating Ms Miller ’ s strange point about seeking intrinsically less authoritative legal advice , Mr Wolffe notes that the duties of COPFS include providing the media with relevant information where appropriate .
And in circumstances where information is already freely publicly available , and COPFS is aware of it and has investigated it and taken no action , it ’ s simply impossible to construct any sort of coherent or credible argument for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , you can quote that information ” .
After a close reading of Chapter 17 , we can find nothing anywhere in the COPFS Book Of Regulations that would prohibit the answering of our simple question about whether we can quote the Garavelli Paragraph , which anyone can read for themselves .
But a greater question arises from all of this evasion and buck-passing and denial .
Could such determined obfuscation really be , as some suspect , being deployed for something as base as an act of petty revenge against allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proxies for the state ’ s failure to successfully prosecute the man himself ?
An article written by the aforementioned Kenny MacAskill which was published in the Scotsman last week , when assessed in the wider context alongside other pieces of the puzzle , offered a deeply disturbing possible alternative explanation : The implication – intended or otherwise – of the piece is that the prosecution of Craig Murray could in true purpose be the deliberate creation of some thick smoke around the Parliamentary inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution of Mr Salmond – actions already found to have been unlawful , unfair and improper and cost the Scottish taxpayer a fortune , yet which have brought down no consequences on anyone .
The convenience of a live case against Mr Murray as an excuse behind which to hide the behaviour of politicians and officials all the way up to the First Minister and her Permanent Secretary , which would otherwise be exposed to full public view , suddenly seems all too apparent .
There are further aspects of the case to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally unable to reveal to readers at this stage , and which are even more alarming .
However , on the evidence above alone , it appears to us that something is very very rotten in the state of Scotland .

Late last week, Wings finally received a long-overdue full response to the queries we first made to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) in early April, regarding several matters connected to the failed prosecution of Alex Salmond.
(You’re supposed to get a reply in 20 working days. It’s been nearly four months.)
The unmappable fog-filled labyrinth that COPFS (under the Lord Advocate, W. James Wolffe QC), the Scottish Government and the civil service are attempting to construct around these matters is so tangled that it’s taken us a few days to sit down and make some sense of it, but the truth that’s being coaxed, painfully slowly, into the light is one that paints a truly disturbing picture.
We invite you to examine it for yourself and see if you disagree.
Firstly you should see the letter in its entirety:
23 July 2020 Dear Mr Campbell Contempt of court: HM Advocate vs Alexander Salmond I refer to your emails dated 28 May 2020 and 1 June 2020, and to previous correspondence in this regard. May I firstly apologise for the delay in replying to you. This has been a result of pressure of other business but nevertheless I accept that you should have received a response to your emails before now. In your emails you pose questions regarding proceedings which are currently live before the Court in relation to Craig Murray and Mark Hirst. As those cases are live it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them in detail but there are some general issues which I can respond to. In your email dated 28 May 2020 you pose a number of questions regarding the involvement of the Lord Advocate in decision making in relation to the criminal proceedings against Alex Salmond and associated proceedings which have arisen during and after the case against Mr Salmond, and who is responsible for those proceedings. As you have anticipated in your email, the Lord Advocate recused himself from involvement in the case against Mr Salmond. As such, he has had no personal involvement in the criminal investigation of, or the criminal proceedings against, Alex Salmond or in the associated investigations and proceedings which have arisen during and after that case. The same applies to the Solicitor General for Scotland. In any case where the Law Officers are not, for whatever reason, personally involved, Crown Counsel exercise their normal decision-making function. That has been, and is, the position in relation to these cases. However, the Lord Advocate is constitutionally responsible for the systems of prosecution of crime and investigation of deaths in Scotland, and is answerable to the Scottish Parliament for the operation of those systems. That remains the position, regardless of whether or not he has been personally involved in the decision-making in any individual case. We do not name the individual member or members of Crown Counsel involved in decision making as it is the Lord Advocate who is responsible for their decisions. The final question in your email dated 28 May 2020 asks about the Crown’s position in relation to the individuals who were named by you in your email dated 5 April 2020 to COPFS. As you were advised in our email to you dated 1 June 2020 it is not intended to take action against those individuals. I will address this further in my response to your response to that email, also dated 1 June 2020. The first issue you raise in your email dated 1 June 2020 is a demand to know the name of the official who had responded top your earlier email. With the greatest of respect, your correspondence is with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is not personal correspondence from an individual member of staff who replies on behalf of COPFS. I do not accept your assertion that it is unacceptable that you received an anonymous response. In the event that you wish to escalate matters there is a complaints procedure available on the COPFS website The second issue which you raise in your said email is to question why it would be inappropriate for COPFS to provide detailed information regarding the reasons for taking no action against the individuals named by you in your email dated 4 June 2020. As previously advised, each of the publications you referred to were carefully considered and a decision taken not to take action. As with any allegation of contempt of court the Crown requires to consider each case on its own facts and circumstances, having regard to both the content and context of the publication, both to assess whether or not there has in fact been a breach of the legislation and if it is in the public interest to take action. It is not appropriate for COPFS to provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to a decision in each case and I shall not do so. Further, you ask for advice on whether or not you can publish specific materials. I have to advise you that it is not the role of COPFS to provide legal advice to journalists. It is the responsibility of individual journalists and media outlets to seek their own independent legal advice about contempt of court when considering whether or not to publish articles. If they decide to publish prejudicial information in respect of live criminal proceedings in Scotland, or as in the current circumstances in breach of an order of the court, then consideration may be given to petitioning the court for contempt of court proceedings in terms of the 1981 Act. Finally, notwithstanding the above, having regard to your comment that there are no live proceedings I should remind you that on 10 March 2020 the Court granted an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which prohibits the publication of the names and identity and any information likely to disclose the identity of the complainers in the case of HMA v Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, and that that order remains in force. Yours sincerely
LINDSEY MILLER
Deputy Crown Agent Serious Casework
Now let’s unpack it a little.
It’s interesting to have it confirmed that COPFS and the Lord Advocate are answerable to the Scottish Parliament – and therefore primarily to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Humza Yousaf – because as alert readers might recall, in May this year we received a reply from Mr Yousaf to the effect that he and the rest of Parliament in fact held no power over COPFS or the Lord Advocate:
So immediately we have the Lord Advocate saying he’s answerable to Parliament, and the Parliament’s justice secretary saying he isn’t. It’s not the best of starts.
The next interesting part concerns the failure to prosecute the newspaper journalists who for the sake of brevity we’ll call the Garavelli Nine, and there’s one rather revealing line in particular in it:
What’s fascinating about that is that COPFS is very carefully refusing to tell us whether it thinks the Garavelli Nine committed a contempt of court by publishing information that enabled “jigsaw identification” of one of Alex Salmond’s accusers (which they obviously and demonstrably did), but is saying that even if they did it might not be in the public interest to prosecute them for it.
That’s because if it answers the former question it has only two options: (1) if they did commit contempt COPFS has to prosecute them or come up with a very convincing reason why not, or (2) if they didn’t commit contempt then COPFS has to tell us that we’re allowed to reproduce the paragraph from Garavelli’s article, which would reveal unmistakeably that they DID commit such a contempt and take us right back to (1).
That paragraph, pictured below but redacted by us, which is still available for the public to read freely online both in the original Tortoise Media piece and the repeat on the Scotsman website – which the COPFS has elected not to bring a prosecution over OR demand the removal of, but which it repeatedly refuses to tell us we can quote – is at the heart of this entire mess.
COPFS is caught in a cleft stick. For the reasons noted above, it can neither admit the paragraph is contempt, nor say that it isn’t. The only way COPFS can prosecute Craig Murray but not the Garavelli Nine is to keep the paragraph in a state of permanent quantum uncertainty, like Schrodinger’s Cat.
The paragraph must at all times be potentially contemptuous, so that nobody can use it to show how selective, inconsistent and manifestly biased the prosecution of Craig Murray alone is, and so that it can be used to threaten anyone who interjects on his behalf that they might be next in the dock, as Ms Miller is keen to remind us:
Yet at the same time the paragraph must be not contemptuous, so that COPFS doesn’t have to take any action against those it considers its friends and allies. And when you poke at that contradiction, it gets very huffy.
The above passage from Ms Miller’s letter is palpably untrue. The COPFS is not just another legal opinion when it comes to matters of contempt. It is not comparable to a lawyer that a journalist might hire for a view. COPFS is the referee – it’s literally the entity that decides whether contempt has occurred and should be put before a judge.
It absolutely SHOULD advise journalists whether it thinks they would be breaking the law by publishing certain facts, not to protect the journalists but to protect the people whose identity is being concealed by the court’s order.
That’s because the job of the institutions of law is not only to solve crime but wherever possible to prevent it from happening in the first place. If you walk up to a police officer and say “Excuse me, but I’m thinking of smashing that shop window and walking off with that rather lovely new laptop, can you tell me if that would be a crime or not?” it’s their job to tell you and thereby save the poor shop owner from suffering the theft, not advise you to contact a lawyer for an opinion and only start chasing you once there’s broken glass all over the street.
And as it happens, we have some backup for that view. It comes from a letter sent a few days ago to SNP MP and former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill – who has also been making some enquiries relating to these issues – and it comes from no less a figure than.. the Lord Advocate himself.
While repeating Ms Miller’s strange point about seeking intrinsically less authoritative legal advice, Mr Wolffe notes that the duties of COPFS include providing the media with relevant information where appropriate. And in circumstances where information is already freely publicly available, and COPFS is aware of it and has investigated it and taken no action, it’s simply impossible to construct any sort of coherent or credible argument for why it could not simply say “Yes, you can quote that information”.
After a close reading of Chapter 17, we can find nothing anywhere in the COPFS Book Of Regulations that would prohibit the answering of our simple question about whether we can quote the Garavelli Paragraph, which anyone can read for themselves.
But a greater question arises from all of this evasion and buck-passing and denial. Could such determined obfuscation really be, as some suspect, being deployed for something as base as an act of petty revenge against allies of Alex Salmond, serving as unlucky proxies for the state’s failure to successfully prosecute the man himself?
An article written by the aforementioned Kenny MacAskill which was published in the Scotsman last week, when assessed in the wider context alongside other pieces of the puzzle, offered a deeply disturbing possible alternative explanation:
The implication – intended or otherwise – of the piece is that the prosecution of Craig Murray could in true purpose be the deliberate creation of some thick smoke around the Parliamentary inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Government, civil service and justice system around the prosecution of Mr Salmond – actions already found to have been unlawful, unfair and improper and cost the Scottish taxpayer a fortune, yet which have brought down no consequences on anyone.
The convenience of a live case against Mr Murray as an excuse behind which to hide the behaviour of politicians and officials all the way up to the First Minister and her Permanent Secretary, which would otherwise be exposed to full public view, suddenly seems all too apparent.
(And of course, the prosecution for contempt of a number of journalists more sympathetic to the First Minister than her predecessor might well be imagined to damage the prospects of the mainstream Scottish media’s compliance with any such hypothetical cover-up.)
There are further aspects of the case to which this site is privy but is legally unable to reveal to readers at this stage, and which are even more alarming. However, on the evidence above alone, it appears to us that something is very very rotten in the state of Scotland.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-26--Soapbox: In the hawk’s nest

Soapbox: In the hawk’s nest

This week saw publication of the long-awaited Intelligence and Security Committee ( ISC ) report on alleged Russian interference in British affairs .
Despite media hysteria , the report contained no new revelations , just all-too-familiar catastrophising about Moscow ’ s ill-defined “ disinformation ” efforts and warnings of the undue influence rich Russians ( most of whom are actually Kremlin opponents ) have bought themselves .
The most salient point for supporters of Scottish independence to consider was the allegation that Moscow ’ s interference efforts extended to the 2014 indyref .
As Wings pointed out earlier this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support this sensational claim amounted to nothing more than a heavily-redacted single paragraph , citing “ credible open source commentary ” as its sole source .
A look at the paragraph ’ s accompanying footnote reveals the “ credible open source ” commentator was Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council .
For those in the fortunate position of being unfamiliar with his work , Nimmo is known for , among other things , falsely identifying a Syrian-Australian blogger and a British pensioner as Russian bots – so clearly someone whose expertise should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Russian infiltration into Scottish politics .
I mention this not simply to reveal the transparently amateurish nature of the ISC ’ s report but rather to offer a commentary on the SNP ’ s ( predictably ) disappointing response to its allegations .
Despite the wafer-thin amounts of evidence to support its charges , Scotland ’ s ruling party has fully embraced the Westminster narrative that Scotland is under threat from the Russian hordes .
Instead of highlighting the report ’ s evidence-free nature , Nicola Sturgeon warned “ we should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility of Russian interference in our democratic processes ” .
In fairness to the First Minister , she at least did note that the report was not substantive enough to draw definitive conclusions ; something that many of her colleagues appear to have missed .
Writing in The National , MP Alyn Smith – sounding more like a Reaganite Republican warning about the “ Evil Empire ” than a representative of a nominally progressive party – argued a “ hostile foreign power … has infiltrated every aspect of political and economic life in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has actively sought to undermine our democracy and our way of life ” .
Echoing this sentiment , Westminster leader Ian Blackford said on a recent radio interview that we must focus on the impact Russia has “ not just on our democracy ” but “ right across our public life ” .
On their official Twitter page , the SNP went so far as to attack Boris Johnson from the right , implying that the Tories have been insufficiently tough on Russia in the face of their unquestioned threat .
Perhaps most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SNP has accepted the Russian-threat narrative without the slightest degree of scepticism , but , in endorsing the report without qualification the SNP has signed on to all of the ISC ’ s recommendations .
MP John Nicholson explicitly supported the committee ’ s policy suggestions , tweeting that both “ the report and it ’ s ( sic ) tough recommendations ” were “ very timely ” .
Included as part of these “ tough recommendations ” are calls for MI5 to have increased power , along with the introduction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Espionage Act which would essentially criminalise all reporting on the subject .
That the SNP has so far raised no objection to this almost seems like a betrayal of the independence movement itself .
To my mind , Scottish nationalists should be proud enemies of British security services , not champions of increasing their power .
Alas , though , the SNP ’ s response to the Russia report is very much indicative of a wider problem plaguing the party .
In addition to their other recent shortcomings ( to put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as their disregard of human biology and seeming indifference to independence – SNP supporters should be very concerned about the party ’ s broader world view .
Although not endorsing British militarism ( with the very shameful exception of NATO ’ s disastrous 2011 war in Libya ) , the contemporary SNP appears to have internalised many Whitehall foreign-policy orthodoxies .
In Syria , for instance , SNP policy is to support regime change in Damascus .
For his part , Ian Blackford has gone so far as to accuse the Syrian government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly disgraceful use of the term ) during their effort to take back control of the then-rebel-controlled town of East Ghouta .
But to the best of my knowledge , neither Blackford nor any other representative of the SNP has ever issued a single condemnation of Britain ’ s very instrumental role in the Syrian crisis , which includes the arming and training of al-Qaeda-linked groups and illegally occupying swathes of the country ’ s territory .
Sticking with the Middle East , the SNP fully supported designating the Lebanese group Hezbollah a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joanna Cherry – otherwise one of the few redeeming figures left in the party – condemned Hezbollah in terms not in any way dissimilar to her hawkish parliamentary colleagues in the opposite benches , stating “ Hezbollah is an organisation that has been intimately involved in terrorist attacks and the killing of civilians , which should of course be met with unequivocal condemnation from the international community and this House ” .
She went on to condemn not only the group ’ s ( entirely defensive ) role in its 2006 war with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , failing to mention Hezbollah ’ s instrumental contribution to the defeat of ISIS in that country .
In addition , the SNP has signed up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ( IHRA ) definition of anti-Semitism .
Although many of the IHRA ’ s provisions are uncontroversial , by endorsing all 11 it is now the official view of the SNP that claiming Israel is a “ racist endeavor ” is an anti-Semitic statement – despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is , in fact , an openly and violently racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SNP ’ s adversarial stance towards Russia , but also worth considering is the party ’ s newly hostile stance towards another major power it used to treat very differently : China .
In an eerily familiar manner to the Tories , Nicola Sturgeon described the threat Huawei poses to the UK as “ very big and very real ” .
Although it may seem trivial , the company the SNP leader has been courting in recent years also offers genuine cause for concern .
Recall Sturgeon gleefully posing next to bona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom she said she has a “ debt of gratitude ” – and war crimes-enabler Alastair Campbell .
Sturgeon also took to Twitter to share the alleged wisdom of one recent history ’ s worst butchers , Henry Kissinger , with her 1.2m followers .
Despite having no qualms sharing platforms or promoting the work of some of the world ’ s most blood-soaked tyrants , the SNP has a very different attitude towards those that expose the crimes of said tyrants and other alike .
The party has been deafeningly mute on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent they have spoken about his case at all , it has been to tepidly support Britain ’ s punitive measures against him .
Speaking at a parliamentary debate at the time of his arrest , chief whip Patrick Grady said “ the SNP profoundly believes in the rule of law and we have an obligation to uphold the rule of law in this high-profile case like in any other .
No one individual is ever above the law and Mr Assange will have to face charges of contempt of court and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide what happens next ” .
Only the SNP themselves will know if their recent rightward turn on foreign policy is the result of their sincerely-held convictions , careerism , a strategic move to protect themselves from allegations of being dangerous “ radicals ” , or a combination of the three .
Whatever the case , supporters of independence should be very alarmed by this recent phenomenon .
Independence can only be real independence if we are willing to divorce ourselves from the Anglo-American view of the world .
As far as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most exciting prospects independence offers is significantly limiting Britain ’ s capacity to inflict suffering on this Earth , whether this is by weakening its military clout or reducing its damaging diplomatic influence .
The SNP , by contrast , appears to have taken the view that the role of Scottish nationalists is to readily espouse conventional British foreign-policy wisdom .
It truly is a damning indictment of the party and serves as yet another explanation as to why so many – including this once-proud SNP supporter – have become so disillusioned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ provoke debate on ( usually ) non-party-political issues .
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Wings Over Scotland , except when we write them ourselves , obviously .
If you ’ d like to contribute a Soapbox piece ( ideally 800-1500 words ) , send it to us via our Contact page , INCLUDING THE WORD ‘ SOAPBOX ’ IN THE SUBJECT LINE .

This week saw publication of the long-awaited Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report on alleged Russian interference in British affairs. Despite media hysteria, the report contained no new revelations, just all-too-familiar catastrophising about Moscow’s ill-defined “disinformation” efforts and warnings of the undue influence rich Russians (most of whom are actually Kremlin opponents) have bought themselves.
The most salient point for supporters of Scottish independence to consider was the allegation that Moscow’s interference efforts extended to the 2014 indyref. As Wings pointed out earlier this week, however, the “evidence” to support this sensational claim amounted to nothing more than a heavily-redacted single paragraph, citing “credible open source commentary” as its sole source.
A look at the paragraph’s accompanying footnote reveals the “credible open source” commentator was Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council. For those in the fortunate position of being unfamiliar with his work, Nimmo is known for, among other things, falsely identifying a Syrian-Australian blogger and a British pensioner as Russian bots – so clearly someone whose expertise should be relied upon to determine the extent of Russian infiltration into Scottish politics.
I mention this not simply to reveal the transparently amateurish nature of the ISC’s report but rather to offer a commentary on the SNP’s (predictably) disappointing response to its allegations.
Despite the wafer-thin amounts of evidence to support its charges, Scotland’s ruling party has fully embraced the Westminster narrative that Scotland is under threat from the Russian hordes.
Instead of highlighting the report’s evidence-free nature, Nicola Sturgeon warned “we should not be at any point complacent about the possibility of Russian interference in our democratic processes”. In fairness to the First Minister, she at least did note that the report was not substantive enough to draw definitive conclusions; something that many of her colleagues appear to have missed.
Writing in The National, MP Alyn Smith – sounding more like a Reaganite Republican warning about the “Evil Empire” than a representative of a nominally progressive party – argued a “hostile foreign power … has infiltrated every aspect of political and economic life in this country” and that “Russia has actively sought to undermine our democracy and our way of life”.
Echoing this sentiment, Westminster leader Ian Blackford said on a recent radio interview that we must focus on the impact Russia has “not just on our democracy” but “right across our public life”.
On their official Twitter page, the SNP went so far as to attack Boris Johnson from the right, implying that the Tories have been insufficiently tough on Russia in the face of their unquestioned threat.
Perhaps most dismaying of all is not simply that the SNP has accepted the Russian-threat narrative without the slightest degree of scepticism, but, in endorsing the report without qualification the SNP has signed on to all of the ISC’s recommendations. MP John Nicholson explicitly supported the committee’s policy suggestions, tweeting that both “the report and it’s (sic) tough recommendations” were “very timely”.
Included as part of these “tough recommendations” are calls for MI5 to have increased power, along with the introduction of a US-style Foreign Agents Registration Act and an Espionage Act which would essentially criminalise all reporting on the subject.
That the SNP has so far raised no objection to this almost seems like a betrayal of the independence movement itself. To my mind, Scottish nationalists should be proud enemies of British security services, not champions of increasing their power. Alas, though, the SNP’s response to the Russia report is very much indicative of a wider problem plaguing the party.
In addition to their other recent shortcomings (to put it as charitably as possible) – such as their disregard of human biology and seeming indifference to independence – SNP supporters should be very concerned about the party’s broader world view. Although not endorsing British militarism (with the very shameful exception of NATO’s disastrous 2011 war in Libya), the contemporary SNP appears to have internalised many Whitehall foreign-policy orthodoxies.
In Syria, for instance, SNP policy is to support regime change in Damascus. For his part, Ian Blackford has gone so far as to accuse the Syrian government of committing “genocide” (a truly disgraceful use of the term) during their effort to take back control of the then-rebel-controlled town of East Ghouta.
But to the best of my knowledge, neither Blackford nor any other representative of the SNP has ever issued a single condemnation of Britain’s very instrumental role in the Syrian crisis, which includes the arming and training of al-Qaeda-linked groups and illegally occupying swathes of the country’s territory.
Sticking with the Middle East, the SNP fully supported designating the Lebanese group Hezbollah a “terrorist” organisation. Regrettably, Joanna Cherry – otherwise one of the few redeeming figures left in the party – condemned Hezbollah in terms not in any way dissimilar to her hawkish parliamentary colleagues in the opposite benches, stating “Hezbollah is an organisation that has been intimately involved in terrorist attacks and the killing of civilians, which should of course be met with unequivocal condemnation from the international community and this House”.
She went on to condemn not only the group’s (entirely defensive) role in its 2006 war with Israel but also its involvement in Syria, failing to mention Hezbollah’s instrumental contribution to the defeat of ISIS in that country.
In addition, the SNP has signed up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. Although many of the IHRA’s provisions are uncontroversial, by endorsing all 11 it is now the official view of the SNP that claiming Israel is a “racist endeavor” is an anti-Semitic statement – despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is, in fact, an openly and violently racist state.
We’ve already discussed the SNP’s adversarial stance towards Russia, but also worth considering is the party’s newly hostile stance towards another major power it used to treat very differently: China. In an eerily familiar manner to the Tories, Nicola Sturgeon described the threat Huawei poses to the UK as “very big and very real”.
Although it may seem trivial, the company the SNP leader has been courting in recent years also offers genuine cause for concern. Recall Sturgeon gleefully posing next to bona fide war criminal Hillary Clinton – to whom she said she has a “debt of gratitude” – and war crimes-enabler Alastair Campbell.
Sturgeon also took to Twitter to share the alleged wisdom of one recent history’s worst butchers, Henry Kissinger, with her 1.2m followers.
Despite having no qualms sharing platforms or promoting the work of some of the world’s most blood-soaked tyrants, the SNP has a very different attitude towards those that expose the crimes of said tyrants and other alike.
The party has been deafeningly mute on the persecution of Julian Assange. To the extent they have spoken about his case at all, it has been to tepidly support Britain’s punitive measures against him. Speaking at a parliamentary debate at the time of his arrest, chief whip Patrick Grady said “the SNP profoundly believes in the rule of law and we have an obligation to uphold the rule of law in this high-profile case like in any other. No one individual is ever above the law and Mr Assange will have to face charges of contempt of court and it is now for the courts to decide what happens next”.
Only the SNP themselves will know if their recent rightward turn on foreign policy is the result of their sincerely-held convictions, careerism, a strategic move to protect themselves from allegations of being dangerous “radicals”, or a combination of the three. Whatever the case, supporters of independence should be very alarmed by this recent phenomenon.
Independence can only be real independence if we are willing to divorce ourselves from the Anglo-American view of the world. As far as I’m concerned, one of the most exciting prospects independence offers is significantly limiting Britain’s capacity to inflict suffering on this Earth, whether this is by weakening its military clout or reducing its damaging diplomatic influence.
The SNP, by contrast, appears to have taken the view that the role of Scottish nationalists is to readily espouse conventional British foreign-policy wisdom. It truly is a damning indictment of the party and serves as yet another explanation as to why so many – including this once-proud SNP supporter – have become so disillusioned.
.
Soapbox is a weekend column designed to provoke debate on (usually) non-party-political issues. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Wings Over Scotland, except when we write them ourselves, obviously.
If you’d like to contribute a Soapbox piece (ideally 800-1500 words), send it to us via our Contact page, INCLUDING THE WORD ‘SOAPBOX’ IN THE SUBJECT LINE.


The flying visit

`` There 's no limit to what a man can do , or where he can go , if he @ @ @ @ @ gets the credit . ''

Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-28--BREAKING: Pope still Catholic

BREAKING: Pope still Catholic

Alert readers may have noticed that the hypothetical Wings list party is once again the talk of the steamie , with the usual suspects stamping their feet and pouting about it yet again on social media , in particular the firmly-ensconced SNP MP Pete Wishart and the worryingly obsessed former poll-analysis website WINGS OVER SCOTLAND IS BAD AND TERRIBLE AND STUART CAMPBELL SOMETIMES DOES SWEARS SO NOBODY WOULD EVER VOTE FOR HIM !
Goes Pop .
The trigger was a bizarre piece in yesterday ’ s Courier ( also picked up by the National , the Evening Express and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ostensibly to talk about a new website set up by a bunch of loony Unionist zoomers who with amusingly ironic timing have named themselves “ The Majority ” , and whether we thought they ’ d have any impact or be able to attract funding .
We chatted perfectly amiably to the reporter for several minutes on the subject , so we were quite surprised when the story that eventually appeared didn ’ t contain a single mention of them , and instead was solely about the Wings party , which he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Oh , by the way , while I ’ m here ” -type questions about .
So let ’ s just clarify a couple of things for the record ( again ) .
Since we first casually raised the idea of a notional Wings list party over a year ago in an interview on The Alex Salmond Show , here is a full list of all the positions and statements and announcements we ’ ve made about it : The reason the subject has barely been discussed at all on Wings is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might do it and we still might not .
Politics , and indeed society as a whole , is still in a state of much uncertainty and flux due to COVID-19 .
The Holyrood inquiry into the failed stitch-up of Alex Salmond could have untold ramifications .
We simply have no idea what the picture will look like a few months from now and deciding anything at this point would be like setting out to sea in a rowing-boat in a hurricane .
It ’ s been quite bewildering watching people make vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in every imaginable direction when we haven ’ t said a word on the subject in a year .
We ’ ve watched in bafflement as James Kelly in particular has interpreted this complete silence as a series of “ U-turns ” and “ re-U-turns ” so lengthy and contorted that we honestly have no idea what he even thinks our plans are now , despite the absolutely extraordinary amount of time he spends ranting about us .
Wishart today makes a series of whiny tweets that sound like a six-year-old in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a non-starter because we “ hate the SNP ” .
That isn ’ t true .
Like a great many people , including several of its own recent former MPs and a fair few current ones as well , we hate the direction the current leadership is taking the SNP in – towards a right-wing , authoritarian , science-denying , rape-enabling nanny state where free speech is a crime and the meaningful pursuit of independence has been openly abandoned in favour of consolidating the personal power and status of the leadership and cosy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as I can ascertain the vast majority of members are still good people who do not share those views , and many are actively working to wrest control of the party back from the current mini-clique that has captured it and get it back on track .
Even if it was true , though , so what ?
Labour and the Conservatives hate each other , but it didn ’ t stop them teaming up in “ Better Together ” .
The gender reform debate has temporarily united people as diverse as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ um , non-radical lesbian feminist Piers Morgan in a common cause .
It ’ s the core nature of politics that it makes for strange bedfellows every day .
Some readers may also feel that it might behoove someone like Wishart to wonder WHY this site – which has spent much of the last decade resolutely defending the SNP – had suddenly become seemingly hostile to it , but that might require a modicum of self-awareness and intellectual curiosity Pete Wishart has never been seen to display .
But anyway .
Nothing has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no white smoke to report .
There still might , and there still might not , be a Wings party .
We ’ ll make the decision when it ’ s possible to sensibly do so and not before .
And rest assured , readers – if and when there are any developments on that front , you ’ ll read about them first here , not in The Courier .

Alert readers may have noticed that the hypothetical Wings list party is once again the talk of the steamie, with the usual suspects stamping their feet and pouting about it yet again on social media, in particular the firmly-ensconced SNP MP Pete Wishart and the worryingly obsessed former poll-analysis website WINGS OVER SCOTLAND IS BAD AND TERRIBLE AND STUART CAMPBELL SOMETIMES DOES SWEARS SO NOBODY WOULD EVER VOTE FOR HIM! Goes Pop.
(We’re not sure where this sudden outbreak of 18th-century Puritanism about Scottish people using colourful language has come from, to be honest. It seems the weirdest and least plausible grounds for objection imaginable in a country that’s literally world-famous for its enthusiastic embrace of swearing, but *shrug*.)
The trigger was a bizarre piece in yesterday’s Courier (also picked up by the National, the Evening Express and others). They phoned us last week ostensibly to talk about a new website set up by a bunch of loony Unionist zoomers who with amusingly ironic timing have named themselves “The Majority”, and whether we thought they’d have any impact or be able to attract funding.
We chatted perfectly amiably to the reporter for several minutes on the subject, so we were quite surprised when the story that eventually appeared didn’t contain a single mention of them, and instead was solely about the Wings party, which he’d also asked us a couple of “Oh, by the way, while I’m here”-type questions about.
So let’s just clarify a couple of things for the record (again).
Since we first casually raised the idea of a notional Wings list party over a year ago in an interview on The Alex Salmond Show, here is a full list of all the positions and statements and announcements we’ve made about it:
JUNE 2019: “We might start a list party.”
[…]
[…]
[…]
JULY 2020: “We still might start a list party.”
The reason the subject has barely been discussed at all on Wings is because nothing has changed. We still might do it and we still might not. Politics, and indeed society as a whole, is still in a state of much uncertainty and flux due to COVID-19. The Holyrood inquiry into the failed stitch-up of Alex Salmond could have untold ramifications. We simply have no idea what the picture will look like a few months from now and deciding anything at this point would be like setting out to sea in a rowing-boat in a hurricane.
It’s been quite bewildering watching people make vast amounts of entirely baseless speculations and assertions in every imaginable direction when we haven’t said a word on the subject in a year. We’ve watched in bafflement as James Kelly in particular has interpreted this complete silence as a series of “U-turns” and “re-U-turns” so lengthy and contorted that we honestly have no idea what he even thinks our plans are now, despite the absolutely extraordinary amount of time he spends ranting about us.
Wishart today makes a series of whiny tweets that sound like a six-year-old in a school playground about how the party is a non-starter because we “hate the SNP”.
That isn’t true. Like a great many people, including several of its own recent former MPs and a fair few current ones as well, we hate the direction the current leadership is taking the SNP in – towards a right-wing, authoritarian, science-denying, rape-enabling nanny state where free speech is a crime and the meaningful pursuit of independence has been openly abandoned in favour of consolidating the personal power and status of the leadership and cosy Westminster MPs like Wishart.
But as far as I can ascertain the vast majority of members are still good people who do not share those views, and many are actively working to wrest control of the party back from the current mini-clique that has captured it and get it back on track.
Even if it was true, though, so what? Labour and the Conservatives hate each other, but it didn’t stop them teaming up in “Better Together”. The gender reform debate has temporarily united people as diverse as radical lesbian feminist Julie Bindel and, um, non-radical lesbian feminist Piers Morgan in a common cause. It’s the core nature of politics that it makes for strange bedfellows every day.
Some readers may also feel that it might behoove someone like Wishart to wonder WHY this site – which has spent much of the last decade resolutely defending the SNP – had suddenly become seemingly hostile to it, but that might require a modicum of self-awareness and intellectual curiosity Pete Wishart has never been seen to display.
(His thread today is a long list of people attacking the party’s failure to make, or even attempt, any meaningful progress on independence, followed by Wishart replying “but we’re going to win the election!”, apparently completely unable to separate the concepts of independence and the SNP or understand that SNP voters are less keen than he apparently is to give up on the party’s supposed primary goal just to keep its elected representatives in comfortably-feathered nests for life.)
But anyway. Nothing has changed. There is no news, and no white smoke to report. There still might, and there still might not, be a Wings party. We’ll make the decision when it’s possible to sensibly do so and not before.
And rest assured, readers – if and when there are any developments on that front, you’ll read about them first here, not in The Courier.


The Cabaret Voltaire

In the light of several news stories today , we thought it ’ d be useful to keep a record of which organisations and individuals had now publicly expressed strong reservations or outright opposition to the Scottish Government ’ s alarming and deeply illiberal proposed new Hate Crime Bill , and which had expressed support .
This list will be updated as required .
OPPOSED TO THE BILL AS DRAFTED Andrew Tickell ( SNP member , law lecturer and columnist for The National ) SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL AS DRAFTED Many readers of Wings will of course instinctively find themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Orange Order and the Daily Mail .
But we ’ d suggest that any issue that manages to unite the Orange Order AND the Catholic Church AND the National Secular Society AND Humanist Society Scotland AND feminists AND loyal SNP columnists AND legal academics AND lawyers AND the police in opposition to it might just be a little bit dodgy , to put it delicately .
Some particularly dim individuals have attempted to draw a comparison between the proposed law and the now-repealed Offensive Behaviour ( Football ) Act , which this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Scottish public – supported .
It should certainly be acknowledged that there are similarities in the striking technical incompetence with which both bills have been drafted ( something that ’ s becoming an all-too predictable trademark of any controversial Scottish Government legislation , as illustrated by the state of limbo currently surrounding the Named Person bill and gender reform proposals , which in both cases has dragged out for years ) .
Otherwise , though , the analogy is totally facile .
This bill has massive and far-reaching implications not merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmaking .
The minister responsible has admitted , terrifyingly albeit accidentally , that it could be used against legitimate criticism of Scottish Government policy , should anyone arbitrarily deem that criticism “ abusive ” or “ likely ” – even unintentionally – “ to stir up hatred ” .
But nobody at Ibrox was attempting to initiate a serious policy debate over whether it was socially beneficial for citizens to wade up to their knees in Fenian blood when they launched into yet another lusty chorus of “ The Billy Boys ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of Honour ” because they were trying to open a constructive dialogue over the merits or otherwise of the IRA ’ s justification for the murder of civilians .
Both sides were simply attempting to goad the other into a violent reaction , and the misuse of free speech to incite violence or injury has ALWAYS quite properly been an offence ( most commonly characterised as “ shouting ‘ Fire !
’ in a crowded theatre ” ) .
The intention of the OBFA , however haplessly-executed , was to define that offence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not less .
The Hate Crime Bill , on the other hand , potentially criminalises just about any piece of literature , any song , any play , any stand-up comedy act , any movie or any TV series ever published or performed anywhere in the world , on the basis of vague , subjective and arbitrary definitions wide open to malicious abuse ( as highlighted by the Scottish Police Federation in the quote pictured at the top of this article ) .
It seeks , in short , to enshrine “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed largely by organisational capture or mob intimidation ) in law and make it far easier for anyone claiming to be “ offended ” to not only suppress any opinions they don ’ t like , but to have those expressing such opinions imprisoned .
It ’ s Mary Whitehouse ’ s wildest dreams come true .
It is by far the worst piece of law ever proposed in the Scottish Parliament , and this site is glad to both record , and add its voice to , the long list of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying so .

In the light of several news stories today, we thought it’d be useful to keep a record of which organisations and individuals had now publicly expressed strong reservations or outright opposition to the Scottish Government’s alarming and deeply illiberal proposed new Hate Crime Bill, and which had expressed support.
This list will be updated as required.
OPPOSED TO THE BILL AS DRAFTED
– The Scottish Police Federation (representing rank-and-file officers)
– The Law Society Of Scotland
– The Faculty Of Advocates (trade body of Scotland’s most senior lawyers)
– The Senators Of The Colleges Of Justice (trade body of senior judges)
– BBC Scotland
– Scottish PEN (authors’ free-speech advocacy group)
– The Free Speech Union
– Free To Disagree (free speech advocacy group)
– Index On Censorship (free speech advocacy group)
– The Catholic Church
– The Free Church Of Scotland
– The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
– The Orange Order
– Call It Out (Irish/Catholic pressure group)
– The Christian Institute
– The National Secular Society
– Humanist Society Scotland
– Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (feminist policy thinktank)
– Woman’s Place UK (feminist group)
– ForWomen.Scot (feminist group)
– LGB Alliance (lesbian, gay and bisexual rights group)
– The Scottish Newspaper Society
– The News Media Association
– The Society Of Editors
– Andrew Tickell (SNP member, law lecturer and columnist for The National)
– Stephen Daisley (columnist for the Daily Mail)
– Andrew Tettenborn (Chair in Law, Swansea University)
– Academics For Academic Freedom
– Numerous pro-independence and other cultural figures
– Jim Sillars (former SNP deputy leader)
(We should also note for completeness the opposition of Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives, though as they reflexively oppose pretty much everything the Scottish Government does that carries rather less noteworthiness.)
.
SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL AS DRAFTED
– The Scottish Government
– Bemis Scotland (largely funded by the Scottish Government)
– Victim Support Scotland (almost wholly funded by the Scottish Government)
And that’s all we’ve got so far.
.
Many readers of Wings will of course instinctively find themselves deeply comfortable with any proposal which upsets the Orange Order and the Daily Mail. But we’d suggest that any issue that manages to unite the Orange Order AND the Catholic Church AND the National Secular Society AND Humanist Society Scotland AND feminists AND loyal SNP columnists AND legal academics AND lawyers AND the police in opposition to it might just be a little bit dodgy, to put it delicately.
Some particularly dim individuals have attempted to draw a comparison between the proposed law and the now-repealed Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act, which this site – along with the vast majority of the Scottish public – supported.
It should certainly be acknowledged that there are similarities in the striking technical incompetence with which both bills have been drafted (something that’s becoming an all too predictable trademark of any controversial Scottish Government legislation, as illustrated by the state of limbo currently surrounding the Named Person bill and gender reform proposals, which in both cases has dragged on for years).
Otherwise, though, the analogy is totally facile. This bill has massive and far-reaching implications not merely for public discourse but for all future lawmaking. The minister responsible has admitted, terrifyingly albeit accidentally, that it could be used against legitimate criticism of Scottish Government policy, should anyone arbitrarily deem that criticism “abusive” or “likely” – even unintentionally – “to stir up hatred”.
But nobody at Ibrox was attempting to initiate a serious policy debate over whether it was socially beneficial for citizens to wade up to their knees in Fenian blood or not when they launched into another lusty chorus of “The Billy Boys”. Nobody at Parkhead was singing “Roll Of Honour” because they were trying to open a constructive dialogue over the merits or otherwise of the IRA’s justification for the murder of civilians.
Both sides were simply attempting to goad the other into a violent reaction, and the misuse of free speech to incite violence or injury has ALWAYS quite properly been an offence (most commonly characterised as “shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre”). The intention of the OBFA, however haplessly-executed, was to define that offence MORE precisely and specifically for certain circumstances, not less.
The Hate Crime Bill, on the other hand, potentially criminalises just about any piece of literature, any song, any play, any stand-up comedy act, any movie or any TV series ever published or performed anywhere in the world, on the basis of vague, subjective and arbitrary definitions wide open to malicious abuse (as highlighted by the Scottish Police Federation in the quote pictured at the top of this article).
It seeks, in short, to enshrine “cancel culture” (which is currently imposed largely by organisational capture or mob intimidation) in law and make it far easier for anyone claiming to be “offended” to not only suppress any opinions they don’t like, but to have those expressing such opinions imprisoned.
It’s Mary Whitehouse’s wildest dreams come true. It is by far the worst piece of law ever proposed in the Scottish Parliament, and this site is glad to both record, and add its voice to, the long list of those from every corner of the political spectrum saying so.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-30--Footprints on the Moon

Footprints on the Moon

Well , here ’ s a place we ’ ve been before .
Especially alert veteran readers will recall that this site , too , has had its advertising removed from a railway environment for being “ political ” , on the flimsiest of grounds .
We doubt whether excessively-named feminist activist Kellie-Jay “ Posie Parker ” Keen-Minshull will be overly distressed about this turn of events – our experience was that it generated far more publicity than the adverts themselves could ever have hoped for , PLUS we got all our money back .
Win-win !
But it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorts of obvious reasons .
Twitter user Ben Cooper did an excellent deconstruction of the logical ramifications of the decision , which we can ’ t improve on ( other than fixing a typo ) .
But while it speaks volumes about the idiot hypocrisy of “ cancel culture ” ( Network Rail Scotland tweeted about it from an account decorated with the LGBT rainbow flag , which seems a fairly clearly political statement in itself ) , it ’ s especially pertinent when seen in the light of the Scottish Government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advert has clearly been deemed “ hateful ” despite literally containing nothing whatsoever but a declaration of affection for an Edinburgh resident and widely-beloved children ’ s author for her birthday .
And if even THAT can already be interpreted as “ hate ” and sanctioned – because of things it doesn ’ t say or in any way imply but which malicious imbeciles have read into it as a supposed hidden meaning – we invite readers to imagine whether there would be anything on Earth that a person could ever say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against being arrested , prosecuted and potentially imprisoned for a “ hate crime ” .
This madness has to stop , readers .

Well, here’s a place we’ve been before.
Especially alert veteran readers will recall that this site, too, has had its advertising removed from a railway environment for being “political”, on the flimsiest of grounds. We doubt whether excessively-named feminist activist Kellie-Jay “Posie Parker” Keen-Minshull will be overly distressed about this turn of events – our experience was that it generated far more publicity than the adverts themselves could ever have hoped for, PLUS we got all our money back. Win-win!
But it’s still a disturbing occurrence for all sorts of obvious reasons.
Twitter user Ben Cooper did an excellent deconstruction of the logical ramifications of the decision, which we can’t improve on (other than fixing a typo).
But while it speaks volumes about the idiot hypocrisy of “cancel culture” (Network Rail Scotland tweeted about it from an account decorated with the LGBT rainbow flag, which seems a fairly clearly political statement in itself), it’s especially pertinent when seen in the light of the Scottish Government’s new hate crime bill.
(Pssst, lads – that’s what ALL advertising is. That’s literally why advertising exists.)
Because the advert has clearly been deemed “hateful” despite literally containing nothing whatsoever but a declaration of affection for an Edinburgh resident and widely-beloved children’s author for her birthday.
And if even THAT can already be interpreted as “hate” and sanctioned – because of things it doesn’t say or in any way imply but which malicious imbeciles have read into it as a supposed hidden meaning – we invite readers to imagine whether there would be anything on Earth that a person could ever say under the new bill and feel safe against being arrested, prosecuted and potentially imprisoned for a “hate crime”.
This madness has to stop, readers.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-31--An open question to Angus Robertson

An open question to Angus Robertson

Out of 100 , exactly how humilated do you feel today on learning that the leadership of your party has @ @ @ @ @ winning the Edinburgh Central nomination fair and square – despite all your advantages , connections @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s had to stack the deck with such an unprecedented , transparent @ @ @ @ @ to get you in ?
Because tbh , if it was us we wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ our face .
No rush , take as long as you like .
Just like @ @ @ @ @ independence .

Out of 100, exactly how humiliated do you feel today on learning that the leadership of your party has so little faith in you winning the Edinburgh Central nomination fair and square – despite all your advantages, connections and long party history – that it’s had to stack the deck with such an unprecedented, transparent, embarrassing fiddle to try to get you in? Because tbh, if it was us we’d be too ashamed to show our face.
No rush, take as long as you like. Just like you’re doing with independence.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-31--Just another day in 2020

Just another day in 2020

The Wings Over Scotland Twitter account was – whether coincidentally or otherwise – banned very shortly after it made this famous quote from “ 1984 ” its pinned tweet : So it was only ever a matter of time until this happened : That ’ s an MSc in maths , an MA in statistics and a PhD student in statistics at Harvard University there , readers , publicly calling for the flexible redefinition of the meaning of the number 2 so that two plus two can sometimes make five .
Humanity is doomed .
Meanwhile , today also brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid saying the word “ women ” when referring to women : Enjoy your new lives as “ readers with uteri ” , “ individuals with a cervix ” and “ non-binary mother-identifying folx ” , ladies .
( Can we still say “ ladies ” ?
Is that one still on the list of permissible terms , or are we “ gender fascists ” ? )
And just to put a Cherry on top of it all , the blatant match-rigging corruption of the SNP has now stepped fully out into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been previously applied to any MSP candidate of any party in Scotland has been hastily cobbled up solely and blatantly to prevent someone seen as a credible challenger to Nicola Sturgeon from entering Holyrood and allow a tame leadership acolyte to be parachuted in instead .
Joanna Cherry turned an SNP majority of just 1,097 in Edinburgh South West in 2017 into one of almost 12,000 last year , on a gigantic swing of over 10 % , but the party leadership hates her so much it ’ s willing to force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seat just to stop her getting into Holyrood .
We can not , off the top of our heads , recall any UK political party forcing one of its own MPs to stand down for entirely internal party reasons before .
It appears to be a completely unprecedented act of political self-harm .
And disappointingly , the stitch-up/blackmail has worked .
We would at least be cheered up a bit by the lovely weather , but we have to wait in for a courier to collect something we bought that was delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ timeslot ” we ’ ve been given for this to happen is 0800-1800 , ie pretty much the entirety of daylight hours .
Anyone got any good news ?

The Wings Over Scotland Twitter account was – whether coincidentally or otherwise – banned very shortly after it made this famous quote from “1984” its pinned tweet:
So it was only ever a matter of time until a trans activist went there:
That’s an MSc in maths, an MA in statistics and a PhD student in statistics at Harvard University there, readers, publicly calling for the flexible redefinition of the meaning of the number 2 so that two plus two can sometimes make five. Humanity is doomed.
Meanwhile, today also brought us three of the newest exciting ways to avoid saying the word “women” when referring to women:
Enjoy your new lives as “readers with uteri”, “individuals with a cervix” and “non-binary mother-identifying folx”, ladies. (Can we still say “ladies”? Is that one still on the list of permissible terms, or are we “gender fascists”?)
And just to put a Cherry on top of it all, the blatant match-rigging corruption of the SNP has now stepped fully out into the open:
A condition which has never been previously applied to any MSP candidate of any party in Scotland has been hastily cobbled up solely and blatantly to prevent someone seen as a credible challenger to Nicola Sturgeon from entering Holyrood and allow a tame leadership acolyte to be parachuted in instead.
Joanna Cherry turned an SNP majority of just 1,097 in Edinburgh South West in 2017 into one of almost 12,000 last year, on a gigantic swing of over 10%, but the party leadership hates her so much it’s willing to force a totally unnecessary by-election and risk losing the seat just to stop her getting into Holyrood.
We cannot, off the top of our heads, recall any UK political party forcing one of its own MPs to stand down for entirely internal party reasons before. It appears to be a completely unprecedented act of political self-harm.
(On the very same day, meanwhile, Jackson Carlaw has been kicked out by the UK Conservatives as Scottish branch office leader, apparently with the intent of replacing him with Westminster MP Douglas Ross. There has been no suggestion that Mr Ross should resign his Westminster seat to enable this to happen, because the Tories aren’t complete morons.)
And disappointingly, the stitch-up/blackmail has worked.
We would at least be cheered up a bit by the lovely weather, but we have to wait in for a courier to collect something we bought that was delivered broken earlier this week, and the “timeslot” we’ve been given for this to happen is 0800-1800, ie pretty much the entirety of daylight hours.
Anyone got any good news?


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-31--No honour among assassins

No honour among assassins

SNP MSP James Dornan is someone Wings always had a lot of time for , at least until his shameful and central role in the stitch-up of Mark McDonald – an act which was the foundation stone for all of the party ’ s subsequent chicanery .
We can only speculate as to his motivations for doing so , and their connection or otherwise to a certain deranged and ambitious fantasist in his close circle .
But as anyone who ’ s watched The Usual Suspects ( or GoodFellas , or pretty much any classic-era Bond movie ) will tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nasty habit , once they ’ ve achieved their goals , of “ tidying up ” anyone who might link them to their misdeeds – especially if those people don ’ t fit the ideal of their brave new worlds .
So an old , straight , white , working-class male like James Dornan , who signed the SNP Women ’ s Pledge , was always likely to find himself propping up a motorway flyover at some point sooner or later , and thus it has proved .
It appears to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended beneficiary of Dornan ’ s intended demise is the party ’ s truly repellent National Women ’ s Convener , Rhiannon Spear .
We have no idea whether that ’ s true , although if it is it would be a sorry day for both the SNP and ( potentially ) the Scottish Parliament .
But Dornan seems intent on putting up rather more of a fight over his backstabbing than the other victim , Joanna Cherry , so it may be a more interesting scenario than it first appears .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of his actions , there ’ s no doubt whatsoever who we ’ d want to come out on top in that fight .

SNP MSP James Dornan is someone Wings always had a lot of time for, at least until his shameful and central role in the stitch-up of Mark McDonald – an act which was the foundation stone for all of the party’s subsequent chicanery. We can only speculate as to his motivations for doing so, and their connection or otherwise to a certain deranged and ambitious fantasist in his close circle.
But as anyone who’s watched The Usual Suspects (or GoodFellas, or pretty much any classic-era Bond movie) will tell you, the real villains have a nasty habit, once they’ve achieved their goals, of “tidying up” anyone who might link them to their misdeeds – especially if those people don’t fit the ideal of their brave new worlds.
So an old, straight, white, working-class male like James Dornan, who signed the SNP Women’s Pledge, was always likely to find himself propping up a motorway flyover at some point sooner or later, and thus it has proved.
It appears to be a widely-held belief on social media that the intended beneficiary of Dornan’s intended demise is the party’s truly repellent National Women’s Convener, Rhiannon Spear. We have no idea whether that’s true, although if it is it would be a sorry day for both the SNP and (potentially) the Scottish Parliament.
(Spear sits on the NEC that made today’s decisions.)
But Dornan seems intent on putting up rather more of a fight over his backstabbing than the other victim, Joanna Cherry, so it may be a more interesting scenario than it first appears. And while we may be gravely disappointed in some of his actions, there’s no doubt whatsoever who we’d want to come out on top in that fight.


Her Majesty’s Champions