wingsoverscotland--2020-12-16--How to abuse children in plain sight

How to abuse children in plain sight

We woke up this morning planning to write about something else , readers , and then we saw perhaps the most horrifying thing we ’ ve ever seen in the two years since we first started taking an interest in transgender ideology .
It ’ s only tangentially related to this site ’ s purpose , but the truth is that as human beings we can not stand by and watch this happening without at least trying to use whatever platform we have to raise awareness of it .
Last week the High Court in England ruled that children under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competent to consent to treatment with so-called “ puberty blocker ” drugs of the type that were used to “ chemically castrate ” computing pioneer Alan Turing for being homosexual ( a crime in the UK in the 1950s ) , which is believed to have led to his suicide by cyanide poisoning at the age of 41 .
The most common such drug nowadays is Lupron , used as a treatment/alternative punishment on rapists and paedophiles to reduce their offending by destroying their sexual function .
It has not been tested for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nobody knows how much permanent harm it could do them ( although the likely answer is “ a lot ” ) , which is why the High Court ruled against it last week .
Emma Williams has raised her son , who is now 13 , as a female since the age of eight and claims he ’ s been “ trans ” since he was three , an age when children barely even understand the concepts of boys and girls and can barely construct a sentence .
She ’ s been wheeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as some sort of proxy LGBTQ icon for half a decade .
She ’ s now raising money to ensure she can pump her child full of dangerous , untested drugs normally used on serious criminals for the next half-decade .
Williams intends to source these chemicals from a company called GenderGP .
But GenderGP isn ’ t “ in the UK ” at all .
It ’ s run from Spain by two former British doctors who were struck off the UK medical register and fined £12,000 for illegally prescribing puberty blockers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 , and then fled to Malaga in order to continue trading under the country ’ s more lax regulations regarding children .
( It was legal to have sex with 13-year-olds in Spain until 2015 . )
The Webberleys ’ illegal online drug-dealing operation had been implicated in the 2018 suicide of a disturbed young woman called Jayden Lowe , who they ’ d been selling male hormones to in an attempt to turn her into a man .
We are unable to explain why GoFundMe is hosting a fundraiser explicitly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to harm a child who the High Court has just found to be incapable of consenting to that harm .
If you shot a child in the genitals it wouldn ’ t be a legal defence to say that you ’ d bought the gun by mail order from a criminal in a foreign country , nor that the child said they wanted to be shot .
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all is that the general public is stampeding to donate for this unfortunate child to be abused .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brady all hurt and killed a lot of children , but at least they didn ’ t crowdfund it .
It is this site ’ s view that the grotesque and reckless medical atrocities currently being carried out against untold numbers of children in the name of trans ideology will shortly be seen as a scandal on a par with that of thalidomide , paedophile rings in the Catholic church or the crimes of Jimmy Savile .
We ’ re sorry to those tired of reading about this subject here , but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand by and turn a blind eye while these crimes happen , particularly while the Scottish Government entrusted with winning independence appears to be among the enthusiastic participants .
We are not fighting for that Scotland .

We woke up this morning intending to write about something else, readers, and then we saw perhaps the most horrifying thing we’ve ever seen in the two years since we first started taking an interest in transgender ideology.
It’s only tangentially related to this site’s purpose, but the truth is that as human beings we cannot stand by and watch this happening without at least trying to use whatever platform we have to raise awareness of it.
(The black bars on images in this article were added by us.)
Last week the High Court in England ruled that children under the age of 16 were not medically competent to consent to treatment with so-called “puberty blocker” drugs of the type that were used to “chemically castrate” the computing pioneer Alan Turing for being homosexual (a crime in the UK in the 1950s), which is believed to have led to his suicide by cyanide poisoning at the age of 41.
The most common such drug nowadays is Lupron, used as a treatment/alternative punishment on rapists and paedophiles to reduce their offending by destroying their sexual function. It has not been tested for use on “transgender” children and nobody knows how much permanent harm it could do them (although the likely answer is “a lot”), which is why the High Court ruled against it last week.
But apparently that doesn’t matter.
Emma Williams has raised her son, who is now 13, as a female since the age of eight and claims he’s been “trans” since he was three, an age when children barely even understand the concepts of boys and girls and can just about construct a sentence.
She’s been wheeling him around the country and parading him as some sort of proxy LGBTQ icon for half a decade.
She’s now raising money to ensure she can pump her child full of dangerous, untested drugs normally used on violent criminals for (at least) the next half-decade.
Williams intends to source these chemicals from a company called GenderGP.
But GenderGP isn’t “in the UK” at all. It’s run from Spain by two former British doctors who were struck off the UK medical register and fined £12,000 for illegally prescribing puberty blockers to hundreds of children as young as 12, and then fled to Malaga in order to continue trading under the country’s more lax regulations regarding children. (It was legal to have sex with 13-year-olds in Spain until 2015.)
The Webberleys’ illegal online drug-dealing operation had been implicated in the 2018 suicide of a disturbed young woman called Jayden Lowe, who they’d been selling male hormones to in an attempt to turn her into a man.
We are unable to explain why GoFundMe is hosting a fundraiser explicitly to help an adult break the law in order to harm a child who the High Court has just found to be incapable of consenting to that harm. If you shot a child in the genitals it wouldn’t be a legal defence to say that you’d bought the gun by mail order from a criminal in a foreign country, nor that the child said they wanted to be shot.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all is that the general public is stampeding to donate for this unfortunate child to be abused. Thomas Hamilton, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady all hurt and killed a lot of children, but at least they didn’t crowdfund it.
(The fundraiser also clearly breaks GoFundMe’s own terms and conditions.)
It is this site’s view that the grotesque and reckless medical atrocities currently being carried out against untold numbers of children in the name of trans ideology will shortly be seen as a scandal on a par with that of thalidomide, paedophile rings in the Catholic church or the crimes of Jimmy Savile.
We’re sorry to those tired of reading about this subject here, but we cannot be among the people who stand by and turn a blind eye while these crimes happen, particularly while the Scottish Government entrusted with winning independence appears to be among the enthusiastic participants. We are not fighting for that Scotland.


Kafka Chameleons

As it happened , it was fortuitous that this story intervened and stopped us writing the story we meant to run yesterday , because now we ’ ve got a two-for-the-price-of-one on the increasingly farcical insanity running riot in the offices of the Scottish Government .
Alert readers will have noticed the above piece from today ’ s Times , revealing that the Scottish Government just can ’ t seem to stop breaking the rules ( and squandering huge vats of taxpayers ’ money in the process ) when it comes to Alex Salmond .
An inquiry by the Scottish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same entity we filed a formal complaint with last week – found that the Holyrood administration had broken data protection laws by refusing to provide Mr Salmond with information that he ’ d requested in relation to the ongoing inquiry about the ham-fisted attempt to smear him with false allegations of sexual misconduct , and pointedly noted that he was now free to take the government to court for his legal costs ( again ) and compensation .
Absurdly , the Scottish Government – having literally just been found to have infringed data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salmond see documents that were provided to the committee – issued the paper with this remarkable quote : Hilariously , it turns out that the tissue-paper-thin excuse for that black-is-white quote is that having first been asked for the data on 19 June , they did actually deliver it on 13 November , after the SIC had already been investigating the matter for four months .
Or in other words , “ We gave the money back after the police found out that we stole it , so there was never any theft.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final word on the subject : Because you may recall that our own complaint to the SIC was over a much-delayed response to a query as to whether the Scottish Government had been lying when it repeatedly asserted that it didn ’ t know anything about Nicola Sturgeon ’ s meeting with Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018 .
We ’ d pointed out that since the Scottish Government itself had referenced that meeting in its remit to James Hamilton for his investigation into whether Nicola Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly DID hold a record of the meeting taking place , and so we asked if the Scottish Government would perhaps like to reconsider and correct its earlier denials .
The reply we received late on Tuesday evening , and which we ’ d planned to write about yesterday , is quite something to behold .
Or to put that another way , “ The fact that the Scottish Government formally told James Hamilton that the 29 March meeting definitely took place does not mean that the Scottish Government knows whether the 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ re running out of superlatives to describe how mad this is all getting , folks .
We ’ ve literally just been told , with a straight face , that the Scottish Government “ does not hold recorded information that would enable it to answer ” whether Nicola Sturgeon had a meeting that both Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government have already publicly admitted , in writing , that she did have , simply in a pitifully tortured attempt to squirm out of admitting they ’ d been lying about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indeed , the letter actually directs us to her admission of it .
Here ’ s what she says at that link : And yet it still tells us it can ’ t actually answer the question , because apparently nobody has “ recorded ” that information at any point since this whole fiasco began , making a complete public mockery of the entire concept of Freedom Of Information requests if they can be evaded with such shady semantic sleight of hand .
But especially alert readers will have noticed another part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plain as can be , is an explicit admission from the Scottish Government that the First Minister broke the Ministerial Code by conducting a non-governmental meeting on Parliament premises .
( And once again , an implicit admission that she also broke the code by lying to Parliament that she didn ’ t know anything about the Salmond allegations until four days later . )
It ’ s also an explicit statement that the meeting was a party matter and therefore should properly have been discussed with the SNP ’ s chief executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ husband , Peter Murrell , and of course , it directly and explicitly contradicts Mr Murrell ’ s evidence to the inquiry that the exact opposite was the case .
In its belated reply to us – appended in full below – the Scottish Goverment continues to twist and thrash and try to escape the tangled net of its own lies ( or more precisely the First Minister ’ s ) .
But all it ’ s managing to do is tie itself tighter and contort itself into even more embarrassingly ludicrous denials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , incidentally , that the response was bizarrely sent out in the name of Nicola McDonagh from the Looked After Children Unit of the Directorate For Children And Families .
But then , “ The Looked After Children Unit ” is sounding like a more and more accurate description of the Scottish Government every day .

As it happened, it was fortuitous that this story intervened and stopped us writing the story we meant to run yesterday, because now we’ve got a two-for-the-price-of-one on the increasingly farcical insanity running riot in the offices of the Scottish Government.
Alert readers will have noticed the above piece from today’s Times, revealing that the Scottish Government just can’t seem to stop breaking the rules (and squandering huge vats of taxpayers’ money in the process) when it comes to Alex Salmond.
An inquiry by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) – the same entity we filed a formal complaint with last week – found that the Holyrood administration had broken data protection laws by refusing to provide Mr Salmond with information that he’d requested in relation to the ongoing inquiry about the ham-fisted attempt to smear him with false allegations of sexual misconduct, and pointedly noted that he was now free to take the government to court for his legal costs (again) and compensation.
Absurdly, the Scottish Government – having literally just been found to have infringed data protection law by failing to let Alex Salmond see documents that were provided to the committee – issued the paper with this remarkable quote:
Hilariously, it turns out that the tissue-paper-thin excuse for that black-is-white quote is that having first been asked for the data on 19 June, they did actually deliver it on 13 November, after the SIC had already been investigating the matter for four months.
Or in other words, “We gave the money back after the police found out that we stole it, so there was never any theft.”
We’ll give the Commissioner the final word on the subject:
But readers, there’s more.
Because you may recall that our own complaint to the SIC was over a much-delayed response to a query as to whether the Scottish Government had been lying when it repeatedly asserted that it didn’t know anything about Nicola Sturgeon’s meeting with Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018.
We’d pointed out that since the Scottish Government itself had referenced that meeting in its remit to James Hamilton for his investigation into whether Nicola Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code by lying to Parliament about it, it clearly DID hold a record of the meeting taking place, and so we asked if the Scottish Government would perhaps like to reconsider and correct its earlier denials.
The reply we received late on Tuesday evening, and which we’d planned to write about yesterday, is quite something to behold.
Or to put that another way, “The fact that the Scottish Government formally told James Hamilton that the 29 March meeting definitely took place does not mean that the Scottish Government knows whether the 29 March meeting took place or not”.
We’re running out of superlatives to describe how mad this is all getting, folks. We’ve literally just been told, with a straight face, that the Scottish Government “does not hold recorded information that would enable it to answer” whether Nicola Sturgeon had a meeting that both Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government have already publicly admitted, in writing, that she did have, simply in a pitifully tortured attempt to squirm out of admitting they’d been lying about it in FOI requests for months.
Indeed, the letter actually directs us to her admission of it.
Here’s what she says at that link:
And yet it still tells us it can’t actually answer the question, because apparently nobody has “recorded” that information at any point since this whole fiasco began, making a complete public mockery of the entire concept of Freedom Of Information requests if they can be evaded with such shady semantic sleight of hand.
(Perhaps this is all some deliberate show of arrogant, hubristic bravado – “watch as we torch absolutely every last shred of integrity or credibility, secure in the knowledge that we’ll win the election at a skoosh anyway, you helpless plebs”. It very much has the ring of how Donald Trump has conducted himself for the last four years.)
But especially alert readers will have noticed another part of that paragraph.
Right there, as plain as can be, is an explicit admission from the Scottish Government that the First Minister broke the Ministerial Code by conducting a non-governmental meeting on Parliament premises. (And once again, an implicit admission that she also broke the code by lying to Parliament that she didn’t know anything about the Salmond allegations until four days later.)
It’s also an explicit statement that the meeting was a party matter and therefore should properly have been discussed with the SNP’s chief executive, and the First Minister’s husband, Peter Murrell, and of course, it directly and explicitly contradicts Mr Murrell’s evidence to the inquiry that the exact opposite was the case.
In its belated reply to us – appended in full below – the Scottish Goverment continues to twist and thrash and try to escape the tangled net of its own lies (or more precisely the First Minister’s). But all it’s managing to do is tie itself tighter and contort itself into even more embarrassingly ludicrous denials.
We couldn’t help noticing, incidentally, that the response was bizarrely sent out in the name of Nicola McDonagh from the Looked After Children Unit of the Directorate For Children And Families. But then, “The Looked After Children Unit” is sounding like a more and more accurate description of the Scottish Government every day.
.
—————————————————————————————–


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-19--Time to grasp the thistle

Time to grasp the thistle

`` 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)


Sick and tired

Oh just shut up you useless waste of space .
He DOESN ’ T CARE WHAT YOU THINK .
You @ @ @ @ @ a thousand years and he won ’ t listen .
You gave him his election @ @ @ @ @ and England has chosen its fate and there ’ s not a damn thing we @ @ @ @ @ dragging us down with them because you ’ ve wasted the last four years whining @ @ @ @ @ the thing we elected you to do , which is put us in charge of @ @ @ @ @ Now either get off your worthless coward ’ s arse and do the only thing @ @ @ @ @ your power – a plebiscitary election – instead of grandstanding around the world stage achieving @ @ @ @ @ face in the press again , or get out of our damn way and let @ @ @ @ @ job take over .
And no , we haven ’ t been drinking .
Not @ @ @ @ @ ve just had enough .

Oh just shut up you useless waste of space.
He DOESN’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. You can bleat at him for a thousand years and he won’t listen. You gave him his election and he has a majority and England has chosen its fate and there’s not a damn thing we can do to stop them dragging us down with them because you’ve wasted the last four years whining about it instead of doing the thing we elected you to do, which is put us in charge of our own future forever.
Now either get off your worthless coward’s arse and do the only thing that’s actually in your power – a plebiscitary election – instead of grandstanding around the world stage achieving absolutely sod-all except getting your face in the press again, or get out of our damn way and let someone who can do the job take over.
(PS that also includes the job of handling the pandemic, which you’re making a pig’s arse of too, but gosh, doesn’t everyone love how telegenically you’re presenting the thousands of needless deaths? New Zealand has had just TWENTY-FIVE with near enough the same population, because their leader had the courage to make the tough calls you failed to because the Selfie Queen can’t bear to be unpopular.)
And no, we haven’t been drinking. Not a drop. We’ve just had enough.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-21--Back in the days

Back in the days

There was a time , readers , when we ’ d have bothered ourselves to dig out the whole series of headlines and links for this .
Archly , we ’ d have pointed out that Labour solemnly offered Scotland yet another new devolution deal ( roughly its 33rd since it first started promising “ Home Rule ” in – and we ’ re not making this up – 1888 ) before the 2017 UK general election , and got itself humiliatingly thrashed .
We ’ d have noted wryly that it offered Scotland the same old reheated garbage again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more humiliatingly thrashed , losing all but one of its MPs again and coming FOURTH in terms of seats , well behind even the Lib Dems .
We would , of course , have linked back to Gordon Brown ’ s original 2014 promise of the most federally devolved super-ultra-max federal devolution humanly imaginable , and his empty assurance that that promise would be kept even though Brown was in no position to do so and indeed wasn ’ t even standing in the next election .
And we ’ d have summoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hapless , desperate , pitiable pathos of Labour trying to trot it out yet again in the dying gasps of 2020 , four long years away from even a dream of power , and the dying joke of a Scottish media STILL treating it like a serious proposal that meant anything and expecting anything but hoots of laughter from their tiny handful of surviving decrepit elderly readers .
But we ’ re so weary , folks .
What ’ s the point ?
You all know it as well as we do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Scottish Labour is deader than David Bowie and last had a hit much longer ago .
It ’ s a gigantic , contemptuous insult from both the party and the media to waste an inch of newsprint on this rancid , fly-swarmed keech from a lost , doddering , senile old dinosaur whose opinion no sane person has cared about in the last decade , but they keep doing it anyway from sheer muscle memory because it ’ s all their tiny reptile brains know how to do .
We ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the will ) to express the magnitude of the mindboggling intellectual bankruptcy of still expecting anyone to swallow this drivel .
“ Look , people of Scotland !
Gordon Brown ’ s been dragged out of his crypt again to groan the old incantations once more !
You must heed the wise elder ’ s words !
” The only remaining contest in Scottish politics is trying to figure out whether the SNP or the Unionist parties are treating the public as bigger idiots .
At this point , folks , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d all be better off with the coronavirus in charge .

There was a time, readers, when we’d have bothered ourselves to dig out the whole series of headlines and links for this.
Archly, we’d have pointed out that Labour solemnly offered Scotland yet another new devolution deal (roughly its 33rd since it first started promising “Home Rule” in – and we’re not making this up – 1888) before the 2017 UK general election, and got itself humiliatingly thrashed.
(Picking up just 10,000 extra votes – most of them in the one seat it already held – in a year when the SNP lost 500,000 in previously Labour seats, and coming third behind the Tories in a country it used to own heart and soul.)
We’d have noted wryly that it offered Scotland the same old reheated garbage again at the 2019 election and got even more humiliatingly thrashed, losing all but one of its MPs again and coming FOURTH in terms of seats, well behind even the Lib Dems.
We would, of course, have linked back to Gordon Brown’s original 2014 promise of the most federally devolved super-ultra-max federal devolution humanly imaginable, and his empty assurance that that promise would be kept even though Brown was in no position to do so and indeed wasn’t even standing in the next election.
And we’d have summoned up some snark at the utter, hapless, desperate, pitiable pathos of Labour trying to trot it out yet again in the dying gasps of 2020, four long years away from even a dream of power, and the dying joke of a Scottish media STILL treating it like a serious proposal that meant anything and expecting anything but hoots of laughter from their tiny handful of surviving decrepit elderly readers.
But we’re so weary, folks. What’s the point? You all know it as well as we do. Even the dogs in the street know that Scottish Labour is deader than David Bowie and last had a hit much longer ago. It’s a gigantic, contemptuous insult from both the party and the media to waste an inch of newsprint on this rancid, fly-swarmed keech from a lost, doddering, senile old dinosaur whose opinion no sane person has cared about in the last decade, but they keep doing it anyway from sheer muscle memory because it’s all their tiny reptile brains know how to do.
(That chart is for the UK media, which for all its many and vast faults at least still has some semblance of balance – a range of Labour, centrist and Tory papers, Leave and Remain papers, and so on. We shudder to imagine what the figures for Scotland’s own foreign-owned mono-media, doggedly refusing to even attempt to give voice to the wishes of 58% of the population, would be.)
We’ve run out of superlatives and hyperbole (and the will) to express the magnitude of the mindboggling intellectual bankruptcy of still expecting anyone to swallow this drivel. “Look, people of Scotland! Gordon Brown’s been dragged out of his crypt again to groan the old incantations once more! You must heed the wise elder’s words!”
The only remaining contest in Scottish politics is trying to figure out whether the SNP or the Unionist parties are treating the public as bigger idiots. At this point, folks, we’re beginning to suspect we’d all be better off with the coronavirus in charge.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-23--A game of Blankety Blank

A game of Blankety Blank

With precisely the grim level of cynicism we ’ ve now come to expect as standard , the Scottish Government has released a key document relating to the Salmond inquiry two days before Christmas , hoping it ’ ll be buried in the ongoing coronavirus-and-Brexit-related implosion of the UK .
The document , which contains legal advice relating to the judicial review brought by Salmond regarding the Scottish Government ’ s investigations into false allegations of misconduct against him , is extremely heavily redacted .
But a few interesting passages remain , so let ’ s have some fun .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a report from Sarah Davidson , the then-Director General of Organisational Development and Operations , one of those vague job titles that covers a multitude of sins .
It is , officially , the document which advised the Scottish Government to concede the case , on which it had by that point already spent an amount of money it refuses to reveal to the Scottish public – but which can be reasonably estimated at upwards of half a million pounds , given that we know Alex Salmond had spent a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the argument .
But on even a cursory examination of what little remains unredacted , that line falls apart like a second-hand IKEA cabinet assembled by an old blind woman .
Let ’ s start with this one .
What goes in here , readers ?
What it ’ s claiming – and readers can make their own judgement about how believable a claim this is – is that the Scottish Government ’ s extremely expensive legal counsel only found out a few days before they were due to go to court that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two complainers prior to being appointed as the Investigating Officer .
So it ’ s interesting to ponder what ’ s missing .
( We don ’ t actually know how long any of the redactions are , because they ’ ve all been replaced with “ [ Redacted ] ” rather than blacked out .
They could be a single word or a dozen paragraphs . )
The most obvious thing would be a word like “ frankly ” , but why would anyone want to redact that ?
Similarly there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something like “ in the opinion of counsel ” , and it ’ s very difficult to plausibly add anything to that sentence which might identify anyone whose identity is being kept secret .
The only reason to blank out something there is if it ’ s in some way incriminating , such as – and we emphasise this is pure illustrative speculation on our part – “ contrary to what counsel had been led to believe by the Scottish Government ” .
So make your guesses , folks .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s nothing actually redacted in the paragraph above , but there ’ s certainly something missing from it .
Who , a casual reader might wonder , has been failing to be adequately “ systematic and comprehensive ” in terms of their “ duty of candour ” to inform the legal counsel that the Scottish Government is shovelling your money at ?
Who was in charge of this process ?
Who designed it and who was carrying it out ?
We imagine that it was these people here : The next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ S ADVICE ” .
Well , that ’ s helpful .
But we know that the 19-21 December parts refer to the so-called “ watershed moment ” at which point it was no longer possible to deny that the game was up .
So what happened on and before 31 October ?
We know that counsel gave the Scottish Government advice on the case in that period , because that ’ s what ’ s been redacted above .
And fortunately the document goes on to outline in more detail what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail .
But we learn that SOMETHING was revealed on 19 October , and that it was something that everyone knew was important and had to be disclosed .
But that revelation didn ’ t officially take place until 19-21 December , two months later .
So let ’ s speculate illustratively again .
We know it ’ s something the Scottish Government wants to hide , because it ’ s been redacted .
So let ’ s imagine , by way of example , that counsel knew fine on 19 October that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the complainers , and had advised the Scottish Government that this completely torpedoed the case .
It is , we can ’ t help but noting , somewhat implausible that they didn ’ t know , because if not then the Scottish Government was wasting an awful lot of money not telling its very costly representatives stuff that they really needed to know in order to arrive at their advice .
But we can ’ t tell you that for certain at this stage , so we ’ re only speaking hypothetically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blank 3 .
But if that ’ s what ’ s being hidden , why , then , would the Scottish Government not take that advice , and instead plough on , burning public money , for several more months ?
Perhaps this paragraph includes some clues .
It may or may not be important to remember that in December 2018 , when this report was produced , Salmond still hadn ’ t been charged by the police – that didn ’ t happen until the middle of January 2019 .
Had the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its prospective case in the judicial review was untenable , its last hope of avoiding either an embarrassingly comprehensive defeat or an almost equally embarrassing climbdown would have been if some other events had overtaken the judicial review and caused it to be shelved .
Events such as , purely illustratively , a criminal prosecution .
Was the Scottish Government advised to concede the case in October 2018 , but kept stalling and spending money in the hope of dragging it out until a criminal prosecution took the judicial review off the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell us .
But such a strategy would presumably have been quite poorly received by its legal advisers , whose hard-won reputations would be at stake if they were asked to present such a laughable case in front of a senior judge like Lord Pentland .
Does anything in the document tell us how counsel felt ?
The short , innocuous-looking paragraph above is in fact probably the most explosive unredacted revelation in the whole document .
Because what it says is that the Scottish Government ’ s legal counsel had given it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or we quit ” .
Such a step is almost unheard of .
For a pair of QCs to walk away from a client rather than be humiliated in court would be an event of earthquake proportions – especially when that client was a government .
And yet here it is , in unredacted black and white .
The Scottish Government ’ s counsel could no longer endure the case they were being asked to present in court , and was forced to deliver a threat to its own client .
And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these learned people , charging hundreds or thousands of pounds an hour , had been strung along at public expense for months on end without being told absolutely key facts , which were known to everyone else and their dog who was involved .
It ’ s not hard to see why this document was released two days before Christmas .
But as we say , we ’ re only guessing about what all the bits we ’ re not allowed to see could contain .
So perhaps , as a light-hearted festive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more innocent explanations in the comments below .
Give it your best shots , gang .

With precisely the grim level of cynicism we’ve now come to expect as standard, the Scottish Government has released a key document relating to the Salmond inquiry two days before Christmas, hoping it’ll be buried in the ongoing coronavirus-and-Brexit-related implosion of the UK.
The document, which contains legal advice relating to the judicial review brought by Salmond regarding the Scottish Government’s investigations into false allegations of misconduct against him, is extremely heavily redacted. But a few interesting passages remain, so let’s have some fun.
The document, dated 28 December 2018, is a report from Sarah Davidson, the then-Director General of Organisational Development and Operations, one of those vague job titles that covers a multitude of sins.
It is, officially, the document which advised the Scottish Government to concede the case, on which it had by that point already spent an amount of money it refuses to reveal to the Scottish public – but which can be reasonably estimated at upwards of half a million pounds, given that we know Alex Salmond had spent a similar sum by then on his side of the argument.
But on even a cursory examination of what little remains unredacted, that line falls apart like a second-hand IKEA cabinet assembled by an old blind woman.
Let’s start with this one. What goes in here, readers?
What it’s claiming – and readers can make their own judgement about how believable a claim this is – is that the Scottish Government’s extremely expensive legal counsel only found out a few days before they were due to go to court that Judith Mackinnon had had extensive contact with the two complainers prior to being appointed as the Investigating Officer.
(The two QCs acting for the Scottish Government were Christine O’Neill as “junior” counsel, and Roddy Dunlop as senior, two of the country’s most eminent advocates. Alert readers may recall Dunlop from his successful work on two high-profile cases of recent years, on behalf of Alistair Carmichael and Kezia Dugdale.)
So it’s interesting to ponder what’s missing. (We don’t actually know how long any of the redactions are, because they’ve all been replaced with “[Redacted]” rather than blacked out. They could be a single word or a dozen paragraphs.)
The most obvious thing would be a word like “frankly”, but why would anyone want to redact that? Similarly there’s no conceivable reason to redact something like “in the opinion of counsel”, and it’s very difficult to plausibly add anything to that sentence which might identify anyone whose identity is being kept secret.
The only reason to blank out something there is if it’s in some way incriminating, such as – and we emphasise this is pure illustrative speculation on our part – “contrary to what counsel had been led to believe by the Scottish Government”.
It’s perhaps worth mentioning in passing that the word “unstat[e]able” is one with a very particular meaning for anyone practicing law. What it basically means is that if you deliberately conceal evidence or misrepresent something about the case to the court, or allow your client to, you’ll be struck off.
So make your guesses, folks. We’ll call that Blank 1.
What’s next?
Now, there’s nothing actually redacted in the paragraph above, but there’s certainly something missing from it. Who, a casual reader might wonder, has been failing to be adequately “systematic and comprehensive” in terms of their “duty of candour” to properly inform the legal counsel the Scottish Government is shovelling your money at? Who was in charge of this process? Who designed it and who was carrying it out?
We imagine that it was these people here:
(We know there are more than one because of the use of “share” rather than “shares”.)
We’ll call that Blank 2.
The next part comes under “SUMMARY OF COUNSEL’S ADVICE”.
Well, that’s helpful. But we know that the 19-21 December parts refer to the so-called “watershed moment” at which point it was no longer possible to deny that the game was up. So what happened on and before 31 October?
We know that counsel gave the Scottish Government advice on the case in that period, because that’s what’s been redacted above. And fortunately the document goes on to outline in more detail what it was.
Okay, not much more detail. But we learn that SOMETHING was revealed on 19 October, and that it was something that everyone knew was important and had to be disclosed. But that revelation didn’t officially take place until 19-21 December, two months later.
So let’s speculate illustratively again. We know it’s something the Scottish Government wants to hide, because it’s been redacted. So let’s imagine, by way of example, that counsel knew fine on 19 October that Judith Mackinnon had been in extensive contact with the complainers, and had advised the Scottish Government that this completely torpedoed the case.
It is, we can’t help but noting, somewhat implausible that they didn’t know, because if not then the Scottish Government was wasting an awful lot of money not telling its very costly representatives stuff that they really needed to know in order to arrive at their advice. But we can’t tell you that for certain at this stage, so we’re only speaking hypothetically here – let’s call it Blank 3.
But if that’s what’s being hidden, why, then, would the Scottish Government not take that advice, and instead plough on, burning public money, for several more months? Perhaps this paragraph includes some clues.
It may or may not be important to remember that in December 2018, when this report was produced, Salmond still hadn’t been charged by the police – that didn’t happen until the middle of January 2019.
Had the Scottish Government been advised in October that its prospective case in the judicial review was untenable, its last hope of avoiding either an embarrassingly comprehensive defeat or an almost equally embarrassing climbdown would have been if some other events had overtaken the judicial review and caused it to be shelved. Events such as, purely illustratively, a criminal prosecution.
Was the Scottish Government advised to concede the case in October 2018, but kept stalling and spending money in the hope of dragging it out until a criminal prosecution took the judicial review off the table entirely? This document doesn’t tell us.
But such a strategy would presumably have been quite poorly received by its legal advisers, whose hard-won reputations would be at stake if they were asked to present such a laughable case in front of a senior judge like Lord Pentland.
(And we know it was a laughable case because Alex Salmond was awarded costs on the almost unprecedented punitive “agent and client” basis, reflecting the court’s anger at having its time wasted.)
Does anything in the document tell us how counsel felt?
The short, innocuous-looking paragraph above is in fact probably the most explosive unredacted revelation in the whole document. Because what it says is that the Scottish Government’s legal counsel had given it an ultimatum – “concede this case or we quit”.
Such a step is almost unheard of. For a pair of QCs to walk away from a client rather than be humiliated (or worse) in court would be an event of earthquake proportions – especially when that client was a government.
And yet here it is, in unredacted black and white. The Scottish Government’s counsel could no longer endure the case they were being asked to present in court, and was forced to deliver a threat to its own client.
(Dunlop was perhaps already rather stung after having had to repeatedly and painfully apologise to the court because he’d been misinformed by his employers.)
And yet we’re expected to believe that these learned people, charging hundreds or thousands of pounds an hour, had been strung along at public expense for months on end without being told absolutely key facts, which were known to everyone else and their dog who was involved.
It’s not hard to see why this document was released two days before Christmas. But as we say, we’re only guessing about what all the bits we’re not allowed to see could contain. So perhaps, as a light-hearted festive parlour game, readers could offer some more innocent explanations in the comments below.
Give it your best shots, gang.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-25--It can be ending

It can be ending


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-25--Christmas Troll Of The Year 2020

Christmas Troll Of The Year 2020

Honestly hard to say who ’ s trying to wind up Yes supporters the most here .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ decide .

Honestly hard to say who’s trying to wind up Yes supporters the most here.
We’ll leave it to you to decide.


An internal matter

WIDER YES MOVEMENT : Hey , why don ’ t some of you SNP guys come along to this event @ @ @ @ @ about how we can all achieve our common goal ?
THE SNP : Get back @ @ @ @ @ your business , oiks .
Next year ’ s going to be bumpy , folks @

WIDER YES MOVEMENT: Hey, why don’t some of you SNP guys come along to this event and have a friendly chat about how we can all achieve our common goal?
THE SNP: Get back in your box and mind your business, oiks.
Next year’s going to be bumpy, folks.


Panto season


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-27--Standing on the shoulders of pygmies

Standing on the shoulders of pygmies

There is no good position for the opposition parties in the House Of Commons to take on the impending Brexit deal vote this coming week .
It ’ s a terrible deal , and voting for it – as Labour will do – makes you look like an idiot .
On the other hand , time is absolutely up and were it to be somehow defeated the only alternative left to the deal would be a no-deal exit , which is the only thing worse .
Which makes this look simply pathetic .
Because the SNP voting against the deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
It ’ s the most cynical , cowardly sort of grandstanding virtue-signalling imaginable .
They ’ re doing it precisely because their votes don ’ t matter .
They know that the deal would be guaranteed to pass on Tory votes alone , let alone with Labour supporting it too , so they can make a big show of voting against it without fear of consequences .
And if you ’ re not sure about that , take a moment and honestly ponder to yourself if the SNP would be voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter .
Imagine they held the balance of power .
Imagine that the Parliamentary arithmetic was something like it was before last year ’ s election , and so the way the SNP voted would determine whether the UK left the EU with a bad deal , or with no deal at all .
Look into your hearts , readers , and honestly tell us that a single one of you believes the SNP would have the courage to vote with their “ principles ” , condemn the UK and Scotland alike to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face up to the media storm on both sides of the border that would assuredly result .
Of course they wouldn ’ t .
A little over a year ago they didn ’ t even have the bottle to vote for the general election that they ’ d just spent weeks on end loudly demanding .
They abstained ( behind a pitiful fig-leaf of a three-day disagreement over the date ) and let others take the responsibility for what unfolded , exactly as they ’ ll be doing next week by NOT abstaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abstaining .
We ’ ve criticised Labour at length for it , quite properly in the circumstances involved , and the SNP for doing it over the elections .
There are very few occasions when it ’ s justifiable for an MP to refuse to express a view either way , but this is one of them .
The government is obviously obliged to vote for its own policy .
Labour ’ s position is at least honourably defensible as being in the interests of the country , the least worst of two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no escaping the fact that the country in question clearly voted for Brexit , not just in the referendum but also in that election last year .
Now , the SNP represent Scotland , not the UK , and the people of Scotland have voted overwhelmingly and repeatedly to remain .
But because of the SNP ’ s utter failure to take a single step towards independence in the last four and a half years , Scotland is still in the UK , and that means that a no-deal exit would be every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would for England , Wales and Northern Ireland ( if not more ) .
Remaining is no longer on the table .
It is not an option .
It ’ s this deal or no deal .
So there is no way on Earth that the SNP would or should have been voting against this eleventh-hour deal if doing so carried any risk of defeating it and bringing about a no-deal Brexit by default .
But that means their “ principles ” are a shameful lie , because their vote will have absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with cheap and grubby politicking .
Ironically , by acting in such a dishonest , self-serving manner they ’ ll be demonstrating that they truly belong at Westminster .
And for those of us who once believed there was something fundamentally different about them – who genuinely thought they ’ d gone to London to settle up , not settle down – the reality is heartbreaking .
We wish we could end with the famous Orwell quote from Animal Farm about not being able to tell the difference between the pigs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that it ’ s worse than that .
On this occasion the SNP have ceded the moral high ground to Labour , and that ’ s a thing we hoped never to live to see .

There is no good position for the opposition parties in the House Of Commons to take on the impending Brexit deal vote this coming week.
It’s a terrible deal, and voting for it – as Labour will do – makes you look like an idiot, especially when it completely fails the “six tests” you swore never to vote for it without. On the other hand, time is absolutely up and were it to be somehow defeated the only alternative left to the deal would be a no-deal exit, which is the only thing worse.
Which makes this look simply pathetic.
Because the SNP voting against the deal is the exact opposite of “principled”. It’s the most cynical, cowardly sort of grandstanding virtue-signalling imaginable. They’re doing it precisely because their votes don’t matter. They know that the deal would be guaranteed to pass on Tory votes alone, let alone with Labour supporting it too, so they can make a big show of voting against it without fear of consequences.
And if you’re not sure about that, take a moment and honestly ponder to yourself if the SNP would be voting against the deal if their votes DID matter.
Imagine they held the balance of power. Imagine that the Parliamentary arithmetic was something like it was before last year’s election, and so the way the SNP voted would determine whether the UK left the EU with a bad deal, or with no deal at all.
Look into your hearts, readers, and honestly tell us that a single one of you believes the SNP would have the courage to vote with their “principles”, condemn the UK and Scotland alike to the ruinous catastrophe of no-deal, and face up to the media storm on both sides of the border that would assuredly result.
Of course they wouldn’t. A little over a year ago they didn’t even have the bottle to vote for the general election that they’d just spent weeks on end loudly demanding. They abstained (behind a pitiful fig-leaf of a three-day disagreement over the date) and let others take the responsibility for what unfolded, exactly as they’ll be doing next week by NOT abstaining.
(What readers may not recall, incidentally, is that they did the same in 2017.)
This site by and large loathes abstaining. We’ve criticised Labour at length for it, quite properly in the circumstances involved, and the SNP for doing it over the elections. There are very few occasions when it’s justifiable for an MP to refuse to express a view either way, but this is one of them.
The government is obviously obliged to vote for its own policy. Labour’s position is at least honourably defensible as being in the interests of the country, the least worst of two awful options. And there’s no escaping the fact that the country in question clearly voted for Brexit, not just in the referendum but also in that election last year.
Now, the SNP represent Scotland, not the UK, and the people of Scotland have voted overwhelmingly and repeatedly to remain. But because of the SNP’s utter failure to take a single step towards independence in the last four and a half years, Scotland is still in the UK, and that means that a no-deal exit would be every bit as disastrous for Scotland as it would for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (if not more). Remaining is no longer on the table. It is not an option. It’s this deal or no deal.
So there is no way on Earth that the SNP would or should have been voting against this eleventh-hour deal if doing so carried any risk of defeating it and bringing about a no-deal Brexit by default. But that means their “principles” are a shameful lie, because their vote will have absolutely nothing to do with principles and is in fact an empty gesture that’s everything to do with cheap and grubby politicking.
Ironically, by acting in such a dishonest, self-serving manner they’ll be demonstrating that they truly belong at Westminster. And for those of us who once believed there was something fundamentally different about them – who genuinely thought they’d gone to London to settle up, not settle down – the reality is heartbreaking.
We wish we could end with the famous Orwell quote from Animal Farm about not being able to tell the difference between the pigs and the men. But the truth is that it’s worse than that. On this occasion the SNP have ceded the moral high ground to Labour, and that’s a thing we hoped never to live to see.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-28--And telling you it’s raining

And telling you it’s raining

If this site seems to spend most of its time being angry at the SNP these days , that ’ s because we are .
And a large part of that is because there ’ s very little that hacks us off more than people insulting our intelligence .
Smith ’ s tweet is just a crassly offensive flat-out lie .
This week ’ s vote is NOT about “ EU membership ” .
The United Kingdom hasn ’ t been a member of the EU since 31 January .
We ’ ve already left and there ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether we leave with a sliver of a trade deal slightly reducing the self-inflicted harm , or the total catastrophe of no deal at all , and it ’ s just crushingly embarrassing for all concerned that Smith thinks so little of his own supporters as to believe he can “ frame ” it otherwise .
Voting against the deal is a bad strategy , not because it ’ ll have the slightest impact on whether the deal passes or not but because it gives Unionists such a giant open goal to point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When you ’ re giving out free hits to lobotomy patients like George Foulkes , Braden Davy and James Cleverly , the world ’ s most ironically-named man , you ’ re selling the jerseys .
Because even though they ’ re total idiots , on this occasion they ’ re absolutely right , as the BBC ’ s Philip Sim pointed out in a well-argued thread this morning .
The only options on the table are the deal or no deal , and if you vote against the first one then you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , and all but the very dimmest , blindest SNP loyalists can see that .
That argument is a bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic as they ’ re lowering the last of the lifeboats and saying “ Och just wheesht about that big iceberg hole , we ’ ll fix it when we get to New York .
Look how luxurious our cabins are !
” Because by the middle of next May the SNP ’ s options will have narrowed to pretty much none .
If they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson for a Section 30 again and get told to shove it again ( as they will ) , then the worst possible place we can be is five years away from another election , because an election is the only thing the SNP has any practical control over .
A Section 30 is in the gift of Westminster .
An “ illegal ” referendum ( copyright Nicola Sturgeon ) is in practice in the control of local councils , none of which the SNP has a majority in .
The legal status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the courts ( and may already have been decided long before the election – Martin Keatings ’ case is due in court in just three weeks ’ time ) .
The only thing the SNP can do that isn ’ t dependent on someone else ’ s co-operation is to conduct a general election on a one-line manifesto of a plebiscite .
And if you ’ ve just HAD the election and you DIDN ’ T do that , you ’ re really struggling to find any other meaningful action that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election comes along .
Theoretically you could dissolve the parliament and call another election , but ( a ) that ’ s a really terrible idea because the electorate would be extremely unhappy about it , and more importantly ( b ) the UK government could simply step in and prevent it , because it retains sovereignty .
The Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended for three years from 2017 to 2020 and the UK parliament took over devolved affairs .
Nothing could prevent them doing the same to Holyrood if they wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still trying to tell people there ’ s a vote coming up on whether Britain leaves the EU or not is not a party fit to face up to any sort of reality .
And if the rest of us “ sit back , chill ” and turn a blind eye to that , we ’ ll deserve what we get .

If this site seems to spend most of its time being angry at the SNP these days, that’s because we are. And a large part of that is because there’s very little that hacks us off more than people insulting our intelligence.
Smith’s tweet is just a crassly offensive flat-out lie. This week’s vote is NOT about “EU membership”. The United Kingdom hasn’t been a member of the EU since 31 January. We’ve already left and there’s no going back. The vote is about whether we leave with a sliver of a trade deal slightly reducing the self-inflicted harm, or the total catastrophe of no deal at all, and it’s just crushingly embarrassing for all concerned that Smith thinks so little of his own supporters as to believe he can “frame” it otherwise.
Voting against the deal is a bad strategy, not because it’ll have the slightest impact on whether the deal passes or not but because it gives Unionists such a giant open goal to point out the grotesque and obvious cynicism.
When you’re giving out free hits to lobotomy patients like George Foulkes, Braden Davy and James Cleverly, the world’s most ironically-named man, you’re selling the jerseys. Because even though they’re total idiots, on this occasion they’re absolutely right, as the BBC’s Philip Sim pointed out in a well-argued thread this morning.
The only options on the table are the deal or no deal, and if you vote against the first one then you’re inescapably voting for the second one, and all but the very dimmest, blindest SNP loyalists can see that.
Speaking of whom:
That argument is a bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic as they’re lowering the last of the lifeboats and saying “Och just wheesht about that big iceberg hole, we’ll fix it when we get to New York. Look how luxurious our cabins are!”
Because by the middle of next May the SNP’s options will have narrowed to pretty much none. If they get their big majority, beg Boris Johnson for a Section 30 again and get told to shove it again (as they will), then the worst possible place we can be is five years away from another election, because an election is the only thing the SNP has any practical control over.
A Section 30 is in the gift of Westminster. An “illegal” referendum (copyright Nicola Sturgeon) is in practice in the control of local councils, none of which the SNP has a majority in. The legal status of a referendum is in the hands of the courts (and may already have been decided long before the election – Martin Keatings’ case is due in court in just three weeks’ time).
The only thing the SNP can do that isn’t dependent on someone else’s co-operation is to conduct a general election on a one-line manifesto of a plebiscite. And if you’ve just HAD the election and you DIDN’T do that, you’re really struggling to find any other meaningful action that’s available to you until the next election comes along .
Theoretically you could dissolve the parliament and call another election, but (a) that’s a really terrible idea because the electorate would be extremely unhappy about it, and more importantly (b) the UK government could simply step in and prevent it, because it retains sovereignty. The Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended for three years from 2017 to 2020 and the UK parliament took over devolved affairs. Nothing could prevent them doing the same to Holyrood if they wanted to.
But a party that’s still trying to tell people there’s a vote coming up on whether Britain leaves the EU or not is not a party fit to face up to any sort of reality. And if the rest of us “sit back, chill” and turn a blind eye to that, we’ll deserve what we get.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-29--The secret of teamwork

The secret of teamwork

Dr Tim Rideout is one of the most serious and respected people in the Yes movement and the SNP .
As convener of the Scottish Currency Group he ’ s presently engaged in trying to solve the party ’ s self-inflicted weakness over its lack of a coherent currency policy , and he ’ s sufficiently highly rated by SNP members that earlier this month he was elected to the party ’ s Policy Development Committee .
So you might think he was entitled to a view on , well , development of policy .
Yesterday Dr Rideout sent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MPs , advocating abstention on this week ’ s Brexit-deal vote ( a view shared by this site ) and making some constructive , sensible and rather uncontroversial suggestions on general European policy .
From : Tim Rideout Sent : 28 December 2020 15:08 To : SNP MPs Subject : Commons Brexit Vote – Just Don ’ t Attend – Hold an Alternative EU Policy Event I am sure thousands will be emailing you just now , but this is obviously an important symbolic moment .
To my mind by far the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not dignify the Commons vote on 30th December with your presence .
Your vote is entirely irrelevant to the result ( unfortunately ) , but voting NO is not a vote of principle .
If your votes might make a difference you would not vote NO and thus risk No Deal .
So just do not attend at all .
Make the point that next to zero Scottish MPs have had anything to do with something that is not in any shape or form what their constituents want .
Being present , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just allows the Tories to carry on maintaining that this is a UK decision rather than an English one .
You can go better than that , too .
Hold a special event ( on Zoom or similar ) on Wednesday instead for all the SNP MPs on the subject of “ The Transition to Independence – SNP Policy on EFTA / EEA and Re-joining the EU ” .
Take the results of your deliberations and send them to us in the SNP Policy Development Committee .
We are currently setting up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Personally I think the SNP policy should be : On Indy Day join EFTA / EEA to achieve a ‘ Norway ’ relationship with the EU .
Within a year or so of Independence hold a referendum on whether Scots wish to apply for EU membership or not .
If the answer to that is YES then commence discussions with the EU .
That will take several years and the results are not fully predictable .
If the negotiations result in an offer that is acceptable to Scotland then proceed to join , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Negotiations might result in an unacceptable offer in areas such as Fishing , but also on what are probably more important economic issues .
Those would include whether the idiotic 3 % deficit rule of the No-Growth and Instability Pact is still in place and if there is any attempt to force ( as opposed to present policy of being just ‘ in principle ’ ) Euro membership .
We thought readers might like to see the response ( addressed rather disrespectfully to “ Mr Rideout ” ) that he got from Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who he was .
It was passed to us by one of the other addressees , not by Dr Rideout .
“ From : WISHART , Peter Sent : Monday , December 28 , 2020 6:57 pm To : Tim Rideout Subject : Re : Commons Brexit Vote – Just Don ’ t Attend – Hold an Alternative EU Policy Event Thank you very much for your advice about how I should do my job and what I should do to represent my constituents .
I have only being doing this for about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how I have managed to be re-elected 6 times without your assistance .
If it ’ s OK with you , I will maybe just continue to put my constituents interests over and above what you think I should do on their behalf and make sure they are properly represented in one of the biggest decisions of this session of Parliament .
Though , they like me , are no doubt grateful that you think you know better than I in how their interests should be looked after .
I also want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the Scottish National Parties European policy should be .
Call me old fashioned , but I have this naive belief that party policy should be determined by our membership .
This ‘ zoom meeting ’ on ‘ The Transition to Independence – SNP Policy on EFTA / EEA and Re-joining the EU ’ does indeed sound like a real engaging public pleasing initiative , but unfortunately I might have something else to do that evening , though I can ’ t for the life of me remember exactly what it is… .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggestions .
Please feel free , etc .
Wishart confirmed today , incidentally , that if it was in his power to decide , Scotland WOULD have a no-deal Brexit inflicted on it rather than the deal 27 EU countries bent over backwards to negotiate to at least partly protect the UK from its own stupidity : Anything we could add seems superfluous .
[ EDIT 1.53pm : Wishart ’ s response to the email becoming public has been to double down on the abuse of Dr Rideout for the “ arrogance ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SNP Policy Development Committee who had the unforgivable temerity to express an opinion on SNP policy development . ]

Dr Tim Rideout is one of the most serious and respected people in the Yes movement and the SNP. As convener of the Scottish Currency Group he’s presently engaged in trying to solve the party’s self-inflicted weakness over its lack of a coherent currency policy, and he’s sufficiently highly rated by SNP members that earlier this month he was elected to the party’s Policy Development Committee.
So you might think he was entitled to a view on, well, development of policy.
Yesterday Dr Rideout sent a polite email to the SNP’s MPs, advocating abstention on this week’s Brexit-deal vote (a view shared by this site) and making some constructive, sensible and rather uncontroversial suggestions on general European policy.
From: Tim Rideout
Sent: 28 December 2020 15:08
To: SNP MPs
Subject: Commons Brexit Vote – Just Don’t Attend – Hold an Alternative EU Policy Event Hi, I am sure thousands will be emailing you just now, but this is obviously an important symbolic moment. To my mind by far the best option for the SNP MPs is to not dignify the Commons vote on 30th December with your presence. Your vote is entirely irrelevant to the result (unfortunately), but voting NO is not a vote of principle. If your votes might make a difference you would not vote NO and thus risk No Deal. So just do not attend at all. Make the point that next to zero Scottish MPs have had anything to do with something that is not in any shape or form what their constituents want. Being present, even making speeches to an empty room, just allows the Tories to carry on maintaining that this is a UK decision rather than an English one. You can go better than that, too. Hold a special event (on Zoom or similar) on Wednesday instead for all the SNP MPs on the subject of “The Transition to Independence – SNP Policy on EFTA / EEA and Re-joining the EU”. Take the results of your deliberations and send them to us in the SNP Policy Development Committee. We are currently setting up a Working Group on exactly this subject. Personally I think the SNP policy should be: On Indy Day join EFTA / EEA to achieve a ‘Norway’ relationship with the EU. Within a year or so of Independence hold a referendum on whether Scots wish to apply for EU membership or not. If the answer to that is YES then commence discussions with the EU. That will take several years and the results are not fully predictable. If the negotiations result in an offer that is acceptable to Scotland then proceed to join, otherwise stay in the Norway position. Negotiations might result in an unacceptable offer in areas such as Fishing, but also on what are probably more important economic issues. Those would include whether the idiotic 3% deficit rule of the No-Growth and Instability Pact is still in place and if there is any attempt to force (as opposed to present policy of being just ‘in principle’) Euro membership. Regards Tim Lothians Member, SNP Policy Development Committee
Convener, Scottish Currency Group
We thought readers might like to see the response (addressed rather disrespectfully to “Mr Rideout”) that he got from Pete Wishart, who appeared not to know who he was. It was passed to us by one of the other addressees, not by Dr Rideout.
“From: WISHART, Peter
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 6:57 pm
To: Tim Rideout
Subject: Re: Commons Brexit Vote – Just Don’t Attend – Hold an Alternative EU Policy Event Dear Mr Rideout Thank you very much for your advice about how I should do my job and what I should do to represent my constituents. I have only being doing this for about 20 years and I don’t know how I have managed to be re-elected 6 times without your assistance. If it’s OK with you, I will maybe just continue to put my constituents interests over and above what you think I should do on their behalf and make sure they are properly represented in one of the biggest decisions of this session of Parliament. Though, they like me, are no doubt grateful that you think you know better than I in how their interests should be looked after. I also want to thank you for your suggestion about what the Scottish National Parties European policy should be. Call me old fashioned, but I have this naive belief that party policy should be determined by our membership. This ‘zoom meeting’ on ‘The Transition to Independence – SNP Policy on EFTA / EEA and Re-joining the EU’ does indeed sound like a real engaging public pleasing initiative, but unfortunately I might have something else to do that evening, though I can’t for the life of me remember exactly what it is…. Thank you for all your very welcome suggestions. Please feel free, etc. Pete Wishart MP”
Wishart confirmed today, incidentally, that if it was in his power to decide, Scotland WOULD have a no-deal Brexit inflicted on it rather than the deal 27 EU countries bent over backwards to negotiate to at least partly protect the UK from its own stupidity:
Anything we could add seems superfluous.
.
[EDIT 1.53pm: Wishart’s response to the email becoming public has been to double down on the abuse of Dr Rideout for the “arrogance” of being a democratically elected member of the SNP Policy Development Committee who had the unforgivable temerity to express an opinion on SNP policy development.]


Parliamentarianism revisited

Drew Hendry won a lot of praise from Yes supporters a few days ago when he seized the Mace in the Commons .
It ’ s not easy to speak in the chamber at any time and doing so in the face of hostility from the Speaker is challenging indeed .
The institution of Parliament is , by its very design , geared towards control by the British establishment .
Not only are all sides uniformly hostile , but even the staff and officials , usually so polite and deferential , turn on you .
So it was an intimidatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t have been easy .
But the idea that Scottish MPs should routinely require to suffer the scorn and derision poured upon their nation and their people is long past its sell-by date .
Much of the vitriol shouted wouldn ’ t be countenanced elsewhere and just because it ’ s supposedly Honourable Members who act in that manner doesn ’ t justify it .
There comes a time when words aren ’ t enough .
That ’ s compounded by the laws being passed – in that case the Internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Scotland and its people ’ s welfare .
SNP MPs have pledged to defend Scottish interests , so the idea that they should supinely accept laws imposed that cause such harm to Scotland is patently absurd .
It ’ s SNP elected members ’ duty to speak out and to take actions reflecting the anger felt and dangers faced by Scottish democracy .
However , English Votes For English Laws , Brexit and now the Internal Market Bill have shown that attacks on Scottish interests in Westminster aren ’ t an aberration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermining our land and its elected Parliament .
It ’ s quite some time now since the SNP group walked out in disgust , to widespread public support , yet the situation has worsened and the crisis of Scottish democracy has deepened .
So , Drew Hendry deserves all the plaudits he received not just from the grassroots but from senior party figures .
However , that latter support itself raises questions .
If it ’ s right for an individual elected member to speak out and engage in parliamentary disruption then why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parliamentary group , as indeed has been done before ?
What happened to the promised “ campaign of guerrilla tactics ” ?
Individual actions are laudable and important , from the moral perspective of the actor but especially for the cause .
Not paying the poll tax was felt to be a moral duty by many , because of its inherent unfairness and the future effects on communities .
But it was a mass campaign that ultimately resulted in its , and Thatcher ’ s , removal .
There ’ ve been innumerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are multiplied by collective action , and it ’ s that unity and co-ordination that brings success .
Surely , then , that should be the case with Parliamentary disruption .
Individual actions are laudable but it ’ s collective and , more importantly , coordinated actions that are more likely to have effect .
Rather than just congratulating one member for what they ’ ve done , isn ’ t it time to prepare all members for what they should do ?
Even those members least supportive of such actions have talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Section 30 order being refused after the Holyrood elections .
But why wait ?
Scotland ’ s plight is worsening by the day and the incompetencies of Westminster rule are being magnified .
The supposed Mother Of Parliaments put into recess before calamity , and calls for recall ignored .
Sins of the Tory administration are agreed to , or go unchallenged , by the Labour opposition .
The time for a change in parliamentary tactics has arrived , even if it ’ ll be constrained by the almost inevitability of virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not months – of next year .
Action must commence before , not after , the Holyrood elections .
Suggestions of refusing to sit on Public Bill committees go nowhere near far enough .
That ’ s too little too late .
Steps must be taken to show Scotland ’ s anger ( and not just that of SNP voters , either ) at the contempt it ’ s being treated with .
When the Scottish Affairs Committee produced a report on drug policy during the last Parliament it was ignored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their majority in 2019 – despite yet another comprehensive rejection in Scotland – the Tories have crammed it with English MPs .
That ’ s treating Scots MPs with contempt , yet all the while it ’ s Scots that are dying in our communties through drug addiction .
In any event it ’ s not the job of SNP MPs to administer the British state , least of all when it ’ s actively undermining our own land .
It ’ s time therefore that SNP parliamentary tactics changed and parliamentarianism ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be discussed and planned but action there must be .
Righteous anger isn ’ t saving victims of drug addiction , virtuous outrage has neither stopped Brexit nor mitigated its effects , and honourable speeches aren ’ t protecting our land or its democracy .
Scotland needs MPs that act , not just speak , in its interests , and that must be by collective , not just individual , actions .

Drew Hendry won a lot of praise from Yes supporters a few days ago when he seized the Mace in the Commons. It’s not easy to speak in the chamber at any time and doing so in the face of hostility from the Speaker is challenging indeed.
The institution of Parliament is, by its very design, geared towards control by the British establishment. Not only are all sides uniformly hostile, but even the staff and officials, usually so polite and deferential, turn on you. So it was an intimidatory atmosphere in which he acted and it can’t have been easy.
But the idea that Scottish MPs should routinely require to suffer the scorn and derision poured upon their nation and their people is long past its sell-by date. Much of the vitriol shouted wouldn’t be countenanced elsewhere and just because it’s supposedly Honourable Members who act in that manner doesn’t justify it. There comes a time when words aren’t enough.
That’s compounded by the laws being passed – in that case the Internal Market Bill – which are hugely damaging to Scotland and its people’s welfare. SNP MPs have pledged to defend Scottish interests, so the idea that they should supinely accept laws imposed that cause such harm to Scotland is patently absurd. It’s SNP elected members’ duty to speak out and to take actions reflecting the anger felt and dangers faced by Scottish democracy.
However, English Votes For English Laws, Brexit and now the Internal Market Bill have shown that attacks on Scottish interests in Westminster aren’t an aberration but are part of a pattern of undermining our land and its elected Parliament. It’s quite some time now since the SNP group walked out in disgust, to widespread public support, yet the situation has worsened and the crisis of Scottish democracy has deepened.
So, Drew Hendry deserves all the plaudits he received not just from the grassroots but from senior party figures. However, that latter support itself raises questions. If it’s right for an individual elected member to speak out and engage in parliamentary disruption then why should it not be done by the parliamentary group, as indeed has been done before? What happened to the promised “campaign of guerrilla tactics”?
Individual actions are laudable and important, from the moral perspective of the actor but especially for the cause. Not paying the poll tax was felt to be a moral duty by many, because of its inherent unfairness and the future effects on communities. But it was a mass campaign that ultimately resulted in its, and Thatcher’s, removal. There’ve been innumerable cases of legitimate actions by individuals which are multiplied by collective action, and it’s that unity and co-ordination that brings success.
Surely, then, that should be the case with Parliamentary disruption. Individual actions are laudable but it’s collective and, more importantly, coordinated actions that are more likely to have effect. Rather than just congratulating one member for what they’ve done, isn’t it time to prepare all members for what they should do? Even those members least supportive of such actions have talked about parliamentary disruption in the event of a Section 30 order being refused after the Holyrood elections.
But why wait? Scotland’s plight is worsening by the day and the incompetencies of Westminster rule are being magnified. The supposed Mother Of Parliaments put into recess before calamity, and calls for recall ignored. Sins of the Tory administration are agreed to, or go unchallenged, by the Labour opposition. The time for a change in parliamentary tactics has arrived, even if it’ll be constrained by the almost inevitability of virtual parliament for the first few weeks – if not months – of next year. Action must commence before, not after, the Holyrood elections.
Suggestions of refusing to sit on Public Bill committees go nowhere near far enough. That’s too little too late. Steps must be taken to show Scotland’s anger (and not just that of SNP voters, either) at the contempt it’s being treated with.
When the Scottish Affairs Committee produced a report on drug policy during the last Parliament it was ignored by the British government. Instead, following their majority in 2019 – despite yet another comprehensive rejection in Scotland – the Tories have crammed it with English MPs. That’s treating Scots MPs with contempt, yet all the while it’s Scots that are dying in our communties through drug addiction. In any event it’s not the job of SNP MPs to administer the British state, least of all when it’s actively undermining our own land.
It’s time therefore that SNP parliamentary tactics changed and parliamentarianism ended. Just what that will entail has to be discussed and planned but action there must be. Righteous anger isn’t saving victims of drug addiction, virtuous outrage has neither stopped Brexit nor mitigated its effects, and honourable speeches aren’t protecting our land or its democracy.
Scotland needs MPs that act, not just speak, in its interests, and that must be by collective, not just individual, actions.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-30--All Vegetarians Are Nazis

All Vegetarians Are Nazis

Because 2020 is the maddest year in history , Ruth Davidson opened her contribution to Holyrood ’ s debate on the Brexit deal today with a lengthy quote from this website .
Because hey , why NOT , right ?
We thought we ’ d preserve it for posterity and lolz , because it ’ s not something we ’ re the least bit ashamed of .
Human existence is almost never black and white .
Sometimes people you despise can be right about things , sometimes people you respect can be wrong about things , and if you lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shame is on you .
A few of the usual suspects have of course leapt with glee on the quotation as if it were some sort of smoking gun , a position which is roughly as intellectually sound as saying all vegetarians must be genocidal anti-Semites because Hitler was one , or boycotting Maltesers because you found out that Jimmy Savile really liked them .
But the bottom line is that Davidson was right , because she was quoting a source that was right .
The SNP gave away an idiotic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even only 10 % of Remain voters wanted opposed , and by effectively voting for no-deal they made themselves look almost as stupid and cynical and unprincipled as Labour , who hilariously voted on opposite sides at Westminster and Holyrood .
If Ruth Davidson – an ardent and active Remainer , let ’ s remember – has the basic wit to see that and Nicola Sturgeon doesn ’ t , then the truth is that that reflects a lot worse on Nicola Sturgeon ( and the pathetic pygmies snarking about it on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever caring about anything they say ) than it does on either Ruth Davidson or Wings Over Scotland .
As for us , we ’ re just shrugging and putting it down to 2020 .
We fear that far madder things than Ruth Davidson making sense for once are lurking just over the horizon .

Because 2020 is the maddest year in history, Ruth Davidson opened her contribution to Holyrood’s debate on the Brexit deal today with a lengthy quote from this website.
Because hey, why NOT, right?
We thought we’d preserve it for posterity and lolz, because it’s not something we’re the least bit ashamed of. Human existence is almost never black and white. Sometimes people you despise can be right about things, sometimes people you respect can be wrong about things, and if you lack the maturity to deal with that, the shame is on you.
(There’s no better example than that living embodiment of 2020’s madness, the trans debate. Nobody of a leftish persuasion wants to be on the same side as Piers Morgan and on the opposite side to Billy Bragg, but if one of them’s right and one of them’s wrong then those are the breaks. If you decide your ideology based on personalities rather than facts you’re a drooling moron and please don’t read our website.)
A few of the usual suspects have of course leapt with glee on the quotation as if it were some sort of smoking gun, a position which is roughly as intellectually sound as saying all vegetarians must be genocidal anti-Semites because Hitler was one, or boycotting Maltesers because you found out that Jimmy Savile really liked them.
(They include some people who are just jealous of a site that anyone is reading.)
But the bottom line is that Davidson was right, because she was quoting a source that was right. The SNP gave away an idiotic and needless own-goal today, opposing a deal that even only 10% of Remain voters wanted opposed, and by effectively voting for no-deal they made themselves look almost as stupid and cynical and unprincipled as Labour, who hilariously voted on opposite sides at Westminster and Holyrood.
If Ruth Davidson – an ardent and active Remainer, let’s remember – has the basic wit to see that and Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t, then the truth is that that reflects a lot worse on Nicola Sturgeon (and the pathetic pygmies snarking about it on social media as a substitute for anyone ever caring about anything they say) than it does on either Ruth Davidson or Wings Over Scotland.
As for us, we’re just shrugging and putting it down to 2020. We fear that far madder things than Ruth Davidson making sense for once are lurking just over the horizon.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-30--From the archives #15

From the archives #15

To mark today’s events, a look back at more innocent times.
It really is remarkable that Blair McDougall still dares to show his face, isn’t it?


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-31--The opposite of intelligence

The opposite of intelligence

Yesterday we noted that rational people arrive at decisions about things based on the facts , not the personalities of who else might support or oppose those things .
But in the interests of balance , allow us to present the counterpoint .
Yesterday the SNP ’ s defence spokesman at Westminster cited the position of French National Front leader Marine Le Pen when arguing with someone who suggested that an independent Scotland should leave NATO .
As it happens , we agree with McDonald on NATO membership .
It would be a pointless folly and an exercise in self-destructive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to defend Scotland militarily for free because of its strategic location , and it would be extremely unpopular with the Scottish public ( including SNP voters ) , no matter how much those on the left might wish otherwise .
His reasoning above , however , is a wretched embarrassment .
McDonald , while very much on the right of the party , is typical of the SNP ’ s hyper-woke wing – a pious , puritanical fundamentalist completely intolerant of any dissenting view on any currently fashionable topic .
And as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it follows that they have no interest in facts and are all about personalities , whether it ’ s the cult of the leader or the merciless “ cancelling ” of those deemed unworthy .
McDonald ’ s view that “ we can never , ever be on the same side as the National Front ” sounds instinctively fine on first hearing .
Who , after all , would want to be allied with a bunch of horrible racist thugs ?
But the problem with an infantile policy of “ whatever X @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” becomes obvious after five seconds ’ thought , and is twofold .
Because as someone on the thread pointed out , Le Pen ’ s party has , since 2017 , been opposed to capital punishment : And what that means is that if you ’ re also opposed to the death penalty , then whether you like it or not you ’ re on the same side as the French National Front .
For his position to have any sort of logical consistency , McDonald would be obliged to start campaigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem is flagged in the words “ since 2017 ” above .
Because what THAT means is that if the Front Nationale suddenly had an unlikely change of heart and became supportive of immigration , the SNP would have to start opposing it , because McDonald ’ s brainless student philosophy requires the SNP to reflexively position itself as the diametric opposite of the FN whatever the FN stands for on any given issue , and therefore to change whenever it changes .
It ’ s a stance not fit for a primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ some people are just plain bad so we have to be whatever they ’ re not ” .
And we ’ re not misrepresenting McDonald ’ s views there – they ’ re his own unaltered words : we can NEVER , EVER be on the same side as Marine Le Pen .
No qualifiers , no exceptions , no “ on this particular subject ” , no “ as long as she has this view ” .
Just NEVER , EVER , under any circumstances , because she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two must never occupy the same space , like matter and anti-matter .
If it turned out that she liked cheese ’ n ’ onion crisps , McDonald could never eat them again , because cheese ’ n ’ onion crisps would have just become fascist by association .
We have no idea how such a pitiful intellectual void ever came to occupy a seat on the SNP ’ s front bench , other than perhaps as a box-ticking exercise .
But if McDonald is representative of the party ’ s senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a lot of trouble in more ways than we can count .

Yesterday we noted that rational people arrive at decisions about things based on the facts, not the personalities of who else might support or oppose those things. But in the interests of balance, allow us to present the counterpoint.
Yesterday the SNP’s defence spokesman at Westminster cited the position of French National Front leader Marine Le Pen when arguing with someone who suggested that an independent Scotland should leave NATO.
As it happens, we agree with McDonald on NATO membership. It would be a pointless folly and an exercise in self-destructive virtue-signalling to leave an organisation which is willing to defend Scotland militarily for free because of its strategic location, and it would be extremely unpopular with the Scottish public (including SNP voters), no matter how much those on the left might wish otherwise.
His reasoning above, however, is a wretched embarrassment.
McDonald, while very much on the right of the party, is typical of the SNP’s hyper-woke wing – a pious, puritanical fundamentalist completely intolerant of any dissenting view on any currently fashionable topic.
And as the woke are driven wholly by trends, it follows that they have no interest in facts and are all about personalities, whether it’s the cult of the leader or the merciless “cancelling” of those deemed unworthy.
McDonald’s view that “we can never, ever be on the same side as the National Front” sounds instinctively fine on first hearing. Who, after all, would want to be allied with a bunch of horrible racist thugs?
But the problem with an infantile policy of “whatever X is for, I’m against” becomes obvious after five seconds’ thought, and is twofold.
Because as someone on the thread pointed out, Le Pen’s party has, since 2017, been opposed to capital punishment:
And what that means is that if you’re also opposed to the death penalty, then whether you like it or not you’re on the same side as the French National Front. For his position to have any sort of logical consistency, McDonald would be obliged to start campaigning to bring back hanging.
(Typically, when challenged he insisted this wasn’t true, while failing to offer any sort of attempt at an argument to back up the assertion. It is, as with so many other aspects of the current SNP, a mindset terrifyingly reminiscent of “1984”.)
The second problem is flagged in the words “since 2017” above. Because what THAT means is that if the Front Nationale suddenly had an unlikely change of heart and became supportive of immigration, the SNP would have to start opposing it, because McDonald’s brainless student philosophy requires the SNP to reflexively position itself as the diametric opposite of the FN whatever the FN stands for on any given issue, and therefore to change whenever it changes.
(In other words, in effect Marine Le Pen gets to decide SNP policy.)
It’s a stance not fit for a primary school’s first ever debating society: “some people are just plain bad so we have to be whatever they’re not”. And we’re not misrepresenting McDonald’s views there – they’re his own unaltered words: we can NEVER, EVER be on the same side as Marine Le Pen.
No qualifiers, no exceptions, no “on this particular subject”, no “as long as she has this view”. Just NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances, because she’s evil and he’s good and the two must never occupy the same space, like matter and anti-matter. If it turned out that she liked cheese’n’onion crisps, McDonald could never eat them again, because cheese’n’onion crisps would have just become fascist by association.
(Or less satirically, if she suddenly switched the FN over to a pro-NATO stance, then by McDonald’s logic the SNP would have to revert to opposing it, as it did until 2012. In fact, since McDonald despises this site, he really ought to oppose NATO membership simply on the grounds that we advocate it.)
We have no idea how such a pitiful intellectual void ever came to occupy a seat on the SNP’s front bench, other than perhaps as a box-ticking exercise. But if McDonald is representative of the party’s senior ranks then the independence movement really is in a lot of trouble in more ways than we can count.