wingsoverscotland--2020-07-05--Shiny beads and trinkets

Shiny beads and trinkets

Even by the intellectual standards of the Scottish media , this is a stupid question : But just to be helpful , we ’ ll answer it : by a majority of more than 500 votes .
The Tories , Labour , Liberal Democrat and Democratic Ulster Unionist parties in the UK Parliament are all explicitly opposed to a second independence referendum .
Between them they hold 586 of the 650 seats in the Commons .
The SNP could probably count on the support of Plaid Cymru and maybe the solitary Green MP , which would give them a total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea , thereby losing the division by 533 .
Democracy in action , there .
In 2014 Scotland declined the responsibility for its own decisions and left it to the UK , and that ’ s the UK position .
It ’ s not like anyone could claim to be surprised .
Everyone knows their policies on the subject , and everyone knew their policies at the election seven months ago .
And sure enough , in the very same poll , Scottish respondents told us that they knew that too .
Almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the poll Hutcheon was talking about believed the UK government would not grant a second indyref under ANY circumstances , and another 16 % – for a total of 73 % – said it would need a year of polling consistently above 60 % , which is still a pipedream .
Less than one in five Scots believe that even if the current one-month run of polls over 50 % stretched to a year it would be enough to persuade the UK to cave in , and barely one in three believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would .
We also know from just a couple of weeks ago that almost identical numbers don ’ t believe any possible result in next year ’ s Holyrood election would do the job either .
There ’ s literally no reason for Boris Johnson to concede anything on the issue .
He doesn ’ t even need an argument .
Until such times as any hypothetical legal action proves otherwise it ’ s a decision for the UK Parliament to make , and as we ’ ve just seen he has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament on it – no matter how many pretty and sparkly but meaningless “ mandates ” the SNP collect from either voters or polling companies .
But what about a political motivation ?
We thought it ’ d be interesting , since we were also polling a full-size English sample at the same time , to see what his own voters thought .
So we asked the English sample – but mainly interested in Tory voters – what they thought about a second Scottish referendum .
By more than two to one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be against the idea .
He did , after all , campaign very pointedly as the “ Prime Minister For The Union ” .
And among his Scottish voters the margin was comfortably more than SIX to one .
So any concession to a second referendum isn ’ t only unlikely and unnecessary from Johnson ’ s point of view , it would be political suicide .
The people who put him in power , and who he needs to do so again in 2024 , would regard it as a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has any say in it , it ’ s simply not going to happen .
Mildly interestingly , by the by , Labour voters in England take a very different view : But new leader Keir Starmer has significantly hardened his party ’ s position against a new referendum since taking over , unequivocally ending Jeremy Corbyn ’ s somewhat woolly and fluid stance , so what they want counts for nothing .
Plan A is deader than a dead thing that ’ s just been shot through the head , set on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Westminster is not going to concede , either because of polls or because of any vote in Scotland , and as long as the SNP meekly maintains that the London parliament is sovereign then what ’ s more Westminster is democratically quite right not to concede .
It would fly in the face of the UK electorate to whom the UK parliament is accountable .
The only thing that could happen at next year ’ s election to change that situation is if a political force of some sort came into being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sole sovereignty over the constitution .
And for some very interesting data on that , tune into Wings tomorrow .

Even by the intellectual standards of the Scottish media, this is a stupid question:
But just to be helpful, we’ll answer it: by a majority of more than 500 votes is how.
The Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Democratic Ulster Unionist parties in the UK Parliament are all explicitly opposed to a second independence referendum. Between them they hold 586 of the 650 seats in the Commons.
The SNP could probably count on the support of Plaid Cymru and maybe the solitary Green MP, which would give them a total of 53 votes in favour of the idea, thereby losing the division by 533. Democracy in action, there. In 2014 Scotland declined the responsibility for its own decisions and left it to the UK, and that’s the UK position.
It’s not like anyone could claim to be surprised. Everyone knows their policies on the subject, and everyone knew their policies at the election seven months ago. And sure enough, in the very same poll, Scottish respondents told us that they knew that too.
Almost 60% of the exact same voters in the poll Hutcheon was talking about believed the UK government would not grant a second indyref under ANY circumstances, and another 16% – for a total of 73% – said it would need a year of polling consistently above 60%, which is still a pipedream.
Less than one in five Scots believe that even if the current one-month run of polls over 50% stretched to a year it would be enough to persuade the UK to cave in, and barely one in three believe that even consistent polling over 60% would.
We also know from just a couple of weeks ago that almost identical numbers don’t believe any possible result in next year’s Holyrood election would do the job either.
There’s literally no reason for Boris Johnson to concede anything on the issue. He doesn’t even need an argument. Until such times as any hypothetical legal action proves otherwise it’s a decision for the UK Parliament to make, and as we’ve just seen he has the overwhelming, crushing democratic support of that Parliament on it – no matter how many pretty and sparkly but meaningless “mandates” the SNP collect from either voters or polling companies.
But what about a political motivation? We thought it’d be interesting, since we were also polling a full-size English sample at the same time, to see what his own voters thought. So we asked the English sample – but mainly interested in Tory voters – what they thought about a second Scottish referendum.
By more than two to one, Johnson’s own voters in England would be against the idea. He did, after all, campaign very pointedly as the “Prime Minister For The Union”.
And among his Scottish voters the margin was comfortably more than SIX to one.
So any concession to a second referendum isn’t only unlikely and unnecessary from Johnson’s point of view, it would be political suicide. The people who put him in power, and who he needs to do so again in 2024, would regard it as a massive betrayal. For as long as he has any say in it, it’s simply not going to happen.
Mildly interestingly, by the by, Labour voters in England take a very different view:
But new leader Keir Starmer has significantly hardened his party’s position against a new referendum since taking over, unequivocally ending Jeremy Corbyn’s somewhat woolly and fluid stance, so what they want counts for nothing.
(Even if Labour suddenly pivoted to 100% support, which they won’t, Johnson still has a majority of 80, and 120 once you include the Lib Dems and DUP.)
Plan A is deader than a dead thing that’s just been shot through the head, set on fire and dropped into an industrial grinder. Westminster is not going to concede, either because of polls or because of any vote in Scotland, and as long as the SNP meekly maintains that the London parliament is sovereign then what’s more Westminster is democratically quite right not to concede. It would fly in the face of the UK electorate to whom the UK parliament is accountable.
(Comfortably-nested SNP MP Pete Wishart summoned up some sort of token effort at suggesting an alternative via the EU this week, and was absolutely cuttingly smacked down like an unruly child by a European expert. It was so brutal even we winced.)
The only thing that could happen at next year’s election to change that situation is if a political force of some sort came into being in Scotland that challenged Westminster’s sole sovereignty over the constitution.
And for some very interesting data on that, tune into Wings tomorrow.


Premature chickens

We were looking for something else this afternoon , but accidentally found this : Just two weeks before the last Holyrood election , widely-respected analysts Weber Shandwick had put together a prediction of how the results would pan out .
Just for a bit of fun , let ’ s compare it to the reality .
Based on a “ poll of polls ” , WS predicted an increase in the SNP ’ s absolute majority from 2011 , going from 69 seats to 72 .
But alert readers may recall that that isn ’ t what happened .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and seats , and actually lost its majority , becoming reliant on the Greens and vulnerable to united opposition attacks , such as the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour ( Football ) Act .
The SNP and Green votes and seats were considerably overestimated , while the Tory vote was severely underestimated – Ruth Davidson ’ s Red Hand Of No Surrender To A Second Referendum Party ended up with an astonishing 63 % more seats than the projection , and taking 2nd place from Kezia Dugdale ’ s hapless Labour .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gammon-faced poltroon and Labour appear staggeringly to have found someone even more hopeless than Dugdale , but swap the two parties around ( as they ’ ve switched 2nd and 3rd ) and the figures from today ’ s Panelbase poll are still eerily similar to those over-optimistic projections from 2016 .
And today ’ s poll is 10 MONTHS out from an election , not two weeks .
A very great deal of potentially very murky water is yet to flow under the bridge .
All we ’ re saying is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP quarters , and complacency from indy “ inevitablists ” , might just be getting a little ahead of itself .

We were looking for something else this afternoon, but accidentally found this:
Just two weeks before the last Holyrood election, widely-respected analysts Weber Shandwick had put together a prediction of how the results would pan out. Just for a bit of fun, let’s compare it to the reality.
Based on a “poll of polls”, WS predicted an increase in the SNP’s absolute majority from 2011, going from 69 seats to 72. But alert readers may recall that that isn’t what happened. The SNP significantly underperformed both on vote share and seats, and actually lost its majority, becoming reliant on the Greens and vulnerable to united opposition attacks, such as the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act.
SEATS
SNP predicted: 72
SNP actual: 63
LAB predicted: 23
LAB actual: 24
CON predicted: 19
CON actual: 31
LIB predicted: 6
LIB actual: 5
CONSTITUENCY VOTE
SNP predicted: 53%
SNP actual: 47%
LAB predicted: 20%
LAB actual: 23%
CON predicted: 17%
CON actual: 22%
LIB predicted: 6%
LIB actual: 8%
REGIONAL VOTE
SNP predicted: 45%
SNP actual: 42%
LAB predicted: 19%
LAB actual: 19%
CON predicted: 17%
CON actual: 23%
LIB predicted: 6%
LIB actual: 5%
GRN predicted: 9%
GRN actual: 7%
The SNP and Green votes and seats were considerably overestimated, while the Tory vote was severely underestimated – Ruth Davidson’s Red Hand Of No Surrender To A Second Referendum Party ended up with an astonishing 63% more seats than the projection, and taking 2nd place from Kezia Dugdale’s hapless Labour.
The Tories are now led by a blundering gammon-faced poltroon and Labour appear staggeringly to have found someone even more hopeless than Dugdale, but swap the two parties around (as they’ve switched 2nd and 3rd) and the figures from today’s Panelbase poll are still eerily similar to those over-optimistic projections from 2016.
2016 SNP predicted: 72 seats
2020 SNP predicted: 74
2016 LAB predicted: 23
2020 CON predicted: 24
2016 CON predicted: 19
2020 LAB predicted: 17
2016 LIB predicted: 6
2020 LIB predicted: 5
2016 GRN predicted: 9
2020 GRN predicted: 9
And today’s poll is 10 MONTHS out from an election, not two weeks. A very great deal of potentially very murky water is yet to flow under the bridge. All we’re saying is, the avalanche of hubristic crowing from certain SNP quarters, and complacency from indy “inevitablists”, might just be getting a little ahead of itself.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-06--The cat and all the pigeons

The cat and all the pigeons

Our most extra-specially alert readers may have recently noticed the website of some dodgy chancer claiming that a recent opinion poll by Survation showed high support for a pro-independence list party led by Alex Salmond .
Unfortunately , no such poll existed .
The site owner blanked every request to back up his assertion with a link to the supposed survey , and it rapidly became clear that it was a totally fabricated piece of attention-seeking which we won ’ t indulge with a link .
But it seemed worth asking the question for real .
So we added the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted last week .
And the results were pretty explosive .
The headline figures – that 26 % of Scottish voters would either definitely or probably give their list vote to a Salmond-led list party – were fairly stunning in themselves for a brand new party .
But it ’ s not until you stop and think about what those numbers mean that the full significance sinks in .
Because clearly , the appeal of such a party would be fundamentally restricted to half of the electorate – the half that wants independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many votes it gets from Yes supporters , whose list votes are currently almost totally wasted .
And that ’ s where the picture gets really interesting .
A familiar-sounding 45 % of 2014 Yes voters said they ’ d either definitely or probably vote for Salmond ’ s party , with another 33 % not prepared to rule it out .
And in fact 11 % of No voters agreed .
Those are absolutely huge numbers for a new party , but there ’ s a limit to what they tell us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a Holyrood election .
For that we need a breakdown by party , and luckily we have one .
Wow .
A thumping 40 % of SNP voters – not the mere 28 % of the fake poll – say they ’ d definitely or probably vote for a Salmond party , but even more extraordinary is the 31 % of 2019 Labour voters who would too ( along with 9 % of Tories and 7 % of Lib Dems ) .
And yet it ’ s logical .
A very large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently suggest anywhere between 30 % and 40 % – want independence , but their party is an irrelevant joke with no hope of any kind of power and it keeps doubling and tripling down on its total intransigence on the constitution .
Any Yes supporters still voting for it at this point must be pretty implacably hostile to the SNP , but they might well view a party fronted by Salmond as a welcome thorn in its side as well as a positive force for indy .
( And they ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrie analysed Scottish Parliament voting data for us last year , he didn ’ t even dare contemplate numbers this high for a new pro-indy list party , stopping his calculations at 35 % of the SNP list vote alone , which comes to just 14 % of the total list vote .
But these numbers are almost twice his wildest scenario – if we plug them into yesterday ’ s Panelbase poll , it suggests the notional Salmond party would be picking up a staggering 609,153 votes .
That ’ s far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) in 2016 , for which they picked up 24 list seats , and more still than Labour ( 436,000 ) , who won 21 list seats .
( And both of those figures were reduced by the Tories and Labour also winning some constituency seats – 7 and 3 respectively – which wouldn ’ t be the case for a new list party . )
It ’ s more than four times the Green list vote in 2016 , and over five times the Lib Dem list vote .
Indeed , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined total of the Green and Lib Dem list AND constituency votes ( 461,000 ) .
According to the Election Polling seat forecaster it ’ d be enough to secure 28 seats .
Caveats apply to such predictions , as we noted last night .
But that ’ d be one more than the Tories , Labour and Lib Dems put together .
Alex Salmond would be , by a very great distance , the second biggest force in the Scottish Parliament , and a large swathe of Unionist dead weight would suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadness of Salmond ’ s cross-demographic appeal was notable .
There was no discernible difference in the level of his definite-or-probable support among Remain and Leave voters , for example , coming in at 27 % and 26 % respectively .
Nor , despite Salmond having endured months and months of smearing , innuendo and malicious speculation over a series of false sexual-assault allegations , was there much of a gap between men and women , recording 29 % and 24 % backing .
And perhaps the most surprisingly to us , support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That might have been partly expected because the young tend to be much more in favour of independence , but they ’ re also the most “ woke ” and Salmond is a straight white man in his 60s , a set of characteristics often derided by modern youth as “ male , pale and stale ” and much sneered at by the punditariat .
Yet 33 % of 16-34 voters said they ’ d definitely or probably back his party if he created one , and 28 % of those from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s contemporaries in the oldest age group – those most likely to be Unionist – bucked the trend , scoring just 18 % .
But by far the biggest gulf , despite Salmond being a noted and genuine Anglophile , came by country of birth .
While 28 % of native Scots and 23 % of those from beyond the UK were supportive , a miserly 12 % of those respondents resident in Scotland but born in England ( around 9 % of the sample ) said they ’ d vote for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something akin to sheer blind panic at SNP HQ , not least because they come BEFORE any revelations from the inquiry into whether the party , the Scottish Government , the Scottish civil service and Police Scotland were engaged in a conspiracy to frame Salmond on the sexual assault charges .
We must emphasise again that we have no grounds to believe Alex Salmond DOES intend to form a list party .
He may wish to rejoin the SNP .
He may even wish to try to take back control of it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the traumas of the last couple of years .
All of this is entirely hypothetical .
But if he did re-enter the fray , it seems very clear from these findings that the “ both votes SNP ” strategy that wasted close to a million votes in 2016 would be blown clean out of the water .
Holyrood would have a vast pro-indy majority , dozens of Unionist seatwarmers would be out on their ears , and – and here ’ s where the scenario differs from the SNP/indy majority currently being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP would be under unprecedented pressure to actually get moving and do something about independence .
We hope readers are as excited about that possibility , even as just a theory , as we are .

Our most extra-specially alert readers may have recently noticed the website of some dodgy chancer claiming that a recent opinion poll by Survation showed high support for a pro-independence list party led by Alex Salmond.
Unfortunately, no such poll existed. The site owner blanked every request to back up his assertion with a link to the supposed survey, and it rapidly became clear that it was a totally fabricated piece of attention-seeking which we won’t indulge with a link.
But it seemed worth asking the question for real.
So we added the question to our latest Panelbase poll, conducted last week. And the results were pretty explosive.
(We’d like to take a moment at this point to note for the record that this article is the first Alex Salmond will be hearing about the poll. It wasn’t his idea, he wasn’t notified in advance, and we have no reason to believe he intends to form any such party.)
The headline figures – that 26% of Scottish voters would either definitely or probably give their list vote to a Salmond-led list party – were fairly stunning in themselves for a brand new party. But it’s not until you stop and think about what those numbers mean that the full significance sinks in.
Because clearly, the appeal of such a party would be fundamentally restricted to half of the electorate – the half that wants independence. So what really matters is how many votes it gets from Yes supporters, whose list votes are currently almost totally wasted. And that’s where the picture gets really interesting.
A familiar-sounding 45% of 2014 Yes voters said they’d either definitely or probably vote for Salmond’s party, with another 33% not prepared to rule it out. And in fact 11% of No voters agreed. Those are absolutely huge numbers for a new party, but there’s a limit to what they tell us because they’re not data translatable to a Holyrood election. For that we need a breakdown by party, and luckily we have one.
Wow. A thumping 40% of SNP voters – not the mere 28% of the fake poll – say they’d definitely or probably vote for a Salmond party, but even more extraordinary is the 31% of 2019 Labour voters who would too (along with 9% of Tories and 7% of Lib Dems).
And yet it’s logical. A very large minority of Scottish Labour voters – polls consistently suggest anywhere between 30% and 40% – want independence, but their party is an irrelevant joke with no hope of any kind of power and it keeps doubling and tripling down on its total intransigence on the constitution. Any Yes supporters still voting for it at this point must be pretty implacably hostile to the SNP, but they might well view a party fronted by Salmond as a welcome thorn in its side as well as a positive force for indy. (And they’d likely be right.)
When Gavin Barrie analysed Scottish Parliament voting data for us last year, he didn’t even dare contemplate numbers this high for a new pro-indy list party, stopping his calculations at 35% of the SNP list vote alone, which comes to just 14% of the total list vote. But these numbers are almost twice his wildest scenario – if we plug them into yesterday’s Panelbase poll, it suggests the notional Salmond party would be picking up a staggering 609,153 votes.
(In fact, probably a smidgen more than that, because we didn’t have any data to factor in anyone who might change their list vote from the Greens. Plus there’s the almost a quarter of respondents who said they might vote for the new party but more likely wouldn’t. If only a tenth of them did, Salmond would actually WIN the list vote, beating even the SNP into second place.)
That’s far more than the Tories got (502,000) in 2016, for which they picked up 24 list seats, and more still than Labour (436,000), who won 21 list seats. (And both of those figures were reduced by the Tories and Labour also winning some constituency seats – 7 and 3 respectively – which wouldn’t be the case for a new list party.)
It’s more than four times the Green list vote in 2016, and over five times the Lib Dem list vote. Indeed, it’s quite substantially more than the combined total of the Green and Lib Dem list AND constituency votes (461,000). According to the Election Polling seat forecaster it’d be enough to secure 28 seats.
Caveats apply to such predictions, as we noted last night. But that’d be one more than the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems put together. Alex Salmond would be, by a very great distance, the second biggest force in the Scottish Parliament, and a large swathe of Unionist dead weight would suddenly be looking for new employment.
The broadness of Salmond’s cross-demographic appeal was notable. There was no discernible difference in the level of his definite-or-probable support among Remain and Leave voters, for example, coming in at 27% and 26% respectively.
Nor, despite Salmond having endured months and months of smearing, innuendo and malicious speculation over a series of false sexual-assault allegations, was there much of a gap between men and women, recording 29% and 24% backing.
And perhaps the most surprisingly to us, support was highest among the youngest age groups. That might have been partly expected because the young tend to be much more in favour of independence, but they’re also the most “woke” and Salmond is a straight white man in his 60s, a set of characteristics often derided by modern youth as “male, pale and stale” and much sneered at by the punditariat.
Yet 33% of 16-34 voters said they’d definitely or probably back his party if he created one, and 28% of those from 35 to 54. Only Salmond’s contemporaries in the oldest age group – those most likely to be Unionist – bucked the trend, scoring just 18%.
But by far the biggest gulf, despite Salmond being a noted and genuine Anglophile, came by country of birth. While 28% of native Scots and 23% of those from beyond the UK were supportive, a miserly 12% of those respondents resident in Scotland but born in England (around 9% of the sample) said they’d vote for his party.
These figures will be causing something akin to sheer blind panic at SNP HQ, not least because they come BEFORE any revelations from the inquiry into whether the party, the Scottish Government, the Scottish civil service and Police Scotland were engaged in a conspiracy to frame Salmond on the sexual assault charges.
We must emphasise again that we have no grounds to believe Alex Salmond DOES intend to form a list party. He may wish to rejoin the SNP. He may even wish to try to take back control of it. Or he may want a well-earned rest after the traumas of the last couple of years. All of this is entirely hypothetical.
But if he did re-enter the fray, it seems very clear from these findings that the “both votes SNP” strategy that wasted close to a million votes in 2016 would be blown clean out of the water. Holyrood would have a vast pro-indy majority, dozens of Unionist seatwarmers would be out on their ears, and – and here’s where the scenario differs from the SNP/indy majority currently being suggested by Holyrood opinion polling – the SNP would be under unprecedented pressure to actually get moving and do something about independence.
(As well as having to reconsider the enormous arrogant hubris and complacency that’s currently afflicting the administration and causing it to stubbornly push through some extremely unpopular and badly-thought-out policies.)
We hope readers are as excited about that possibility, even as just a theory, as we are.


Transforming the question

The Huffington Post published a poll today , to the great delight of the likes of Stonewall Scotland , which seemed to fly in the face of every previous one on the idea of gender self-identification , a policy which appears to have been dumped by the UK government but is still very much in favour with the Scottish one .
That the poll had been commissioned by trans uber-fundamentalist website Pink News immediately set off alarm bells , especially as the site had previously asked a similar question , found dramatically different results and swiftly disappeared them .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth .
Enormously suspiciously , the HuffPost article didn ’ t link to the poll tables or publish any screenshots of them , so there wasn ’ t any way of knowing what the actual question that people had been asked was .
Fortunately , though , it ’ s available on the YouGov website , and it ’ s as dodgy as you ’ d imagine .
Interestingly , the poll found a significant decline in support for the idea in the last 12 months .
Last June the company recorded a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month it was down by almost a third to 23 points .
But it ’ s quite remarkable that it ’ s even as close as that , because the question is so innocuous it ’ s startling that anyone would say no to it at all .
Because someone merely identifying as something they ’ re demonstrably not harms nobody .
If a man wants to merely think he ’ s a woman , or a little girl , or a puppy , or Napoleon Bonaparte , it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most folk ’ s attitude is to shrug , roll their eyes and get on with their day .
People think all sorts of loony stuff , and it doesn ’ t matter if they ’ re not hurting anybody .
The problem arises when you then try to pass laws saying that the man LITERALLY IS those things just because he says he is , and giving him unrestricted access to places that for amazingly obvious safety reasons are reserved for actual women , or children , or dogs , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear line has sensibly been drawn ( except in Canada , a country whose collective cheese slid off its cracker some years ago ) at legislating mental illness into reality , otherwise we ’ d all be living in the Elysee Palace .
So when you poll voters not on the vague and meaningless notion of whether people should be allowed to think whatever they like ( a basic human liberty ) , but on whether those delusions should be written into law , you get very different results .
A couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Scottish public on a variety of issues around gender self-ID , and as usual we got very clear results : people DO NOT want the law changed to enable self-ID in real-world situations .
Last week we had the opportunity to ask the same question ( again via Panelbase ) to a full-size sample of English voters , and the outcome was equally predictable .
The difference between the Scottish and English samples was just 2 points on the first question and 1 point on the second , with the biggest difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing rooms ” question , with English voters being even more opposed than the already overwhelming opposition expressed by Scottish ones .
The Huffington Post article specifically cited women ’ s responses , but the margins there were still vast .
English women were 2:1 against self-ID on the first question , more than 3:1 against identifying females as fathers on birth certificates , and more than 5:1 against letting people with penises into their changing rooms .
It ’ s when you frame questions in reality rather than as abstract concepts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because if a 56-year-old man wants to cut about in a dress sucking a dummy , it might be as icky as all heck but hey , it ’ s a free country .
But the day he starts demanding to be let into primary school classes and get changed in the girls ’ toilets with the other six-year-olds , most people think that ’ s a step too far .
Be extremely wary of the motivations of anyone who tries to tell you otherwise .

The Huffington Post published a poll today, to the great delight of the likes of Stonewall Scotland, which seemed to fly in the face of every previous one on the idea of gender self-identification, a policy which appears to have been dumped by the UK government but is still very much in favour with the Scottish one.
That the poll had been commissioned by trans uber-fundamentalist website Pink News immediately set off alarm bells, especially as the site had previously asked a similar question, found dramatically different results and swiftly disappeared them.
As ever, Wings went looking for the truth.
Enormously suspiciously, the HuffPost article didn’t link to the poll tables or publish any screenshots of them, so there wasn’t any way of knowing what the actual question that people had been asked was. Fortunately, though, it’s available on the YouGov website, and it’s as dodgy as you’d imagine.
Interestingly, the poll found a significant decline in support for the idea in the last 12 months. Last June the company recorded a 33-point margin backing the proposition, while last month it was down by almost a third to 23 points.
But it’s quite remarkable that it’s even as close as that, because the question is so innocuous it’s startling that anyone would say no to it at all. Because someone merely identifying as something they’re demonstrably not harms nobody.
If a man wants to merely think he’s a woman, or a little girl, or a puppy, or Napoleon Bonaparte, it doesn’t make any material difference to anyone else. Most folk’s attitude is to shrug, roll their eyes and get on with their day. Crazy people think all sorts of crazy stuff, and it doesn’t matter if they’re not hurting anybody.
(Hell, some even think it’s a good idea to have your country ruled by another one.)
The problem arises when you then try to pass laws saying that the man LITERALLY IS those things just because he says he is, and giving him unrestricted access to places that for amazingly obvious safety reasons are reserved for actual women, actual children, actual dogs, or actual French emperors.
Up until now a clear line has sensibly been drawn (except in Canada, a country whose collective cheese slid off its cracker some years ago) at legislating mental illness into reality, otherwise we’d all be living in the Elysee Palace.
So when you poll voters not on the vague and meaningless notion of whether people should be allowed to think whatever they like (a basic human liberty), but on whether those delusions should be written into law, you get very different results.
A couple of months ago we got Panelbase to poll the Scottish public on a variety of issues around gender self-ID, and as usual we got very clear results: people DO NOT want the law changed to enable self-ID in real-world situations.
SCOTTISH VOTERS, APRIL 2020
Last week we had the opportunity to ask the same questions (again via Panelbase) to a full-size sample of English voters, and the outcome was equally predictable.
ENGLISH VOTERS, JULY 2020
The difference between the Scottish and English samples was just 2 points on the first question and 1 point on the second, with the biggest difference being a 10-point gap on the “changing rooms” question, with English voters being even more opposed than the already overwhelming opposition expressed by Scottish ones.
The Huffington Post article specifically cited women’s responses, but the margins there were still vast. English women were 2:1 against self-ID on the first question, more than 3:1 against identifying females as fathers on birth certificates, and more than 5:1 against letting people with penises into their changing rooms.
(On the last one, which most directly impacts women’s actual daily lives, there was essentially no difference between women and men. Women are socialised to be kinder and more inclusive than men, and that shows up in the more theoretical questions. Ask them if they want hairy male genitalia swinging around in their immediate vicinity while they’re trying on a new top and their attitude hardens very considerably, as the difference between Q46 and Q48 in the table above shows.)
It’s when you frame questions in reality rather than as abstract concepts that you find out what people really think. Because if a 56-year-old man wants to cut about in a dress sucking a dummy, it might be as icky as all heck but hey, it’s a free country.
It’s the day he starts demanding to be let into primary school classes and get changed in the girls’ toilets with the other six-year-olds because he LITERALLY IS the thing he’s dressing up as that most people think a line has been crossed. Be extremely wary of the motivations of anyone who tries to tell you otherwise.


Now sometimes offensive

Because it ought to be noted that it ’ s not the concept of homosexuality that ’ s being deemed offensive there , nor the word itself , but specifically the definition of it .
In other words , a dictionary just said “ some people are offended by facts ” .
There are no prizes for guessing who ’ s responsible for this , of course – the transcult .
We already knew that they considered the words “ lesbian ” , “ gay ” and “ bisexual ” to be “ transphobic ” , along with just about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet , so we suppose it makes sense that the umbrella terms had to go too .
The concept of homosexuality is so problematic to trans ideology – and therefore has to be obliterated – because it implies that sex exists , and if sex exists then the whole foundation of transgenderism collapses , which is why JK Rowling was subjected to such a mindboggling barrage of abuse recently for saying no more than that sex was indeed real and maybe it was a bad idea to pretend otherwise .
These aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we ’ ve previously noted , under the Scottish Government ’ s proposed new “ hate crime ” laws , it ’ s Rowling herself who would be liable to prosecution in the wake of such tweets , for “ stirring up hatred ” in unarguably gigantic amounts with such “ offensive ” comments as the suggestion that homosexuality is a real thing and that lesbians are allowed to reject people with penises as sexual partners .
The fact that a dictionary is now reinforcing that possibility by saying that facts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not even when they ’ re being quoted by people in an argument , but merely by existing – is a new and worrying development for anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together .
And as ever , if you still don ’ t grasp why the outlawing of reality and its replacement with idiotic gibberish enforceable by law via the magic power of “ offensiveness ” could have a catastrophic impact on the cause of Scottish independence ( here ’ s a clue : think about some other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , we urge you to start paying attention and figure it out before it ’ s too late .

The rapid regression of civilisation continues apace, readers.
Because it ought to be noted that it’s not the concept of homosexuality that’s being deemed offensive there, nor the word itself, but specifically the definition of it.
In other words, a dictionary just said “some people are offended by facts”.
There are no prizes for guessing who’s responsible for this, of course – the transcult. We already knew that they considered the words “lesbian”, “gay” and “bisexual” to be “transphobic”, along with just about everything else on the face of the planet, so we suppose it makes sense that the umbrella terms had to go too.
(Alert readers will have spotted that the “T” which only attached itself to “LGBT” five years ago has now declared that all of the “LGB” part is evil bigotry, like a baby cuckoo throwing all the other chicks out of the nest to their deaths so it gets all the food and attention to itself.)
The concept of homosexuality is so problematic to trans ideology – and therefore has to be obliterated – because it implies that sex exists, and if sex exists then the whole foundation of transgenderism collapses, which is why JK Rowling was subjected to such a mindboggling barrage of abuse recently for saying no more than that sex was indeed real and maybe it was a bad idea to pretend otherwise.
These aren’t even nearly the worst:
Yet as we’ve previously noted, under the Scottish Government’s proposed new “hate crime” laws, it’s Rowling herself who would be liable to prosecution in the wake of such tweets, for “stirring up hatred” in unarguably gigantic amounts with such “offensive” comments as the suggestion that homosexuality is a real thing and that lesbians are allowed to reject people with penises as sexual partners.
(The same thing applies to gay men and people with vaginas, of course, but for some reason nobody is ordering gay men to sleep with women in the way that TRAs demand that lesbians sleep with men or be attacked as “genital fetishists” and bigots.)
The fact that a dictionary is now reinforcing that possibility by saying that facts in and of themselves can be offensive – not even when they’re being quoted by people in an argument, but merely by existing – is a new and worrying development for anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
And as ever, if you still don’t grasp why the outlawing of reality and its replacement with idiotic gibberish enforceable by law via the magic power of “offensiveness” could have a catastrophic impact on the cause of Scottish independence (here’s a clue: think about some other words that might be redefined as intrinsically offensive), we urge you to start paying attention and figure it out before it’s too late.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-11--When the people have no bread

When the people have no bread

`` 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)


The Beaten Surrender

Sooner or later , you have to stop screaming that anyone pointing out what ’ s happening is an MI5 @ @ @ @ @ ( or in the case of some of the people who replied to Craig Murray @ @ @ @ @ that the First Minister said what she actually said ) , and either just accept @ @ @ @ @ Yes movement by the current SNP leadership or do something about it .

No comment needed, really.
Sooner or later, you have to stop screaming that anyone pointing out what’s happening is an MI5 plant or a secret Unionist (or in the case of some of the people who replied to Craig Murray yesterday, simply flat-out denying that the First Minister said what she actually said), and either just accept the complete abandonment of the Yes movement by the current SNP leadership or do something about it.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-14--There is no opposition

There is no opposition

Two opinion polls , just over one Parliamentary term apart : That is not a politically healthy country , readers .
A week is supposedly a long time in politics , but when we asked Scottish respondents in our latest Panelbase poll to look a DECADE ahead , only a quarter of them could even imagine a party other than the SNP forming the Scottish Government by 2030 .
And let ’ s be honest here , that quarter is wildly delusional .
We ’ ve often pointed out that you invariably get 5-10 % of people in any poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either for a joke or because they ’ ve misunderstood the question or because they ’ re just barking mad , but the 2 % who think Scotland will have a Liberal Democrat First Minister any time between now and 2030 probably need professional intervention .
Realistically , the only credible alternative FM is – or rather , it was – a Scottish Labour one .
Ruth Davidson took the Tories right up to their plausible ceiling of support ( 25 % to 30 % ) by throwing lots of red meat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not enough to form a government , and in any event she ’ s gone now and their vote has crumbled back down to the sub-20 % level it ’ s been at for most of the last 40 years .
Since that poll six years ago Scottish Labour have burned through FOUR permanent leaders ( plus four different caretakers ) , each worse than the last – Johann Lamont , Jim Murphy , Kezia Dugdale and Rupert Lanyard [ SUB PLEASE CHECK NAME ] .
And that “ worse ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a measurable statistic .
Lamont ’ s polling typically sat around 33 % , with a peak of 39 % around the middle and a freak low of 23 % just a few weeks after she took over .
Lamont actually recorded a lead over the SNP on several occasions , the highest being 8 points ( 39 % -31 % ) in September 2013 and the most recent a narrow one in August 2014 .
She was the last Scottish Labour leader to ever do so .
In over 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below 30 % six times .
Jim Murphy ’ s six-month tenure as leader saw a significant slump .
He had a brief peak of 32 % , but mostly bumped along around 25 % , before hitting an all-time low of 19 % just after the 2015 UK election and resigning .
Faced with a party seemingly at rock bottom , Kezia Dugdale got her shovel out and started digging for all she was worth .
Peaking at 24 % in a single 2015 poll , Dugdale typically sat at 20-21 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership Labour had seen five sub-20 % ratings in a row and finally slumped to a spectacular , abyssal 14 % .
More significantly , it was Dugdale who saw Scottish Labour lose even the runner-up position , sliding to 3rd place behind the Tories for the entirety of her last year in charge .
Labour got a huge boost simply from Dugdale resigning , even before anyone else took over , leaping 10 points while the leadership contest was still going on .
A few days after Roger Leotard took office the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 behind the SNP but leading some rather over-excitable Labour types into some amusing predictions .
But the two and a half years since then have seen a long slide back to , and below , the Dugdale depths , with the nadir ( so far ) being a 12 % rating in April of this year .
That 12 % mirrors the number of optimistic souls who can now see Scottish Labour providing a First Minister ( SPOILER : it won ’ t be Reginald Loinhard ) at some point in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % six years ago .
But the stark reality is that Scotland is now in most meaningful senses and for the foreseeable future a one-party state , and that ’ s not something to celebrate .
It ’ s certainly not that we ’ d be better off with a Tory or Labour administration – both are staffed entirely with incompetent balloons unfit to run a small sandwich shop , let alone a country .
But a party which would by that point have governed for 23 years without a meaningful challenge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The other four parties at Holyrood have a duty to the people of Scotland to improve , and to improve a lot , but it ’ s highly doubtful that they have the ability to do so .
Because in 2020 , what sort of idiot with any talent who wanted to make an impact on politics would join Scottish Labour , a party that ’ s currently FORTY points adrift in the polls , which barely a quarter of its OWN VOTERS believe has any chance of forming a government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands for from one day to the next ?
Scottish politics urgently needs a new force .
The existing opposition is a flotilla of lame , bedraggled , threadbare old ducks needing put out of their hopeless misery but with no merciful vet or predator in sight .
The incumbent government is lazy , increasingly sloppy , bloated with entryists/careerists pursuing alien agendas , and riddled with hubris and complacency because it faces no threat whatsoever .
At this point it ’ s anyone ’ s guess what that new force might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come along soon , Scotland is going to find itself in a right old mess .

Two opinion polls, just over one Parliamentary term apart:
MAY 2014
JULY 2020
That is not a politically healthy country, readers.
A week is supposedly a long time in politics, but when we asked Scottish respondents in our latest Panelbase poll to look a DECADE ahead, only a quarter of them could even imagine a party other than the SNP forming the Scottish Government by 2030.
And let’s be honest here, that quarter is wildly delusional. We’ve often pointed out that you invariably get 5-10% of people in any poll voting for the most ridiculous option, either for a joke or because they’ve misunderstood the question or because they’re just barking mad, but the 2% who think Scotland will have a Liberal Democrat First Minister any time between now and 2030 probably need professional intervention.
Realistically, the only credible alternative FM is – or rather, it was – a Scottish Labour one. Ruth Davidson took the Tories right up to their plausible ceiling of support (25% to 30%) by throwing lots of red meat to Loyalist bigots and super-Unionists, but that’s not enough to form a government, and in any event she’s gone now and their vote has crumbled back down to the sub-20% level it’s been at for most of the last 40 years.
Since that poll six years ago Scottish Labour have burned through FOUR permanent leaders (plus four different caretakers), each worse than the last – Johann Lamont, Jim Murphy, Kezia Dugdale and Rupert Lanyard [SUB PLEASE CHECK NAME].
And that “worse” isn’t our opinion, it’s a measurable statistic. Lamont’s polling typically sat around 33%, with a peak of 39% around the middle and a freak low of 23% just a few weeks after she took over.
(Don’t ask us why What Scotland Thinks chooses to depict Labour in green now.)
Lamont actually recorded a lead over the SNP on several occasions, the highest being 8 points (39%-31%) in September 2013 and the most recent a narrow one in August 2014. She was the last Scottish Labour leader to ever do so. In over 50 polls during her leadership Labour only dropped below 30% six times.
Jim Murphy’s six-month tenure as leader saw a significant slump. He had a brief peak of 32%, but mostly bumped along around 25%, before hitting an all-time low of 19% just after the 2015 UK election and resigning.
Faced with a party seemingly at rock bottom, Kezia Dugdale got her shovel out and started digging for all she was worth. Peaking at 24% in a single 2015 poll, Dugdale typically sat at 20-21% but in the last poll of her leadership Labour had seen five sub-20% ratings in a row and finally slumped to a spectacular, abyssal 14%.
More significantly, it was Dugdale who saw Scottish Labour lose even the runner-up position, sliding to 3rd place behind the Tories for the entirety of her last year in charge.
Labour got a huge boost simply from Dugdale resigning, even before anyone else took over, leaping 10 points while the leadership contest was still going on. A few days after Roger Leotard took office the party soared to 28% – still 11 behind the SNP but leading some rather over-excitable Labour types into some amusing predictions.
But the two and a half years since then have seen a long slide back to, and below, the Dugdale depths, with the nadir (so far) being a 12% rating in April of this year.
That 12% mirrors the number of optimistic souls who can now see Scottish Labour providing a First Minister (SPOILER: it won’t be Reginald Loinhard) at some point in the next 10 years, down from 40% six years ago.
But the stark reality is that Scotland is now in most meaningful senses and for the foreseeable future a one-party state, and that’s not something to celebrate.
It’s certainly not that we’d be better off with a Tory or Labour administration – both are staffed entirely with incompetent balloons unfit to run a small sandwich shop, let alone a country. But a party which would by that point have governed for 23 years without a meaningful challenge to its dominance is a thoroughly toxic prospect.
The other four parties at Holyrood have a duty to the people of Scotland to improve, and to improve a lot, but it’s highly doubtful that they have the ability to do so. Because in 2020, what sort of idiot with any talent who wanted to make an impact on politics would join Scottish Labour, a party that’s currently FORTY points adrift in the polls, which barely a quarter of its OWN VOTERS believe has any chance of forming a government, and which has no clue what it stands for from one day to the next?
(And the same goes double and triple for the Tories and Lib Dems, obviously. The only reason to join any of the three is to secure yourself a nice cosy MSP gig from which you’re effectively unsackable for life, but also have no hope of ever achieving anything. It’s a scenario which actively encourages the mediocre, the dim and the unambitious.)
Scottish politics urgently needs a new force. The existing opposition is a flotilla of lame, bedraggled, threadbare old ducks needing put out of their hopeless misery but with no merciful vet or predator in sight. The incumbent government is lazy, increasingly sloppy, bloated with entryists/careerists pursuing alien agendas, and riddled with hubris and complacency because it faces no threat whatsoever.
At this point it’s anyone’s guess what that new force might be. But if it doesn’t come along soon, Scotland is going to find itself in a right old mess.


The bitter minds

A concept has recently arisen in Scottish politics for which this site feels at least partly responsible , and which is making the strangest bedfellows of Unionist commentators and SNP ultra-loyalists .
It ’ s summed up very concisely in today ’ s Times .
Let ’ s just unpick that for a moment .
Imagine that you ’ re a person who believes in ( say ) both Scottish independence and human biology .
Just two simple , reasonable things , not an impossible and fantastical wish list .
Imagine that you want to vote for a party which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter .
And imagine that you ’ d quite like your views to be represented in the Scottish Parliament .
Doesn ’ t sound like much to ask , does it ?
But who could you vote for at next year ’ s election ?
Your options are : Independence ?
Sort of , a bit , maybe , if Boris Johnson will let us .
Human biology ?
Absolutely not , you TERF bigot .
Independence ?
Over our dead bodies .
Human biology ?
Yeah , more or less .
Independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Definitely not .
Independence ?
Yes , half-heartedly , and only under certain conditions .
Human biology ?
You sickening transphobic fascist .
Not a single one of the parties currently represented in Scotland ’ s parliament stands for just those two simple principles .
Before you even start having any views on the economy or health or welfare or anything else , you ’ ve already been disenfranchised .
There is NOBODY you can vote for who won ’ t work for the exact opposite of at least one of the things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s okay , right ?
Because the electoral system for Holyrood was deliberately and specifically designed so that people could create small parties to fight for their own causes and interests and actually have a chance of securing themselves a voice – the Scottish Senior Citizens Party famously got a seat in 2003 , for example – so you can do the same , can ’ t you ?
Well , no you can ’ t .
If YOU do that , for what YOU believe in , you ’ re just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ thwarting the will of the Scottish people ” .
( Including , um , any of those Scottish people who vote for you in the full knowledge of what you stand for . )
As well as being either a transphobic right-wing bigot or a racist separatist quasi-Nazi who hates English people , now you ’ re also some sort of contemptible total scumbag who ’ s destroying the whole concept of democracy by , er , starting a party and asking people to democratically vote for it .
It is of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening in a Parliament whose electoral system was also deliberately and explicitly designed as a cheat to keep one particular party from ever achieving power .
But now that the party which was meant to be excluded has broken that system ( due mainly to the stupefying incompetence of the party that was meant to benefit from it ) , it shrieks in outrage at anything that might even marginally graze its dominance , and is loudly backed by the people who never wanted it to be in power in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been marshalled in the defence of the SNP ’ s sole birthright to the votes of independence supporters ( just like Scottish Labour used to consider itself to be automatically entitled to the votes of anyone to the left of Norman Tebbit ) , accusing anyone who might want their voices heard of simultaneously “ gaming the system ” ( by causing there to be TOO MANY pro-indy MSPs ) and “ splitting the vote ” ( by causing there to be TOO FEW pro-indy MSPs ) .
There are the “ devolutionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , as we ’ ve seen .
But we also have the “ radical intellectual left ” who despise the SNP yet upend buckets of vituperative scorn on the idea , via supposedly pro-indy websites which as recently as the last election were ardently advocating a vote for RISE while shouting from the rooftops about “ a new pluralism ” and how “ unity in diversity is a much stronger base for transformative action than one-dimensional party politics ” but now demand that you shut up and give both your votes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted the literally dozens of hysterical articles on another well-known independence blog deriding any and all new pro-indy list parties and frantically punting the “ both votes SNP ” line even as it publishes a constant stream of articles suggesting that if current polling is correct the SNP will be lucky to get ANY list seats at all .
And then there ’ s the country ’ s only pro-independence newspaper , which currently has someone or other – including the unlikeliest of candidates – rubbishing the possibility of having more pro-independence MSPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
In a further layer of irony , of course , having Kenny Farquharson wade in with the view that an indy list party is an evil and monstrous concept might just be the push that Yes supporters need to start getting behind the idea , especially when he ’ s echoed by such beloved figures as James Kelly MSP and the ever-fragrant David Leask .
Pete Wishart , Sir John Curtice , Alyn Smith , James Kelly ( s ) , Kenny Farquharson , Bella Caledonia and David Leask all batting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way it ’ s heartwarming .
Hopefully they ’ ll get Brian Wilson , Blair McDougall and Alan Cochrane onside too .
But leaving all tactics aside , anyone who ever tells you , for ANY reason , that forming a democratic political party to represent your democratic views and asking people to vote for it of their own free will in a democratic election is somehow an anti-democratic proposition , and that you ’ re vile and/or stupid for wanting to be represented by a party you believe in , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gravest of suspicion .

A concept has recently arisen in Scottish politics for which this site feels at least partly responsible, and which is making the strangest bedfellows of Unionist commentators and SNP ultra-loyalists. It’s summed up very concisely in today’s Times.
Let’s just unpick that extraordinary meltdown for a moment.
Imagine that you’re a person who believes in (say) both Scottish independence and the existence of human biology. Just two simple, reasonable things, not an impossible and fantastical wish list. Imagine that you want to vote for a party which will pursue the former and uphold the latter. And imagine that you’d quite like it if your views were to be represented in the Scottish Parliament. Doesn’t sound like too much to ask, does it? Especially as those are in fact the views of the vast majority of Yes voters.
But who could you vote for at next year’s election? Your options are:
SNP
Independence? Sort of, a bit, maybe, if Boris Johnson will let us.
Human biology? Absolutely not, you TERF bigot.
CONSERVATIVES
Independence? Over our dead bodies.
Human biology? Yeah, more or less.
LABOUR
Independence? Not a chance.
Human biology? Hell no.
LIB DEMS
Independence? No way.
Human biology? Definitely not.
GREENS
Independence? Yes, half-heartedly, and only under certain conditions.
Human biology? You sickening transphobic fascist.
Oh. Right.
Not a single one of the parties currently represented in Scotland’s parliament stands for just those two simple principles. Before you even start having any views about the economy or health or welfare or transport or policing or anything else, you’ve already been disenfranchised. There’s NOBODY you can vote for who won’t work for the exact opposite of at least half of the things you believe in.
But that’s okay, right? Because the electoral system for Holyrood was deliberately and specifically designed so that people could create small parties to fight for their own causes and interests and actually have a chance of securing themselves a voice – the Scottish Senior Citizens Party famously got a seat in 2003, for example – so you can do the same, can’t you?
Well, no you can’t. If YOU do that, for what YOU believe in, you’re just a sickening and disgusting cheat who’s “thwarting the will of the Scottish people”. (Including, um, any of those Scottish people who vote for you in the full knowledge of what you stand for.)
As well as being either a transphobic right-wing bigot or a racist separatist quasi-Nazi who hates English people, now you’re also some sort of contemptible total scumbag who’s destroying the whole concept of democracy by, er, starting a party and asking people to democratically vote for it.
It is of course, very thoroughly ironic that this is all happening over a Parliament whose electoral system was also deliberately and explicitly designed as a cheat to keep one particular party from ever achieving power.
But now that the party which was meant to be excluded has broken that system (due mainly to the stupefying incompetence of the party that was meant to benefit from it), it shrieks in outrage at anything that might even marginally graze its dominance, and is loudly backed by the people who never wanted it to be in power in the first place.
An extraordinary array of people has been marshalled in the defence of the SNP’s sole birthright to the votes of independence supporters (just like Scottish Labour used to consider itself to be automatically entitled to the votes of anyone to the left of Norman Tebbit), accusing anyone who might want their voices heard of simultaneously “gaming the system” (by causing there to be TOO MANY pro-indy MSPs) and also “splitting the vote” (by causing there to be TOO FEW pro-indy MSPs).
There are the “devolutionist” columnists of The Times, of course, as we’ve seen. But we also have the “radical intellectual left” who despise the SNP yet upend buckets of vituperative scorn on the idea, via supposedly pro-indy websites which as recently as the last election were ardently advocating a vote for RISE while shouting from the rooftops about “a new pluralism” and how “unity in diversity is a much stronger base for transformative action than one-dimensional party politics” but now demand that you shut up and give both your votes one-dimensionally to the SNP:
(Correct us if we’re wrong, but as far as we know Bella has never published an article explaining its reasons for this sudden and dramatic U-turn since 2015, and reacts with sneering contempt towards anyone who asks the question.)
We’ve previously noted the literally dozens of hysterical articles on another well-known independence blog deriding any and all new pro-indy list parties and frantically punting the “both votes SNP” line even as it publishes a constant stream of articles suggesting that if current polling is correct the SNP will be lucky to get ANY list seats at all.
And then there’s the country’s only pro-independence newspaper, which currently has someone or other – including the unlikeliest of candidates – rubbishing the possibility of having more pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood in its pages every single day.
In a further layer of irony, of course, having Kenny Farquharson wade in with the view that an indy list party is an evil and monstrous concept might just be the push that Yes supporters need to start getting behind the idea, especially when he’s echoed by such beloved figures as James Kelly MSP and the ever-fragrant David Leask.
Pete Wishart, Sir John Curtice, Alyn Smith, James Kelly(s), Kenny Farquharson, Bella Caledonia and David Leask all batting for the same team. In a way it’s heartwarming. Hopefully they’ll get Brian Wilson, Blair McDougall and Alan Cochrane onside too.
But leaving all tactics aside, anyone who ever tells you, for ANY reason, that forming a democratic political party to represent your democratic views and asking people to vote for it of their own free will in a democratic election is somehow an anti-democratic proposition, and that you’re vile and/or stupid for wanting to be represented by a party you believe in, is a person you should always regard with the gravest of suspicion.


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-16--The land of mystery

The land of mystery

The BBC website is playing it rather enigmatic this morning .
Does anyone know the name of the place it @ @ @ @ @ say for some reason ?

The BBC website is playing it rather enigmatic this morning.
Does anyone know the name of the place it doesn’t want to say for some reason?


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-17--Giving up on independence

Giving up on independence

It ’ s hard to express quite what a revolting piece of rank hypocrisy this is .
Behold , ladies and gentlemen and other genders , some pious little twerp whose own comfy seat in the Scottish Parliament was secured entirely by what he calls “ cheating ” , saying that nobody but him and his mates are allowed to cheat now .
Ross Greer , alert readers may recall , snuck into Holyrood on the very last list seat in West Scotland , with just 5.3 % of the vote .
That ’ s sub-Annie-Wells levels of support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baillie .
If she hadn ’ t held onto Dumbarton by a wafer-thin 109 votes from the SNP ’ s Gail Robertson ( just 0.3 % ) , Labour would have taken an extra list seat and Greer would have been out on his arse .
The Greens didn ’ t stand any constituency candidates in West Scotland ( they fought just three of Scotland ’ s 73 constituencies , all token efforts with no hope of winning ) , so we know for certain that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who voted Green voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP – with their first vote .
And yet now that exact same thing is being denounced by Greer as “ cheating ” and “ a danger to the Yes movement ” .
It ’ s a theme that many have been taking up recently .
It remains a great paradox that this strategy is simultanously capable of committing a gross democratic outrage against Scotland ’ s Unionist parties by supposedly depriving them of countless seats , yet would also be a great folly because it would “ split the Yes vote ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The ludicrous but logical conclusion of that thought process is people angrily decrying the idea of splitting the Yes vote by using your second vote for a list-only pro-indy party , and instead in the very same tweet advocating… splitting the Yes vote by using your second vote for a different list-only pro-indy party .
But we did all this stuff on Wednesday .
Most of the opposition to the idea of a new list party comes from ( a ) vested interests within both pro-indy AND Unionist parties who sense a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and ( b ) really stupid people who STILL don ’ t have the slightest grasp of how the Scottish electoral system works after 21 years and really ought to shut up until they do .
What ’ s much more concerning is the underlying meaning of all the protests from the SNP/Green payroll , apparatchiks hoping for their own seat on the gravy train one day , and gullible diehard activists : that they ’ ve given up on ever achieving independence .
Robin McAlpine has a pretty devastating critique on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been obvious to many of us for some time .
Even though it shouldn ’ t have been necessary , because the First Minister herself has told us the same thing in the bluntest possible terms .
We ’ re not quite sure why a party with well over 500 elected members ( 47 MPs , 63 MSPs , 431 councillors , and some now rather underemployed MEPs ) , never mind all its well-paid officials and special advisers , is seemingly incapable of pursuing two goals at once , especially when one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s supposed to exist .
We ’ re all but certain that only a handful of ministers actually have anything useful to do in terms of fighting COVID-19 ( which is now all but eradicated in Scotland anyway ) .
But even if every single one of them was patrolling the border personally in full PPE and machine-guns , they ’ ve had four and a half years to come up with progress on a viable independence strategy , in which time they ’ ve produced precisely zip .
The only rational explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really want to .
Wee Ginger Dug , a pro-indy blog which has firmly nailed its colours to the “ BELIEVE IN QUEEN NICOLA , BOTH VOTES SNP ” mast , has a post today entitled “ Disagreeing without being disagreeable ” , which is a touch ironic given that as recently as yesterday it responded like this to someone disagreeing with it : But what the post ostensibly attempts to do is lay out routes the SNP could at least in theory take to try to bypass Westminster ’ s refusal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it comes up with is most kindly described as gibberish .
When you break it down , what the above amounts to is exactly the line Pete Wishart and others in the SNP have been peddling for months now : “ if we just get one more mandate/even higher poll figures , the UK government will cave in because it ’ ll have to , or else we ’ ll [ BLANK – FILL IN LATER ] ” .
But Scotland has nothing with which to “ threaten ” Boris Johnson .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer than the seven Tory MPs that we currently have in five years ’ time ?
Oh yeah , that ’ ll have him and his 80-strong majority quaking .
We already know that Boris doesn ’ t give a bee ’ s bawbag about “ preserving the British nationalist fiction that Scotland ’ s membership of the UK is voluntary ” – and more crucially , neither do any of the opposition parties in the Commons .
Labour and the Lib Dems are 100 % on board with refusing a second referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatsoever .
And an interesting poll of MPs today reveals that just 10 % of Tory MPs think Scotland will be independent in the next decade , which suggests that they ’ re pretty confident they ’ re not going to give in on the issue .
So why do we need to wait for another election , another hollow mandate and a THIRD official refusal of a Section 30 order before maybe trying a different plan ?
According to WGD one such alternative would be a plebiscitary election , but if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vote to do that , we ’ d be postponing any possible chance until 2026 .
That ’ s because it ’ s not easy to force a Holyrood election before it ’ s due .
It requires a clear majority , and if we ’ ve rejected maximising the number of pro-indy seats because it ’ s “ cheating ” that ’ s far from guaranteed .
We can not assume the SNP ’ s current polling will hold up for 10 months – in 2016 they were on 62 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended up on 47 % , and that was without any major scandals .
The piece is in reality simply a surrender – “ Let ’ s do a thing that we know definitely isn ’ t going to work because we ’ ve tried it several times already , and then afterwards we can maybe ask the SNP to consider doing some other stuff that has even less chance of working , and that they ’ d never contemplate in a million years anyway.
” Every one of the alternative strategies suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of success if undertaken right now than they would after next year ’ s election .
And two of them – “ a national convention and the withdrawal of Scottish representatives from Westminster ” and “ a concerted national campaign of civil disobedience ” are ridiculous children ’ s fantasies anyway .
Nicola Sturgeon won ’ t even show up on an AUOB march , readers – do you seriously imagine for a solitary second that she ’ s going to front up a campaign of mass civil disobedience , for Heaven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , do you think such a thing would sway those “ persuadable soft No voters ” that Ross Greer and Wee Ginger Dug are urging us to have at the forefront of our thinking ?
We ’ ve spent four years watching the SNP waste everyone ’ s time on a futile and – irony !
– actually undemocratic attempt to overturn Brexit .
They ’ ve just told us , openly and unambiguously , that they ’ re “ parking ” independence until not just the immediate crisis but the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which only a fool expects to be less than another five years but which in any event the FM herself has described as “ for as far as we can see ” .
That ’ s a wasted decade .
How many more before we realise that the current leaders of the Yes movement have sold us a pup ?
Wings Over Scotland has not given up on independence .
It is still our goal , and that means pointing out every threat to it – whether from the enemy ’ s @ @ @ @ @

It’s hard to express quite what a revolting piece of rank hypocrisy this is.
Behold, ladies and gentlemen and other genders, some pious little twerp whose own comfy seat in the Scottish Parliament was secured entirely by what he calls “cheating”, saying that nobody but him and his mates are allowed to cheat now.
Ross Greer, alert readers may recall, snuck into Holyrood on the very last list seat in West Scotland, with just 5.3% of the vote. That’s sub-Annie-Wells levels of support.
Greer owes his seat primarily to Jackie Baillie. If she hadn’t held onto Dumbarton by a wafer-thin 109 votes from the SNP’s Gail Robertson (just 0.3%), Labour would have taken an extra list seat and Greer would have been out on his arse.
(One of the most cheering aspects of current polling is that it strongly suggests Greer getting the boot next year as Scottish Labour continues to implode. Although Baillie would probably still creep in via the list even if, as seems likely, she loses Dumbarton to the SNP, the Greens would be squeezed out in a net indy-neutral switch.)
The Greens didn’t stand any constituency candidates in West Scotland (they fought just three of Scotland’s 73 constituencies, all token efforts with no hope of winning), so we know for certain that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who voted Green voted for another party – most likely the SNP – with their first vote. And yet now that exact same thing is being denounced by Greer as “cheating” and “a danger to the Yes movement”.
It’s a theme that many have been taking up recently.
It remains a great paradox that this strategy is simultanously capable of committing a gross democratic outrage against Scotland’s Unionist parties by supposedly depriving them of countless seats, yet would also be a great folly because it would “split the Yes vote” and give the Unionist parties MORE seats.
The ludicrous but logical conclusion of that thought process is people angrily decrying the idea of splitting the Yes vote by using your second vote for a list-only pro-indy party, and instead in the very same tweet advocating… splitting the Yes vote by using your second vote for a different list-only pro-indy party.
Hoo boy.
But we did all this stuff on Wednesday. Most of the opposition to the idea of a new list party comes from (a) vested interests within both pro-indy AND Unionist parties who sense a threat to their own power and/or positions, and (b) really stupid people who STILL don’t have the slightest grasp of how the Scottish electoral system works after 21 years and probably ought to shut up until they do.
(And we know the Electoral Commission, whose job it is to stamp out exactly this sort of cheating if it were to happen, have so far raised no objections to any of the new pro-indy list parties that have been created, so clearly they don’t think there’s anything improper or undemocratic or unfair about them.)
What’s much more concerning is the underlying meaning of all the protests from the SNP/Green payroll, apparatchiks hoping for their own seat on the gravy train one day, and gullible diehard activists: that they’ve given up on ever achieving independence.
Robin McAlpine has a pretty devastating critique on Source today spelling out what’s been obvious to many of us for some time.
Even though it shouldn’t have been necessary, because the First Minister herself has told us the same thing in the bluntest possible terms.
We’re not quite sure why a party with well over 500 elected members (47 MPs, 63 MSPs, 431 councillors, and some now rather underemployed MEPs), never mind all its well-paid officials and special advisers, is seemingly incapable of pursuing two goals at once, especially when one of them is the reason it’s supposed to exist. We’re all but certain that only a handful of ministers actually have anything useful to do in terms of fighting COVID-19 (which is now all but eradicated in Scotland anyway).
But even if every single one of them was patrolling the border personally in full PPE and machine-guns, they’ve had four and a half years to come up with progress on a viable independence strategy, in which time they’ve produced precisely zip. The only rational explanation available is that they don’t really want to.
Wee Ginger Dug, a pro-indy blog which has firmly nailed its colours to the “BELIEVE IN QUEEN NICOLA, BOTH VOTES SNP” mast, has a post today entitled “Disagreeing without being disagreeable”, which is a touch ironic given that as recently as yesterday it responded like this to someone disagreeing with it:
(Not that this site has any objection to a bit of colourful language, you understand, we just don’t like to lecture other people about it at the same time.)
But what the post ostensibly attempts to do is lay out routes the SNP could at least in theory take to try to bypass Westminster’s refusal of a Section 30. Unfortunately, what it comes up with is most kindly described as gibberish.
When you break it down, what the above amounts to is exactly the line Pete Wishart and others in the SNP have been peddling for months now: “if we just get one more mandate/even higher poll figures, the UK government will cave in because it’ll have to, or else we’ll [BLANK – FILL IN LATER]”.
But Scotland has nothing with which to “threaten” Boris Johnson. What are we going to do, elect fewer than the seven Tory MPs that we currently have in five years’ time? Oh yeah, that’ll have him and his 80-strong majority quaking.
We already know that Boris doesn’t give a bee’s bawbag about “preserving the British nationalist fiction that Scotland’s membership of the UK is voluntary” – and more crucially, neither do any of the opposition parties in the Commons. Labour and the Lib Dems are 100% on board with refusing a second referendum before 2040 under any and all circumstances whatsoever.
And an interesting poll of MPs today reveals that just 10% of Tory MPs think Scotland will be independent in the next decade, which suggests that they’re pretty confident they’re not going to give in on the issue.
So why do we need to wait for another election, another hollow mandate and a THIRD official refusal of a Section 30 order before maybe trying a different plan? According to WGD one such alternative would be a plebiscitary election, but if we’ve waited until AFTER next year’s vote to do that, we’d be postponing any possible chance until 2026.
That’s because it’s not easy to force a Holyrood election before it’s due. It requires a clear majority, and if we’ve rejected maximising the number of pro-indy seats because it’s “cheating” that’s far from guaranteed. We cannot assume the SNP’s current polling will hold up for 10 months – in 2016 they were on 62% a year before the election but ended up on 47%, and that was without any major scandals.
(Even if the move succeeded, it’s also extremely uncertain that the electorate would take kindly to being asked to endure another election just weeks after they’d had one.)
The piece is in reality simply a surrender – “Let’s do a thing that we know definitely isn’t going to work because we’ve tried it several times already, and then afterwards we can maybe ask the SNP to consider doing some other stuff that has even less chance of working, and that they’d never contemplate in a million years anyway.”
Every one of the alternative strategies suggested in the post would have more hope of success if undertaken right now than they would after next year’s election. And two of them – “a national convention and the withdrawal of Scottish representatives from Westminster” and “a concerted national campaign of civil disobedience” are ridiculous children’s fantasies anyway.
Nicola Sturgeon won’t even show up on an AUOB march, readers – do you seriously imagine for a solitary second that she’s going to front up a campaign of mass civil disobedience, for Heaven’s sake? And even if she did, do you think such a thing would sway those “persuadable soft No voters” that Ross Greer and Wee Ginger Dug are urging us to have at the forefront of our thinking?
(Remember, we’re endlessly being told by the great and the good of the movement’s “respectable” and “inclusive” wing that even those marches are horrible and awful and offputting to “ordinary” people – and they’re small, good-natured, localised gatherings that are over in a couple of hours. How would those people react to a vast campaign of nationwide resistance that would actually interfere with their day-to-day lives for an indefinite period just as they were finally getting back to normal after coronavirus?)
We’ve spent four years watching the SNP waste everyone’s time on a futile and – irony! – actually undemocratic attempt to overturn Brexit. They’ve just told us, openly and unambiguously, that they’re “parking” independence until not just the immediate crisis but the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic are over, which only a fool expects to be less than another five years but which in any event the FM herself has described as “for as far as we can see”.
That’s a wasted decade. How many more before we realise that the current leaders of the Yes movement have sold us a pup?
Wings Over Scotland has not given up on independence. It is still our goal, and that means pointing out every threat to it – whether from the enemy’s lines or our own.


Surgical strike


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-19--Soapbox: What price freedom?

Soapbox: What price freedom?

It ’ s literally carved on the walls of Parliament .
There are those who stay and those who leave .
Since the 1700s the eyes of the ambitious Scot have looked towards London .
Many have made the journey there and , as with Ireland , Scotland ’ s most precious export has been its people .
But for those of us who have remained in Scotland our eyes are still turned south .
Since the union of Parliaments , all of Scotland ’ s power and wealth went to Westminster so the wealthy and the powerful , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , went there too .
With the re-establishment of Holyrood , some powers have come back , but only at the behest and permission of Westminster .
The wealth , however , has stayed there with Scotland only given some limited choice over where to spend what it is apportioned , a pocket money parliament working with one hand tied behind its back and both shoelaces tied together .
The Scots are a more confident people than they were in 1997 and one of the reflections of this is the disappearance of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Scots language , as demonstrated on the quotes on the Canongate wall of the Parliament building .
But in every other aspect , everything we do , every step we take , is done with that crick of the neck turned towards London , a feeling of just not being as good as them .
Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the current attitude of the SNP towards independence and other independence supporters .
Britain is currently facing its worst economic crisis since the Second World War .
The combination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic is combining into a force that will hit the UK like an express train in a few months ’ time .
In that crisis of mismanagement and incompetence lies an opportunity for Scotland .
There has never been a more compelling case for arguing for independence than the current situation we face .
So how is the SNP reacting ?
They ’ ve stopped talking about independence .
While our people feel the full blast of oafish ineptitude courtesy of Boris Johnson , the SNP seek at every turn to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being accused of taking “ advantage ” of a situation which has seen thousands dead in Scotland and over 40,000 deaths across the UK .
Instead it is burying its head in legislation like Gender Recognition Act self-ID reform , and when anyone mentions independence we ’ re told , “ Now is not the time ” and to provide yet another mandate for independence , which coincidentally involves the SNP winning elections .
We ’ re told we have to be cautious in case London says no to any steps that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point where the movement has an open goal in front of it , we are deferring to London and simultaneously tearing ourselves apart .
It ’ s dire .
The Independence for Scotland Party ( ISP ) want to turn our eyes away from London , and back to where they should have been all the time ; here in Scotland .
The SNP Westminster campaign in 2015 had a picture of tartan benches in the House of Commons even though the SNP has no real place being in the House Of Commons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , not settle in .
But if we can see the importance of removing unionist MPs from the benches in Westminster , why can we not see the importance of it in Holyrood ?
We need to make Holyrood our own and that means clearing out the rump of unionist supporting MSPs and their accompanying network .
It is the oldest British colonial trick in the book ; if you wish to rule a people , go and sit amongst them , then divide and rule .
The only parties in Holyrood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London-based headquarters , that ’ s no coincidence .
As long as Holyrood remains divided betwixt unionists and nationalists , Scotland will be ruled by Westminster .
While we squabble over whether Scotland should or shouldn ’ t be independent Westminster continues to control our wealth and choose where we might exercise our powers .
Unite Holyrood on the issue of independence and we will gain the momentum we need to take control of all our powers , all our wealth and choose our own future .
We aim to provide a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfortable with the direction the SNP is headed .
After the 2014 referendum result , the majority of Yes supporters willingly corralled themselves into the pen of the SNP , but six years on and we ’ re no closer to independence .
Even when the Brexit vote happened and Scotland looked to be dragged out of the EU against our will , all of the focus from the SNP was on stopping Brexit , not on independence .
It meant it was too easy for the movement to be targeted and side-tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that in the inability , or unwillingness , of the SNP to move forward .
Indeed , according to the First Minister ’ s own promises we should have had a second vote by now .
Late 2018 or early 2019 is what we were told – before or just after we left the EU was , she said , essential to show Scotland wanted to choose a different path .
But Theresa May said “ now is not the time ” and that was simply accepted instead of being challenged .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and once again Scotland shuffles meekly back to its kennel .
Some have accused us of splitting the independence movement , but that ’ s not the case .
This is actually a long overdue and necessary regrouping of the independence movement .
We are too big and too diverse a group of people to fit into one party .
Some of us do have a different view on self ID , or economics , or education .
We don ’ t need to fall out about it .
The one and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree on is that Scotland should be an independent nation again .
The SNP needs to grow up as a party and understand that they do not hold the monopoly on independence , or any other policy for that matter , and that diversity in opinion and in the movement is a healthy thing .
Independence supporters who hold different views from the SNP are not second class Yessers .
Having another party increases the political flexibility of the movement and it keeps us all honest .
For far too long the SNP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for independence supporters , making it all too easy for Westminster and the media to directly equate support for the party with support for independence .
The loss of seats in the Westminster 2017 election was used to deny the strength of support for self-governance , while an increase in seats in 2019 was ignored by Westminster .
Yet again a Section 30 order was requested , yet again it was denied , and yet again the SNP did nothing but accept it and say that Westminster would back down eventually .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t back down .
Ever .
Especially when they think Scotland will choose independence .
Yet SNP say a plan B isn ’ t what we need , we just need to give them yet another mandate with a majority at Holyrood , a parliament with a system specifically designed to avoid any one party having a majority .
Well , a little healthy competition does no harm – it could both increase the number of pro-indy MSPs and act as a spur in what is meant to be our main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an independent Scotland .
We need to lose our fear , shed the cringe , stand tall and proud .
Here ’ s the truth .
Whatever we choose to do to gain independence , London is going to say no to it .
That ’ s a given .
Why then , should this stop us from acting ?
We need to defy them to say no .
London is not the only player in this game .
We need to see ourselves in the eyes of our fellow Europeans who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the biggest oil and gas reserves in Europe and the greatest potential for green energy .
We are vitally important to the future of Europe and the Europeans know it ; why do we not understand that that is the key to our freedom ?
We are not naïve .
We are not ignorant of international law or of the UK ’ s position as a permanent member of the UN security Council .
But neither are we of the opinion that Scotland is powerless to act without Westminster ’ s permission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will push this , from the minute we enter Holyrood to the minute Scotland gains its independence .
We will not be silent .
We will be the voice of the Yes groups , the advocates of the unheard and the reminder to the SNP that their purpose is not to rule a devolved government forever on the back of pro-independence votes but to use their power at Holyrood to get independence for Scotland .
If we do not decide our course as a nation now , Westminster will decide that course for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it always has , with Scotland and the Scottish people .
Let us take our own fate in our own hands and act while we still can .
Because if we do not act soon , we may not get the chance again .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us via our Contact page , INCLUDING THE WORD ‘ SOAPBOX ’ IN THE SUBJECT LINE .

It’s literally carved on the walls of Parliament.
There are those who stay and there are those who leave. Since the 1700s the eyes of the ambitious Scot have looked towards London. Many have made the journey there and, as with Ireland, Scotland’s most precious export has been its people.
But for those of us who have remained in Scotland our eyes are still turned south.
Since the union of Parliaments, all of Scotland’s power and wealth went to Westminster so the wealthy and the powerful, as well as those who sought such things, went there too. With the re-establishment of Holyrood, some powers have come back, but only at the behest and permission of Westminster.
The wealth, however, has stayed there with Scotland only given some limited choice over where to spend what it is apportioned, a pocket money parliament working with one hand tied behind its back and both shoelaces tied together.
The Scots are a more confident people now than in 1997 and one of the reflections of this is the disappearance of the “cringe” associated with the use of Scots language, as demonstrated on the quotes on the Canongate wall of the Parliament building.
But in every other aspect, everything we do, every step we take, is done with that crick of the neck turned towards London, a feeling of just not being as good as them. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the current attitude of the SNP towards independence and other independence supporters.
Britain is currently facing its worst economic crisis since the Second World War. The combination of Brexit and the chaos from the coronavirus pandemic is combining into a force that will hit the UK like an express train in a few months’ time. In that crisis of mismanagement and incompetence lies an opportunity for Scotland. There has never been a more compelling case for arguing for independence than the current situation we face.
So how is the SNP reacting? They’ve stopped talking about independence. While our people feel the full blast of oafish ineptitude courtesy of Boris Johnson, the SNP seek at every turn to avoid being seen as political, to avoid being accused of taking “advantage” of a situation which has seen thousands dead in Scotland and over 40,000 deaths across the UK.
Instead it is burying its head in legislation like Gender Recognition Act self-ID reform, and when anyone mentions independence we’re told, “Now is not the time” and to provide yet another mandate for independence, which coincidentally involves the SNP winning elections.
We’re told we have to be cautious in case London says no to any steps that we take to secure independence. At a point where the movement has an open goal in front of it, we are deferring to London and simultaneously tearing ourselves apart. It’s dire.
The Independence for Scotland Party (ISP) want to turn our eyes away from London, and back to where they should have been all the time; here in Scotland. The SNP Westminster campaign in 2015 had a picture of tartan benches in the House of Commons even though the SNP has no real place being in the House Of Commons. It’s meant to settle up, not settle in.
But if we can see the importance of removing unionist MPs from the benches in Westminster, why can we not see the importance of it in Holyrood? We need to make Holyrood our own and that means clearing out the rump of unionist supporting MSPs and their accompanying network. It is the oldest British colonial trick in the book; if you wish to rule a people, go and sit amongst them, then divide and rule. The only parties in Holyrood that oppose independence are funded by their London-based headquarters, that’s no coincidence.
As long as Holyrood remains divided betwixt unionists and nationalists, Scotland will be ruled by Westminster. While we squabble over whether Scotland should or shouldn’t be independent Westminster continues to control our wealth and choose where we might exercise our powers. Unite Holyrood on the issue of independence and we will gain the momentum we need to take control of all our powers, all our wealth and choose our own future.
We aim to provide a political home for independence supporters who are not comfortable with the direction the SNP is headed. After the 2014 referendum result, the majority of Yes supporters willingly corralled themselves into the pen of the SNP, but six years on and we’re no closer to independence.
Even when the Brexit vote happened and Scotland looked to be dragged out of the EU against our will, all of the focus from the SNP was on stopping Brexit, not on independence. It meant it was too easy for the movement to be targeted and side-tracked and we are now seeing the results of that in the inability, or unwillingness, of the SNP to move forward.
Indeed, according to the First Minister’s own promises we should have had a second vote by now. Late 2018 or early 2019 is what we were told – before or just after we left the EU was, she said, essential to show Scotland wanted to choose a different path.
But Theresa May said “now is not the time” and that was simply accepted instead of being challenged. And now Boris Johnson says the same, and once again Scotland shuffles meekly back to its kennel.
Some have accused us of splitting the independence movement, but that’s not the case. This is actually a long overdue and necessary regrouping of the independence movement. We are too big and too diverse a group of people to fit into one party. Some of us do have a different view on self ID, or economics, or education. We don’t need to fall out about it. The one and only thing we do all need to agree on is that Scotland should be an independent nation again.
The SNP needs to grow up as a party and understand that they do not hold the monopoly on independence, or any other policy for that matter, and that diversity in opinion and in the movement is a healthy thing. Independence supporters who hold different views from the SNP are not second class Yessers.
Having another party increases the political flexibility of the movement and it keeps us all honest. For far too long the SNP has been the only show in town for independence supporters, making it all too easy for Westminster and the media to directly equate support for the party with support for independence.
The loss of seats in the Westminster 2017 election was used to deny the strength of support for self-governance, while an increase in seats in 2019 was ignored by Westminster. Yet again a Section 30 order was requested, yet again it was denied, and yet again the SNP did nothing but accept it and say that Westminster would back down eventually.
We have news for you all: Westminster won’t back down. Ever. Especially when they think Scotland will choose independence. Yet SNP say a plan B isn’t what we need, we just need to give them yet another mandate with a majority at Holyrood, a parliament with a system specifically designed to avoid any one party having a majority.
Well, a little healthy competition does no harm – it could both increase the number of pro-indy MSPs and act as a spur in what is meant to be our main reason for existing; pushing the case for an independent Scotland.
We need to lose our fear, shed the cringe, stand tall and proud. Here’s the truth. Whatever we choose to do to gain independence, London is going to say no to it. That’s a given. Why then, should this stop us from acting? We need to defy them to say no. London is not the only player in this game.
We need to see ourselves in the eyes of our fellow Europeans who view Scotland as the country with some of the biggest oil and gas reserves in Europe and the greatest potential for green energy. We are vitally important to the future of Europe and the Europeans know it; why do we not understand that that is the key to our freedom?
We are not naïve. We are not ignorant of international law or of the UK’s position as a permanent member of the UN security Council. But neither are we of the opinion that Scotland is powerless to act without Westminster’s permission. Give us your vote and we will push this, from the minute we enter Holyrood to the minute Scotland gains its independence.
We will not be silent. We will be the voice of the Yes groups, the advocates of the unheard and the reminder to the SNP that their purpose is not to rule a devolved government forever on the back of pro-independence votes but to use their power at Holyrood to get independence for Scotland.
If we do not decide our course as a nation now, Westminster will decide that course for us. The answer lies, as it always has, with Scotland and the Scottish people. Let us take our own fate in our own hands and act while we still can. Because if we do not act soon, we may not get the chance again.
.
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.


Sailing away

But don ’ t worry , readers .
The SNP have a cunning plan to secure independence by 2050 , @ @ @ @ @ find time in between letting rapists into women ’ s changing rooms , criminalising almost @ @ @ @ @ stopping you getting cheap pizzas .
No rush .
There ’ s still a lot @ @ @ @ @ money to be claimed .

Farewell, civilised world.
But don’t worry, readers. The SNP have a cunning plan to secure independence by 2050, maybe, if they can find time in between letting rapists into women’s changing rooms, criminalising almost any sort of speech and stopping you getting cheap pizzas. No rush. There’s still a lot of MP wages and Short money to be claimed.