The plotters thicken

Alert readers will recall the deranged open letter released by a group of transactivists last Friday , in a nakedly transparent attempt to influence the SNP ’ s NEC elections that weekend which backfired on them horribly ( and amusingly ) when the party ’ s members instead kicked out three-quarters of the committee ’ s woke faction and replaced them with feminists , socialists and above all advocates of actually achieving independence .
But things just got rather more interesting .
The letter appears to have been chiefly the initiative of three people : Mridul Wadhwa , a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as manager of a rape crisis centre ( which he still holds ) ; David Paisley , an obscure actor so obsessed with removing women ’ s rights that in March he offered to send people nude pictures of himself if they sent in a pro-trans submission to the Scottish Government ’ s gender-reform consultation , and who is engaged in relentless attempts to have gay organisation the LGB Alliance shut down ; and Teddy Hope , a disturbed young SNP activist from the Aberdeen area with a track record of making lurid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” against other party members , unquestioningly amplified by people like Mhairi Black MP .
Hope and Wadhwa , along with The National columnist “ Steph/en ” Paton , were the first people to tweet about the letter , within minutes of each other just after 3pm on Friday afternoon .
( Hope subsequently deleted his tweet about it without offering any sort of explanation , something he does a lot . )
Because the authors of the letter didn ’ t secure the Google Drive document properly , we also know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of edits to it on Friday .
We also know Paisley was , let ’ s say , “ close to ” the authors of the letter because he was able to make a “ representation ” to them to remove a defamatory paragraph about Joanna Cherry which was miraculously deleted from the letter almost instantly .
It ’ s also interesting in passing to note that Mhairi Hunter had already signed the letter DESPITE it containing the defamatory allegations against her colleague , and that the missing tweet in the above screenshot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Jordon Henderson , the abusive , misogynist on-off boyfriend of SNP MP Alyn Smith .
Henderson regularly suspends his Twitter account temporarily – by our count this is at least the sixth time – when he ’ s been embarrassing Smith , who nevertheless continues to defend him and sulks mightily if anyone tries to hold him to account for failing to condemn Henderson ’ s actions .
But we haven ’ t got to our point yet .
Since the letter was published , several supposed signatories have claimed that their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge .
Another – extremely belatedly several days later , having implausibly claimed not to know anything about it despite countless tweets about it including his Twitter tag on the Friday – was transactivist Lib Dem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton : A possible third is SNP staffer and Aberdeen Independence Movement chair Fatima Joji – although her tweet is so badly worded it ’ s not clear that that ’ s what she means .
So not only was the letter defamatory , offensive , intimidatory , littered with major factual untruths and disastrously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 700 signatures on it were , at a minimum , not verified in any way , and at worst were deliberately faked by the letter ’ s authors in a manner which could also ironically be defamatory of pro-trans voices like McDonald and Cole-Hamilton .
In addition to any police enquiries and legal steps which we hope are currently under way , it would appear that at the very least the SNP needs to conduct an investigation into the activities of Mridul Wadhwa and Teddy Hope , both of whom lived a charmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned a blind eye to their sustained abuse of other members .
Until it does , the poison in the party will continue to fester .
Because hate whipped up by the pathologically inept and stupid is still hate .

Alert readers will recall the deranged open letter released by a group of transactivists last Friday, in a nakedly transparent attempt to influence the SNP’s NEC elections that weekend which backfired on them horribly (and amusingly) when the party’s members instead kicked out three-quarters of the committee’s woke faction and replaced them with feminists, socialists and above all advocates of actually achieving independence.
But things just got rather more interesting.
The letter appears to have been chiefly the initiative of three people: Mridul Wadhwa, a man who conned his way into a job as manager of a rape crisis centre (which he still holds); David Paisley, an obscure actor so obsessed with removing women’s rights that in March he offered to send people nude pictures of himself if they sent in a pro-trans submission to the Scottish Government’s gender-reform consultation, and who is engaged in relentless attempts to have gay organisation the LGB Alliance shut down; and Teddy Hope, a disturbed young SNP activist from the Aberdeen area with a track record of making lurid and totally fictitious allegations of “transphobia” against other party members, unquestioningly amplified by people like Mhairi Black MP.
Hope and Wadhwa, along with The National columnist “Steph/en” Paton, were the first people to tweet about the letter, within minutes of each other just after 3pm on Friday afternoon. (Hope subsequently deleted his tweet about it without offering any sort of explanation, something he does a lot.)
Because the authors of the letter didn’t secure the Google Drive document properly, we also know that Hope was responsible for the vast majority of edits to it on Friday.
We also know Paisley was, let’s say, “close to” the authors of the letter because he was able to make a “representation” to them to remove a defamatory paragraph about Joanna Cherry which was miraculously deleted from the letter almost instantly.
It’s also interesting in passing to note that Mhairi Hunter had already signed the letter DESPITE it containing the defamatory allegations against her colleague, and that the missing tweet in the above screenshot (which had attacked Cherry) was from Jordon Henderson, the abusive, misogynist on-off boyfriend of SNP MP Alyn Smith.
Henderson regularly suspends his Twitter account temporarily – by our count this is at least the sixth time – when he’s been embarrassing Smith, who nevertheless continues to defend him and sulks mightily if anyone tries to hold him to account for failing to condemn Henderson’s actions.
(Smith has declined to specify which “outright lies” have supposedly been told. It was alleged that he’d passed Cherry’s email to Henderson, who then mocked it publicly, and in the tweets above Smith admits doing exactly that.)
But we haven’t got to our point yet. Since the letter was published, several supposed signatories have claimed that their names were added to it without their knowledge.
One was transactivist SNP MP Stewart McDonald:
Another – extremely belatedly several days later, having implausibly claimed not to know anything about it despite countless tweets about it including his Twitter tag on the Friday – was transactivist Lib Dem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton:
(Who said he supported “much of its intent”, just not the defamatory bits.)
A possible third is SNP staffer and Aberdeen Independence Movement chair Fatima Joji – although her tweet is so badly worded it’s not clear that that’s what she means.
(If she’s referring to our post on the subject the previous day, nobody “submitted [her] name” to us. We identified her by searching the names of signatories to the letter. Nobody has ever contacted Wings mentioning her in connection to the letter.)
So not only was the letter defamatory, offensive, intimidatory, littered with major factual untruths and disastrously counter-productive, it now appears that the 700 signatures on it were, at a minimum, not verified in any way, and at worst were deliberately faked by the letter’s authors in a manner which could also ironically be defamatory of pro-trans voices like McDonald and Cole-Hamilton.
In addition to any police enquiries and legal steps which we hope are currently under way, it would appear that at the very least the SNP needs to conduct an investigation into the activities of Mridul Wadhwa and Teddy Hope, both of whom lived a charmed life under the previous trans-captured NEC which turned a blind eye to their sustained abuse of other members.
(And both of whom were last week elected to the executive committee of Out For Independence, the trans-fundamentalist SNP affiliate group that’s the source of a great deal of the toxic division in the party.)
Until it does, the poison in the party will continue to fester. Because hate whipped up by the pathologically inept and stupid is still hate.


We’re Number One!

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

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


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-04--Counting all the days

Counting all the days

We got this email last night .
And , y ’ know , that ’ s really not good enough , folks .
Because here ’ s what it says at that link : “ Response ” there means an actual answer to your query , not just an acknowledgement of your email .
You should ( obviously ) get the latter instantly , because an algorithm can do that without any human intervention .
But 37 working days – almost twice the time it ’ s supposed to take for the request to be answered – have passed between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
COVID-19 isn ’ t an excuse .
A person sat at a computer logging into a database is the same whether that computer is in an office or in their socially-distanced home .
There ’ s no legitimate reason that FOI requests should take any longer because of the virus .
As ridiculously implausible as it seems , it ’ s beginning to look as though the Scottish Government actually thinks it can stall and delay the Salmond inquiry all the way up to next year ’ s election .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t far off now , and the dissolution of Parliament before an election is usually in the last week of March , six weeks before the vote , because Parliament can ’ t sit during a campaign .
[ EDIT 1.50pm : last month ’ s General Election Bill delayed the formal dissolution of Parliament from 25 March to 5 May , the day before the election .
However it ’ s not at all clear if this means “ business as usual ” right up until a few hours before polling stations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a technical mechanism to enable the passing of any emergency COVID legislation that might be required during the campaign period . ]
So while the election is still five months away , there are in fact only about three months of Parliamentary time in that period , and the inquiry is still facing court battles to get hold of the information it wants , and still hasn ’ t interviewed Geoff Aberdein , Liz Lloyd , Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond ( although Peter Murrell is up next week , which ought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has now been blocking two votes of Parliament to release the government ’ s legal advice for a fortnight and counting .
It ’ s almost as if the First Minister wants to prevent the inquiry from being able to deliver a verdict before the election , in the hope she ’ ll win a majority that would enable her to survive a vote of no confidence and simply brazen out anything the inquiry found .
If you ’ d asked us at the start of the inquiry in mid-August whether it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way up to an election almost nine months later , we ’ d have snorted .
The idea seemed totally ludicrous .
But it seems the First Minister is absolutely determined to evade justice and accountability , and might even succeed .
And if she does , readers , you can kiss goodbye to independence .

We got this email last night.
And, y’know, that’s really not good enough, folks.
Because here’s what it says at that link:
“Response” there means an actual answer to your query, not just an acknowledgement of your email. You should (obviously) get the latter instantly, because an algorithm can do that without any human intervention.
But 37 working days – almost twice the time it’s supposed to take for the request to be answered – have passed between our email and the mere acknowledgement of it.
COVID-19 isn’t an excuse. A person sat at a computer logging into a database is the same whether that computer is in an office or in their socially-distanced home. There’s no legitimate reason that FOI requests should take any longer because of the virus.
As ridiculously implausible as it seems, it’s beginning to look as though the Scottish Government actually thinks it can stall and delay the Salmond inquiry all the way up to next year’s election. The two-week Christmas break at Holyrood isn’t far off now, and the dissolution of Parliament before an election is usually in the last week of March, six weeks before the vote, because Parliament can’t sit during a campaign.
[EDIT 1.50pm: last month’s General Election Bill delayed the formal dissolution of Parliament from 25 March to 5 May, the day before the election. However it’s not at all clear if this means “business as usual” right up until a few hours before polling stations open, or if it’s just a technical mechanism to enable the passing of any emergency COVID legislation that might be required during the campaign period.]
So while the election is still five months away, there are in fact only about three months of Parliamentary time in that period, and the inquiry is still facing court battles to get hold of the information it wants, and still hasn’t interviewed Geoff Aberdein, Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond (although Peter Murrell is up next week, which ought to be interesting). John Swinney has now been blocking two votes of Parliament to release the government’s legal advice for a fortnight and counting.
It’s almost as if the First Minister wants to prevent the inquiry from being able to deliver a verdict before the election, in the hope she’ll win a majority that would enable her to survive a vote of no confidence and simply brazen out anything the inquiry found.
If you’d asked us at the start of the inquiry in mid-August whether it would have been possible to stall it all the way up to an election almost nine months later, we’d have snorted. The idea seemed totally ludicrous. But it seems the First Minister is absolutely determined to evade justice and accountability, and might even succeed.
And if she does, readers, you can kiss goodbye to independence.


Taking it well

As well as the SNP NEC elections , the weekend saw the election of the first committee of a new grassroots independence organisation which is unfortunately and hopefully temporarily going by the stupendously terrible working name of “ Yes Alba ” .
15 people were elected to its ruling body by the votes of hundreds of delegates , with the top-ranked picks including SNP MP Angus MacNeil and former SNP MP George Kerevan .
The majority of the successful candidates ( eight ) were female , even though there were no quotas or women-only shortlists imposed , and a wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists to former UK ambassador Craig Murray .
But that wasn ’ t good enough for Team Woke .
On a day when Joanna Cherry had a grown-up , reasoned and constructive column in The National calling for unity in the pursuit of independence , the outpouring of snide , sour sneering from a faction still raging with bitterness about being routed on the SNP NEC is instead curdling Twitter even as we speak .
And embarrassingly , not a single one of them has actually bothered to check even the most basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was excited to toss in some barbs casting baseless and spiteful aspersions on a bunch of tireless grassroots activists .
As were some recently-failed wannabe SNP candidates .
And of course the transcult were furious that something wasn ’ t all about them .
But mostly it was wokebearded men throwing tantrums after a bunch of women had been elected to something entirely on their own merits without any male help .
Our favourites , though , were the ones openly admitting that they were commenting out of complete and total ignorance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dear God call it something else ) and the Yes movement as a whole will be vastly better off , and infinitely more harmonious , the day every last one of these pious , brainless , divisive little twerps goes and finds something else to do with their time , or ideally just falls down a mineshaft .

As well as the SNP NEC elections, the weekend saw the election of the first committee of a new grassroots independence organisation which is unfortunately and hopefully temporarily going by the stupendously terrible working name of “Yes Alba”.
15 people were elected to its ruling body by the votes of hundreds of delegates, with the top-ranked picks including SNP MP Angus MacNeil and former SNP MP George Kerevan. The majority of the successful candidates (eight) were female, even though there were no quotas or women-only shortlists imposed, and a wide range of ages was represented from young activists to former UK ambassador Craig Murray.
(We have no idea about any of their sexualities or gender identities, and also no interest in knowing, because those things have not the slightest bearing on their ability to fight for independence and are frankly none of our damn business.)
But that wasn’t good enough for Team Woke.
On a day when Joanna Cherry had a grown-up, reasoned and constructive column in The National calling for unity in the pursuit of independence, the outpouring of snide, sour sneering from a faction still raging with bitterness about being routed on the SNP NEC is instead curdling Twitter even as we speak.
And embarrassingly, not a single one of them has actually bothered to check even the most basic facts.
The mercifully-departing SNP National Secretary was excited to toss in some barbs casting baseless and spiteful aspersions on a bunch of tireless grassroots activists.
As were some recently-failed wannabe SNP candidates.
Naturally Pension Pete had plenty snark to spare.
And of course the transcult were furious that something wasn’t all about them.
But mostly it was wokebearded men throwing tantrums after a bunch of women had been elected to something entirely on their own merits without any male help.
Our favourites, though, were the ones openly admitting that they were commenting out of complete and total ignorance.
(How will we ever manage without the talents of people who don’t even have the basic wit to get around a paywall in order to just possibly have the slightest clue what they’re talking about before they shoot their idiot mouths off?)
The SNP, Yes Alba (please dear God call it something else) and the Yes movement as a whole will be vastly better off, and infinitely more harmonious, the day every last one of these pious, brainless, divisive little twerps goes and finds something else to do with their time, or ideally just falls down a mineshaft.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-05--The limits of science

The limits of science


Taken for fools

From an interview with Mike Russell in today ’ s Sunday National : ( 1 ) The people of Scotland voted in 2016 to have a second referendum if Scotland was forced out of the EU against its will .
The Parliament then voted twice in favour of that policy , and yet Scotland was indeed forced out of the EU on 31 January this year .
So why hasn ’ t THAT policy been delivered ?
Why on Earth should anyone believe you can deliver it this time when you ’ ve failed to deliver it in the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Parliamentary majority for it ?
What , in meaningful practical terms , are you going to have next May that you haven ’ t had since May 2016 and achieved nothing with ?
( 2 ) How do you expect to have “ trust ” in those circumstances ?
How can we accept at face value your “ belief ” that Boris Johnson will abandon his own electoral mandate to refuse a second indyref , when you can ’ t or won ’ t tell us anything you can do to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 votes in the Commons against your 50 ?
You ’ re not asking for “ trust ” .
Trust is earned and you ’ ve done absolutely nothing since 2016 to earn it .
Not one single step has been taken towards independence in almost five years of opportunity .
What you ’ re asking for is faith , something that can only ever exist in the absence of evidence .
At this point , frankly , we ’ d rather see some evidence .
The patience of the wider Yes movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections this week bought you and your SNP colleagues a short period of grace .
We respectfully ask you not to stretch their tolerance any further with cheap intelligence-insulting drivel like that published in the Sunday National today .

From an interview with Mike Russell in today’s Sunday National:
Just a couple of quick questions.
(1) The people of Scotland voted in 2016 to have a second referendum if Scotland was forced out of the EU against its will. The Parliament then voted twice in favour of that policy, and yet Scotland was indeed forced out of the EU on 31 January this year. So why hasn’t THAT policy been delivered?
Why on Earth should anyone believe you can deliver it this time when you’ve failed to deliver it in the last five years despite having a mandate and a Parliamentary majority for it? What, in meaningful practical terms, are you going to have next May that you haven’t had since May 2016 and achieved nothing with?
(2) How do you expect anyone to have “trust” in those circumstances? How can we accept at face value your “belief” that Boris Johnson will abandon his own electoral mandate to refuse a second indyref, when you can’t or won’t tell us anything you can do to make him, given that he can command 600 votes in the Commons against your 50?
The patience of the wider Yes movement is wearing very thin. The NEC elections this week bought you and your SNP colleagues a short period of grace. We respectfully ask you not to stretch their tolerance any further with cheap intelligence-insulting drivel like that published in the Sunday National today.
You’re not asking for “trust”. Trust is earned and you’ve done absolutely nothing since 2016 to earn it. Not one single step has been taken towards independence in almost five years of opportunity. What you’re asking for is faith, something that can only ever exist in the absence of evidence. At this point, frankly, we’d rather see some evidence.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-06--The Whining Of The Bams

The Whining Of The Bams


The human sacrifices

We don ’ t normally like to devote much time on Wings to things that have been more than adequately covered elsewhere in the media , which is why you haven ’ t read much here about eg the Internal Market Bill .
Unlike some we don ’ t see much point spending our limited human resources telling people stuff they already know and agree with .
But we ’ re going to make an exception for this next thing , which was already covered pretty well by Susan Dalgety in last week ’ s Scotsman , because ( a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite reasonably , will have an instinctively adverse reaction to either anything printed in the Scotsman or anything written by Susan Dalgety , and ( b ) a number of people have asked us to amplify this issue because it ’ s so important and so awful .
A bill is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament which will enable people who have been raped – the overwhelming majority of whom are women – to access a forensic medical examination before going to the police .
This is clearly a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having such an examination conducted in a police station puts a lot of victims off reporting the crime .
The Health and Sport Committee guiding the bill through the legislative process , heard – including from one of the Scottish Government ’ s own pet organisations , Rape Crisis Scotland – that the single most important concern of women who ’ d been raped was access to a female doctor to conduct the examination .
However , the draft bill only sought to allow victims to specify the “ gender ” of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Committee agreed was problematically ambiguous .
It therefore recommended that the wording of the bill be changed to say “ sex ” .
But the Scottish Government is refusing to make the change , because trans feelz .
It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the failure to do so will lead to more victims declining to report being raped for fear of suffering a second trauma in having such an intimate examination at such a stressful time conducted by a male .
Yet the Scottish Government is so obsessed with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it won ’ t even listen to its own committee or its own quangos .
Johann Lamont – someone else Wings readers will entirely understandably have very little inclination to listen to , another reason we ’ ve been asked to deliver the message to our own audience – has proposed a six-word amendment when the bill goes before Parliament this Thursday : “ for the word ‘ gender ’ substitute ‘ sex ’ ” .
SNP MSPs are currently expected to vote against the amendment , all but ensuring its failure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ site ’ s opinion it will be the most disgraceful and shameful act in the Scottish Parliament ’ s history since devolution in 1999 .
The weasel-worded response on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for Health seeks to reassure women that Equality Act exemptions on the employment of trans people in such sensitive roles will still apply .
But if that ’ s the case then there can be no possible harm in the amendment , which will only serve as a solid guarantee for what we ’ re told is the intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women ’ s fears about reporting this dreadful and under-prosecuted crime .
We ask readers to contact their MSPs and demand that they support the amendment .
To fail to do so will be to fail people who ’ ve just suffered one of the worst experiences imaginable , all for a few woke points .
Faith in politics is already at an all-time low .
Let ’ s all do whatever we can to try to avoid it plumbing appalling new depths .

We don’t normally like to devote much time on Wings to things that have been more than adequately covered elsewhere in the media, which is why you haven’t read much here about eg the Internal Market Bill. Unlike some we don’t see much point spending our limited human resources telling people stuff they already know and agree with.
But we’re going to make an exception for this next thing, which was already covered pretty well by Susan Dalgety in last week’s Scotsman, because (a) a lot of our readers, quite reasonably, will have an instinctively adverse reaction to either anything printed in the Scotsman or anything written by Susan Dalgety, and (b) a number of people have asked us to amplify this issue because it’s so important and so awful.
A bill is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament which will enable people who have been raped – the overwhelming majority of whom are women – to access a forensic medical examination before going to the police. This is clearly a very good thing, because the thought of having such an examination conducted in a police station puts a lot of victims off reporting the crime.
The Health and Sport Committee guiding the bill through the legislative process, heard – including from one of the Scottish Government’s own pet organisations, Rape Crisis Scotland – that the single most important concern of women who’d been raped was access to a female doctor to conduct the examination.
However, the draft bill only sought to allow victims to specify the “gender” of the doctor, not the sex, which the Committee agreed was problematically ambiguous. It therefore recommended that the wording of the bill be changed to say “sex”.
But the Scottish Government is refusing to make the change, because trans feelz.
It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the failure to do so will lead to more victims declining to report being raped for fear of suffering a second trauma in having such an intimate examination at such a stressful time conducted by a male. Yet the Scottish Government is so obsessed with “diversity” and “inclusion” that it won’t even listen to its own committee or its own quangos.
Johann Lamont – someone else Wings readers will entirely understandably have very little inclination to listen to, another reason we’ve been asked to deliver the message to our own audience – has proposed a six-word amendment when the bill goes before Parliament this Thursday: “for the word ‘gender’ substitute ‘sex’”. SNP MSPs are currently expected to vote against the amendment, all but ensuring its failure.
If they do so, in this site’s opinion it will be the most disgraceful and shameful act in the Scottish Parliament’s history since devolution in 1999.
The weasel-worded response on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for Health seeks to reassure women that Equality Act exemptions on the employment of trans people in such sensitive roles will still apply. But if that’s the case then there can be no possible harm in the amendment, which will only serve as a solid guarantee for what we’re told is the intent anyway, and remove (particularly) women’s fears about reporting this dreadful and under-prosecuted crime.
We ask readers to contact their MSPs and demand that they support the amendment. To fail to do so will be to fail people who’ve just suffered one of the worst experiences imaginable, all for a few woke points. Faith in politics is already at an all-time low. Let’s all do whatever we can to try to avoid it plumbing appalling new depths.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-08--Peter Murrell is not a liar

Peter Murrell is not a liar

Well , we need to qualify that quite a lot .
In his evidence to a Holyrood inquiry today , @ @ @ @ @ troubling WhatsApp messages concerning the case from 2018 which appeared to suggest the possibility of @ @ @ @ @ First Minister , Murrell told members of the committee “ I ’ m not on @ @ @ @ @ not a social media platform I use ” .
Alert readers will have noticed a @ @ @ @ @ present tense there .
Because it certainly seems to be the case that Mr Murrell @ @ @ @ @ right now .
Indeed , he hasn ’ t been logged on the app for @ @ @ @ @ two weeks .
So some good truthful evidence there .
Well done to all concerned @ @ @ @ @ of Mr Murrell ’ s testimony , well , let ’ s just say we @ @ @ @ @ the headline upon further analysis and leave it at that .

Well, we need to qualify that quite a lot.
In his evidence to a Holyrood inquiry today, having been asked about some troubling WhatsApp messages concerning the case from 2018 which appeared to suggest the possibility of a conspiracy against the former First Minister, Murrell told members of the committee “I’m not on WhatsApp, it’s not a social media platform I use”.
Alert readers will have noticed a very careful use of the present tense there.
Because it certainly seems to be the case that Mr Murrell isn’t using WhatsApp right now. Indeed, he hasn’t been logged on the app for, um, slightly over two weeks.
So some good truthful evidence there. Well done to all concerned. As for the rest of Mr Murrell’s testimony, well, let’s just say we reserve the right to alter the headline upon further analysis and leave it at that.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-08--When it suits them

When it suits them

We ’ ve now filed a formal complaint with the Scottish Information Commissioner about this , because what we ’ d forgotten last week was that our original request was actually sent in September and it ’ s now been almost 60 working days with no sign of a proper response , not the 20 it ’ s supposed to take .
Because for some reason the Scottish Government REALLY doesn ’ t want you to know what the First Minister and Geoff Aberdein talked about in March 2018 , and we think that you probably should .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same matter that Alex Cole-Hamilton was referring to in the Holyrood chamber last month when he said this : But we can tell you that we sent this FOI request yesterday : “ To : ceu [ at ] gov [ dot ] scot Name : Stuart Campbell Date : 7 December 2020 Response required by : 8 Jan 2021 ( 1 ) Has the Committee [ on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints ] received a written submission from Mr Geoff Aberdein , former chief of staff to former First Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , on which date was the submission received ?
( 3 ) Has the Committee accepted the submission ?
( 4 ) If so , on what date will the submission be published on the Scottish Government website ?
( 5 ) If not , for what reason/s has the submission not been accepted ?
” And even though it ’ s taken 60 days to have our previous request acknowledged , we got an actual response to that one the same day .
It ’ s a fob-off saying “ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guys over there ” , but it nevertheless indicates that it isn ’ t simply a case of the coronavirus pandemic creating an unfortunate backlog that means requests take weeks to be looked at .
This request was received , read , assessed and replied to within literally hours .
So there ’ s no possible excuse for the other one – which simply requests a clarification of two apparently contradictory statements issued by the Scottish Government , and should not be in any way difficult or complicated to provide a proper answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and counting .
But there ’ s good news , because we got another FOI reply today too .
So it ’ s now the offical position that the separate inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code DOES encompass not only whether she attempted to interfere in the inquiry , but also whether she lied to the Scottish Parliament about her knowledge of it ( which we know , officially and on the record , that she did ) .
It is , to put it generously , now EXTREMELY difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to any conclusion other than that the First Minister lied to Parliament , now that we know it ’ s in his remit to determine that fact .
And if he does , the Ministerial Code unambiguously requires her to resign .
As we write this , we ’ re listening to Peter Murrell give evidence to the other inquiry , and what he ’ s just told it ( namely that the Salmond allegations were Scottish Government business , not SNP business ) unequivocally proves that she broke the Ministerial Code over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business on Scottish Government premises without any minutes or records being kept of it .
The First Minister can not , by any possible interpretation of the rules , remain in office once these two inquiries deliver their verdicts .
It ’ s time for her to step down and give the SNP a fighting chance to get a new leader in place for the 2021 election , before the damage becomes irreparable .

We’ve now filed a formal complaint with the Scottish Information Commissioner about this, because what we’d forgotten last week was that our original request was actually sent in September and it’s now been almost 60 working days with no sign of a proper response, not the 20 it’s supposed to take.
Because for some reason the Scottish Government REALLY doesn’t want you to know what the First Minister and Geoff Aberdein talked about in March 2018, and we think that you probably should.
We can’t say whether that was the same matter that Alex Cole-Hamilton was referring to in the Holyrood chamber last month when he said this:
But we can tell you that we sent this FOI request yesterday:
“To: ceu@gov.scot
Name: Stuart Campbell
Date: 7 December 2020
Response required by: 8 Jan 2021 Information requested: (1) Has the Committee [on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints] received a written submission from Mr Geoff Aberdein, former chief of staff to former First Minister Alex Salmond? (2) If so, on which date was the submission received? (3) Has the Committee accepted the submission? (4) If so, on what date will the submission be published on the Scottish Government website? (5) If not, for what reason/s has the submission not been accepted?”
And even though it’s taken 60 days to have our previous request acknowledged, we got an actual response to that one the same day.
It’s a fob-off saying “not our department, guv, ask THOSE guys over there”, but it nevertheless indicates that it isn’t simply a case of the coronavirus pandemic creating an unfortunate backlog that means requests take weeks to be looked at. This request was received, read, assessed and replied to within literally hours.
So there’s no possible excuse for the other one – which simply requests a clarification of two apparently contradictory statements issued by the Scottish Government, and should not be in any way difficult or complicated to provide a proper answer to – to have taken three months and counting.
But there’s good news, because we got another FOI reply today too.
So it’s now the offical position that the separate inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code DOES encompass not only whether she attempted to interfere in the inquiry, but also whether she lied to the Scottish Parliament about her knowledge of it (which we know, officially and on the record, that she did).
It is, to put it generously, now EXTREMELY difficult to see how James Hamilton can come to any conclusion other than that the First Minister lied to Parliament, now that we know it’s in his remit to determine that fact. And if he does, the Ministerial Code unambiguously requires her to resign.
As we write this, we’re listening to Peter Murrell give evidence to the other inquiry, and what he’s just told it (namely that the Salmond allegations were Scottish Government business, not SNP business) unequivocally proves that she broke the Ministerial Code over that too, by conducting Scottish Government business on Scottish Government premises without any minutes or records being kept of it.
(Murrell, extraordinarily, told the committee that the first he knew of any of it was when it appeared in the media in August 2018.)
The First Minister cannot, by any possible interpretation of the rules, remain in office once these two inquiries deliver their verdicts. It’s time for her to step down and give the SNP a fighting chance to get a new leader in place for the 2021 election, before the damage becomes irreparable.


Mobilising the payroll

For anyone hoping for an outbreak of sanity and decency , this is a bad sign .
Rape Crisis Scotland , who are almost entirely dependent on the Scottish Government for funding , have chosen this evening to wade into the debate over the wording of a new law which is intended to lessen the trauma of people ( nearly all women ) who ’ ve been raped .
We can only speculate as to whether they were pressured to do so , but the intervention seems likely only to pour petrol on the fire .
We completely agree with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organisation ’ s chief executive Sandy Brindley – the “ gender row ” should not be allowed to get in the way of the wholly laudable aims of the new law .
The best way to do that is for the Scottish Government to do what its own committee recommended it do , and replace the word “ gender ” with the word “ sex ” .
So we ’ re not sure why Brindley is picking a fight over it .
If there ’ s one thing the transgender cult and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree on – and there probably only is one – it ’ s that the words “ gender ” and “ sex ” DON ’ T mean the same thing , so that penultimate sentence is a dangerous nonsense .
But of course , if Brindley ’ s point WAS true , then there ’ d be even less reason to object to the change being made .
Why complain about swapping out one “ interchangeable ” word for the other ?
The entire point of interchangeable things is that they can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it and kill the whole row stone dead instantly ?
The above rather puts us in mind of Peter Murrell ’ s comments this morning that he isn ’ t currently a user of WhatsApp .
But once again – if there are no transwoman examiners in Scotland then there ’ s nothing to be lost by changing the wording .
Nobody will have their feelings hurt , and victims will be reassured that on a horrific day in their life that ’ ll hopefully never come , they won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bloke in a skirt wanting to poke around their privates .
The fact that Brindley has surfaced with this entirely pointless article two days before the vote is a worrying indicator that the Scottish Government is planning to stick to its guns and oppose Johann Lamont ’ s amendment , against the recommendation of its own committee , for no discernible reason other than sheer pig-headed cussedness .

For anyone hoping for an outbreak of sanity and decency, this is a bad sign.
Rape Crisis Scotland, who are almost entirely dependent on the Scottish Government for funding, have chosen this evening to wade into the debate over the wording of a new law which is intended to lessen the trauma of people (nearly all women) who’ve been raped. We can only speculate as to whether they were pressured to do so, but the intervention seems likely only to pour petrol on the fire.
We completely agree with the Scotsman’s tweet attributed to the organisation’s chief executive Sandy Brindley – the “gender row” should not be allowed to get in the way of the wholly laudable aims of the new law. The best way to do that is for the Scottish Government to do what its own committee recommended it do, and replace the word “gender” with the word “sex”.
So we’re not sure why Brindley is picking a fight over it.
If there’s one thing the transgender cult and the “gender critical” lobby absolutely agree on – and there probably only is one – it’s that the words “gender” and “sex” DON’T mean the same thing, so that penultimate sentence is a dangerous nonsense.
(“Gender” is in fact a word with no actual meaning in law at all. Only sex is recorded in any official identity documents, and if you ask 1000 transactivists to define “gender” you’ll get 2000 different answers and 950 death threats with the picture below in them.)
But of course, if Brindley’s point WAS true, then there’d be even less reason to object to the change being made. Why complain about swapping out one “interchangeable” word for the other? The entire point of interchangeable things is that they can be safely interchanged, so why not just do it and kill the whole row stone dead instantly?
The above rather puts us in mind of Peter Murrell’s comments this morning that he isn’t currently a user of WhatsApp. But once again – if there are no transwoman examiners in Scotland then there’s nothing to be lost by changing the wording. Nobody will have their feelings hurt, and victims will be reassured that on a horrific day in their life that’ll hopefully never come, they won’t ever risk also being unexpectedly faced with a bloke in a skirt wanting to poke around their privates.
The fact that Brindley has surfaced with this entirely pointless article two days before the vote is a worrying indicator that the Scottish Government is planning to stick to its guns and oppose Johann Lamont’s amendment, against the recommendation of its own committee, for no discernible reason other than sheer pig-headed cussedness.
(With the honourable exception of Kenny Gibson, who we understand has said he’ll vote for the amendment, readers contacting their SNP MSPs all appear to have received automated “Your email is important to us” replies or no replies at all.)
Scotland’s rape victims deserve better.


The Obsessives

This site and other gender-critical voices are regularly accused of being “ obsessed ” with trans issues , even though the subject has been mentioned in fewer than 0.7 % of Wings posts .
But this week the SNP ’ s transgender faction – when it hasn ’ t been STILL raging about its battering in the NEC elections – has been swamping social media with organised complaints about a tiny prospective legislative change that they themselves insist doesn ’ t actually matter at all .
But wait a minute – that ’ s not true , is it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scottish Government was very clear that sex and gender were different things and shouldn ’ t be conflated .
This position was backed by the self-described “ Scottish Women ’ s Sector ” , a grouping of all the supposed women ’ s organisations funded by the Scottish Government and who tend to support it on all transgender issues .
The grouping issued a collective response to the gender-reform consultation in 2018 , which specifically mentioned their discomfort with “ sex ” and “ gender ” being used interchangeably .
But such is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ rights ” of trans people that they can not bear to allow a single thing to pass that might conceivably upset them , so that position has just flipped overnight and now the two words DO mean the same thing .
We can ’ t tell you , readers , how fervently we wish that so much of the current SNP ’ s behaviour didn ’ t keep reminding us of passages from “ 1984 ” .
“ On the sixth day of Hate Week , after the processions , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the banners , the posters , the films , the waxworks , the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets , the tramp of marching feet , the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks , the roar of massed planes , the booming of guns – after six days of this , when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war criminals who were to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proceedings , they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces – at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia .
Oceania was at war with Eastasia .
Eurasia was an ally .
There was , of course , no admission that any change had taken place .
Merely it became known , with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once , that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy .
Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was night , and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit .
The square was packed with several thousand people , including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies .
On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party , a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled , was haranguing the crowd .
A little Rumpelstiltskin figure , contorted with hatred , he gripped the neck of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , enormous at the end of a bony arm , clawed the air menacingly above his head .
His voice , made metallic by the amplifiers , boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities , massacres , deportations , lootings , rapings , torture of prisoners , bombing of civilians , lying propaganda , unjust aggressions , broken treaties .
It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened .
At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats .
The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren .
The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker ’ s hand .
He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech .
Nothing altered in his voice or manner , or in the content of what he was saying , but suddenly the names were different .
Without words said , a wave of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was at war with Eastasia !
The next moment there was a tremendous commotion .
The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong !
Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them .
It was sabotage !
The agents of Goldstein had been at work !
There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls , banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot .
The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes it was all over .
The orator , still gripping the neck of the microphone , his shoulders hunched forward , his free hand clawing at the air , had gone straight on with his speech .
One minute more , and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd .
The Hate continued exactly as before , except that the target had been changed .
The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but without even breaking the syntax.
” But hey , we suppose at least that means it might change back tomorrow .

This site and other gender-critical voices are regularly accused of being “obsessed” with trans issues, even though the subject has been mentioned in fewer than 0.7% of Wings posts. But this week the SNP’s transgender faction – when it hasn’t been STILL raging about its battering in the NEC elections – has been swamping social media with organised complaints about a tiny prospective legislative change that they themselves insist doesn’t actually matter at all.
But wait a minute – that’s not true, is it?
Because barely a year ago, the Scottish Government was being very clear that sex and gender were different things and shouldn’t be conflated.
This position was backed by the self-described “Scottish Women’s Sector”, a grouping of all the supposed women’s organisations funded by the Scottish Government and who tend to support it on all transgender issues. The grouping issued a collective response to the gender-reform consultation in 2018, which specifically mentioned their discomfort with “sex” and “gender” being used interchangeably.
But such is the cult’s complete obsession with the “rights” of trans people that they cannot bear to allow a single thing to pass that might conceivably upset them, so that position has just flipped overnight and now the two words DO mean the same thing.
(Yet despite that we apparently still can’t switch one for the other in the legislation, and instead they have to kick up a massive fuss about it and call everyone who wants the change bigots and transphobes guilty of foul thoughtcrimes.)
We can’t tell you, readers, how fervently we wish that so much of the current SNP’s behaviour didn’t keep reminding us of passages from “1984”.
“On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns – after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces – at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally. There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed. The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.”
But hey, we suppose at least that means it might change back tomorrow.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-09--Gun fired, smoke everywhere

Gun fired, smoke everywhere

The Scottish Parliament website has just published a letter from Peter Murrell following his appearance at the Salmond inquiry yesterday .
The media is focusing on Murrell ’ s continued evasion of the question of his WhatsApp usage ( Murrell bizarrely states he has several messaging apps installed on his phone but uses none of them ) , but there ’ s a much more interesting revelation in the second of the letter ’ s two sections .
This is a direct , unambiguous and categorical statement from the First Minister that the investigation into the false allegations against Salmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely nothing to do with the SNP .
Her failure to record the use of her private office at the Scottish Parliament to discuss the issue on 29 March 2018 ( despite repeated denials that such a thing happened at all ) , and to take minutes of that discussion and of subsequent meetings at her home to consider the issue , and her numerous statements that the matter was private party business ( now revealed by Murrell to be false ) are all therefore indisputably breaches of the Ministerial Code .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , interestingly , by an SNP member that despite Murrell ’ s statement that the above email was sent to “ all members of the Scottish National Party ” on 27 August 2018 , no such email was in fact received by them on that date .
They did get a DIFFERENT email , with the same title , three days earlier , which also made it plain that the investigation was being conducted under the auspices and procedures of the Scottish Government , not the SNP .
We attach that email below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Nicola Sturgeon in a tweet on 26 August 2018 which contains some of the same text as that quoted by Murrell .
If any SNP members can verify that they received the 27 August 2018 email described in Murrell ’ s letter and can forward it to us , please drop us a line . ]

The Scottish Parliament website has just published a letter from Peter Murrell following his appearance at the Salmond inquiry yesterday.
The media is focusing on Murrell’s continued evasion of the question of his WhatsApp usage (Murrell bizarrely states he has several messaging apps installed on his phone but uses none of them), but there’s a much more interesting revelation in the second of the letter’s two sections.
This is a direct, unambiguous and categorical statement from the First Minister that the investigation into the false allegations against Salmond was a Scottish Government matter that was absolutely nothing to do with the SNP.
Her failure to record the use of her private office at the Scottish Parliament to discuss the issue on 29 March 2018 (despite repeated denials that such a thing happened at all), and to take minutes of that discussion and of subsequent meetings at her home to consider the issue, and her numerous statements that the matter was private party business (now revealed by Murrell to be false) are all therefore indisputably breaches of the Ministerial Code.
The net draws ever tighter.
.
[EDIT 3.43pm: We’re informed, interestingly, by an SNP member that despite Murrell’s statement that the above email was sent to “all members of the Scottish National Party” on 27 August 2018, no such email was in fact received by them on that date.
They did get a DIFFERENT email, with the same title, three days earlier, which also made it plain that the investigation was being conducted under the auspices and procedures of the Scottish Government, not the SNP. We attach that email below.
There was also a statement released by Nicola Sturgeon in a tweet on 26 August 2018 which contains some of the same text as that quoted by Murrell.
If any SNP members can verify that they received the 27 August 2018 email described in Murrell’s letter and can forward it to us, please drop us a line.]


Two women

We ’ ve had plenty to say already this week about the amendment that will be debated at Holyrood this afternoon .
So instead we ’ re going to present you today with the case for each side , as made by two Scottish women on Twitter in the last few hours , and let you decide for yourselves whose argument is the more compelling .
First up , in favour of the amendment , is Scotsman writer Gina Davidson .
And now the case against the amendment , from SNP councillor Mhairi Hunter : Nobody is claiming this amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inadequate number of female examiners .
But as Davidson explains , because sex is a protected characteristic in law and gender isn ’ t , it would provide a real and practical mechanism to help drive an increase , AND it would serve to reassure frightened victims who are trying to decide whether to go for the examination or not that their request for a female examiner would not be misinterpreted to include men .
That second part – avoiding victims being discouraged from seeking the examination at all – seems like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
But worryingly , Cllr Hunter appears to be a flat-out reality denialist .
Because we KNOW , for an ABSOLUTE AND UNCONTESTED FACT , that what she says there is a lie .
Right this minute there ’ s a man in charge of a rape crisis centre in Scotland , who has ready and unrestricted regular access to rape survivors , because he concealed his sex to get the position – the precise thing Hunter says can ’ t happen , even though she ’ s entirely aware of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he just stood for election in her own party a month ago .
Indeed , she admires his “ courage ” .
So choose who to believe and who to trust , readers .
Decide for yourselves whether the change proposed by Johann Lamont is “ meaningless ” .
And then make your judgement about how your MSPs vote on it this afternoon and their motivations for doing so .
We know what we think .

We’ve had plenty to say already this week about the amendment that will be debated at Holyrood this afternoon. So instead we’re going to present you today with the case for each side, as made by two Scottish women on Twitter in the last few hours, and let you decide for yourselves whose argument is the more compelling.
First up, in favour of the amendment, is Scotsman writer Gina Davidson.
And now the case against the amendment, from SNP councillor Mhairi Hunter:
Nobody is claiming this amendment will instantly solve the problem of an inadequate number of female examiners. But as Davidson explains, because sex is a protected characteristic in law and gender isn’t, it would provide a real and practical mechanism to help drive an increase, AND it would serve to reassure frightened victims who are trying to decide whether to go for the examination or not that their request for a female examiner would not be misinterpreted to include men.
(At which point, if they raised an objection they’d have legitimate reason to fear being prosecuted for a hate crime.)
That second part – avoiding victims being discouraged from seeking the examination at all – seems like a good enough reason on its own to us. But worryingly, Cllr Hunter appears to be a flat-out reality denialist.
Because we KNOW, for an ABSOLUTE AND UNCONTESTED FACT, that what she says there is a lie. Right this minute there’s a man in charge of a rape crisis centre in Scotland, who has ready and unrestricted regular access to rape survivors, because he concealed his sex to get the position – the precise thing Hunter says can’t happen, even though she’s entirely aware of the man in question’s existence because he just stood for election in her own party a month ago.
Indeed, she admires his “courage”.
(This picture is Wadhwa’s self-image of “kindness”, btw.)
So choose who to believe and who to trust, readers. Decide for yourselves whether the change proposed by Johann Lamont is “meaningless”. And then make your judgement about how your MSPs vote on it this afternoon and their motivations for doing so.
We know what we think.


Scotland’s Disgraces

The list below is a much , much shorter one than we were expecting to run .
In the end , just nine MSPs voted today against Johann Lamont ’ s amendment on forensic medical examinations , with one abstention .
The amendment passed by a margin of 104 votes after SNP MSPs voted in favour , with only the Greens and Lib Dems opposed .
Every last one of them is a disgusting coward who doesn ’ t care about the feelings of rape victims and we ’ re ashamed to share a nationality with them .
We note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ male , and that the list includes all ( excepting Alison Johnstone , currently absent from Parliament recovering from an operation ) of the Scottish Greens , the party which has – by choice – the lowest proportion of women in the Parliament .
The Lib Dems , of course , are second lowest , in every sense .
Lamont made two extremely powerful speeches with the only contribution directly opposing the amendment coming from Andy Wightman for the Greens , who bizarrely appeared to hold rape victims responsible for the behaviour of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a brief interjection to say the Lib Dems were opposed but without making an actual argument , and Labour ’ s Monica Lennon made an appallingly misjudged speech in which she attempted to completely undermine the amendment by saying that transwomen with a GRC were in fact “ of the female sex ” and should as such be allowed to conduct the intimate examinations of rape victims even after the change of wording from “ gender ” to “ sex ” .
Every pic above is a link to the Member ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on which they exhort you to email them .
We encourage all their constituents to take them up on the invitation and let them know how you feel .

The list below is a much, much shorter one than we were expecting to run. In the end, just nine MSPs voted today against Johann Lamont’s amendment on forensic medical examinations, with one abstention. The amendment passed by a margin of 104 votes after SNP MSPs voted in favour, with only the Greens and Lib Dems opposed.
Every last one of them is a disgusting coward who doesn’t care about the feelings of rape victims and we’re ashamed to share a nationality with them.
We note in passing that all but one are male, and that the list includes all (excepting Alison Johnstone, currently absent from Parliament recovering from an operation) of the Scottish Greens, the party which has – by choice – the lowest proportion of women in the Parliament. The Lib Dems, of course, are second lowest, in every sense.
Lamont made two extremely powerful speeches with the only contribution directly opposing the amendment coming from Andy Wightman for the Greens, who bizarrely appeared to hold rape victims responsible for the behaviour of some people on Twitter.
Alex Cole-Hamilton made a brief interjection to say the Lib Dems were opposed but without making an actual argument, and Labour’s Monica Lennon made an appallingly misjudged speech in which she attempted to completely undermine the amendment by saying that transwomen with a GRC were in fact “of the female sex” and should as such be allowed to conduct the intimate examinations of rape victims even after the change of wording from “gender” to “sex”.
Every pic above is a link to the Member’s page on the Scottish Parliament website, on which they exhort you to email them. We encourage all their constituents to take them up on the invitation and let them know how you feel.


The empty omelette

For much of last year , this site advocated a rational but unpopular position – namely that the SNP , which at the time held the balance of power in the UK parliament – should offer to support Theresa May ’ s soft-Brexit deal in exchange for the transfer of powers to hold a second independence referendum .
The logic was clear – nothing was ever going to stop Brexit , but passing May ’ s deal would save the UK from the catastrophe of a no-deal .
Everyone would win – England and Wales would get what they voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special terms that kept it in the EU in all but name , and Scotland would get the chance to stay in the EU as an independent nation .
“ But no !
” , everyone screamed at us .
“ We can ’ t possibly do any sort of deal with the Tories or we ’ d be electorally crucified and lose the referendum , you idiots !
” Of course , now it doesn ’ t actually matter what the SNP vote for .
Instead of offering the Tories a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome for every part of the UK , secured an indyref and kept May ’ s government a weak minority one with only a couple more years to run , the SNP urged a general election which gave Boris Johnson a comfortable majority until 2025 and ensured that he can pass , or block , any Brexit deal he chooses .
Sturgeon ’ s party are now in a lose-lose situation .
If they vote against any last-minute deal that might arise , they ’ ll be de facto voting for no deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on the grounds that it ’ ll be the lesser of two evils , they ’ ll be doing the thing we were told was political suicide .
And whichever way they vote won ’ t make any difference anyway , making them look feeble , powerless and irrelevant at Westminster ( entirely accurately ) .
And more to the point , of course , we won ’ t have a referendum .
There was no guarantee that May would have accepted such an offer in 2019 .
And it would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing her majority in 2017 she ’ d undergone two years of desperate torture and it was within the SNP ’ s power to take a brave , principled and totally defensible position that was in the interests of everyone in the UK and challenge the Tories to refuse it .
Instead they bottled it out of fear of bad headlines ( as if they don ’ t get bad headlines every day ) , and history has played out with the tragic inevitability that all sane people knew it would the minute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his election .
Because of that cowardice , Scotland now faces the worst of all possible worlds – out of the EU , with no deal , no referendum , and a Tory government with a big majority that ’ s clearly intent on ripping the heart out of devolution .
We did warn you , folks .
Over and over again .
Maybe one day people will listen to us .

For much of last year, this site advocated a rational but unpopular position – namely that the SNP, which at the time held the balance of power in the UK parliament, should offer to support Theresa May’s soft-Brexit deal in exchange for the transfer of powers to hold a second independence referendum.
The logic was clear – nothing was ever going to stop Brexit from happening, but passing May’s deal would save the UK from the catastrophe of a no-deal. Everyone would be a winner – England and Wales would get what they voted for, Remain-voting Northern Ireland would get special terms that kept it in the EU in all but name, and Scotland would get the chance to stay in the EU as an independent nation.
“But no!”, everyone screamed at us. “We can’t possibly do any sort of deal with the Tories or we’d be electorally crucified and lose the referendum, you idiots!”
Record scratch, jump-cut to the present day.
[Pause for long, weary sigh.]
Of course, now it doesn’t actually matter what the SNP vote for. Instead of offering the Tories a deal which would have been the best deliverable outcome for every part of the UK, secured an indyref and kept May’s government a weak minority one with only a couple more years to run, the SNP urged a general election which gave Boris Johnson a comfortable majority until 2025 and ensured that he can pass, or block, any Brexit deal he chooses.
Sturgeon’s party are now in a lose-lose situation. If they vote against any last-minute deal that might arise, they’ll be de facto voting for no deal. If they vote for a deal, on the grounds that it’ll be the lesser of two evils, they’ll be doing the thing we were told was political suicide. And whichever way they vote won’t make any difference anyway, making them look feeble, powerless and irrelevant at Westminster (entirely accurately).
And more to the point, of course, we won’t have a referendum.
There was no guarantee that May would have accepted such an offer in 2019. And it would have been a political risk. But after losing her majority in 2017 she’d undergone two years of desperate torture and it was within the SNP’s power to adopt a brave, principled and totally defensible position that was in the interests of everyone in the UK and challenge the Tories to refuse it.
(We simply don’t believe independence supporters would have changed their minds in fury and voted No because they’d, er, been given a referendum.)
Instead they bottled it out of fear of bad headlines (as if they don’t get bad headlines every day), and history has played out with the tragic inevitability that all sane people knew it would the minute Boris Johnson ousted May and was gifted his election.
Because of that cowardice, Scotland now faces the worst of all possible worlds – out of the EU, with no deal, no referendum, and a Tory government with a big majority that’s clearly intent on ripping the heart out of devolution and has four years to do it in.
We did warn you, folks. Over and over again. Maybe one day people will listen to us.


Non-trivial pursuits

It ’ s weird .
Less than 24 hours ago , we were being firmly told that a vote in the Scottish Parliament was an insignificant , indeed “ meaningless ” , choice between two words that meant exactly the same thing and were “ interchangeable ” .
So when the Parliament decided last night , by an overwhelming 113-9 margin , which of the two words it wanted to use , you ’ d imagine that that ’ d be no big deal and everyone would shrug it off in a casual , indifferent sort of way , right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You heard it here first , readers – letting women who ’ ve just been raped ask to have a female medical examiner is a step taken “ purely to terrorise trans people ” .
No other reason .
Purely that .
The only reason a rape victim might want to be examined by a woman is to “ terrorise ” trans people .
Everything anyone anywhere ever does , for any reason , in any field , must always be about trans people .
An SNP MP , meanwhile , called a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her own party opposed a “ debacle ” .
And suggested that a near-unanimous choice of the Parliament for one word over another word meant the SNP had lost its way and needed to get “ back on course ” .
Grown adult men claimed that Parliament choosing one of two words with supposedly identical meanings rather than the other one made them feel “ unsafe ” to the point that they might have to flee the country .
While another lunatic demanded to be killed because rape victims might get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But this effort from a Scotsman columnist was a leap of truly Olympic proportions .
Try as we might , we can not see the tiniest logical connection between “ rape victims should be able to request a female medical examiner ” and a restriction of abortion rights .
( If anything the opposite is true – even countries where abortion is illegal nearly all make an exception if a woman has been impregnated by rape . )
It ’ s a completely deranged , irrational thing to say .
The only possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two things is this : Events of the last couple of weeks have shown that there might just be some small measure of sanity and proportion creeping back into Scottish politics .
We can only hope it continues .
But there ’ s no room for complacency – the SNP only whipped its MSPs to support last night ’ s amendment when it became clear that enough of them were going to rebel to inflict an embarrassing defeat .
There was no sudden dawning of enlightenment , just an attempt to avoid a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers : we will remain alert .

It’s weird. Less than 24 hours ago, we were being firmly told that a vote in the Scottish Parliament was an insignificant, indeed “meaningless”, choice between two words that meant exactly the same thing and were “interchangeable”.
So when the Parliament decided last night, by an overwhelming 113-9 margin, which of the two words it wanted to use, you’d imagine that that’d be no big deal and everyone would shrug it off in a casual, indifferent sort of way, right?
Yeah, not so much.
You heard it here first, readers – letting women who’ve just been raped ask to have a female medical examiner is a step taken “purely to terrorise trans people”.
No other reason. Purely that. The only reason a rape victim might want to be examined by a woman is to “terrorise” trans people. Everything anyone anywhere ever does, for any reason, in any field, must always be about trans people.
An SNP MP, meanwhile, called a democratic vote which not a single member of her own party opposed a “debacle”.
And suggested that a near-unanimous choice of the Parliament for one word over another word meant the SNP had lost its way and needed to get “back on course”.
Grown adult men claimed that Parliament choosing one of two words with supposedly identical meanings rather than the other one made them feel “unsafe” to the point that they might have to flee the country.
While another lunatic demanded to be killed because rape victims might get to ask for a female medical examiner.
But this effort from a Scotsman columnist was a leap of truly Olympic proportions.
Try as we might, we cannot see the tiniest logical connection between “rape victims should be able to request a female medical examiner” and a restriction of abortion rights. (If anything the opposite is true – even countries where abortion is illegal nearly all make an exception if a woman has been impregnated by rape.)
It’s a completely deranged, irrational thing to say. The only possible basis for drawing a parallel between the two things is this:
Events of the last couple of weeks have shown that there might just be some small measure of sanity and proportion creeping back into Scottish politics. We can only hope it continues. But there’s no room for complacency – the SNP only whipped its MSPs to support last night’s amendment when it became clear that enough of them were going to rebel to inflict an embarrassing defeat. There was no sudden dawning of enlightenment, just an attempt to avoid a political humiliation.
So rest assured, readers: we will remain alert.


An offer refused


The Glorious Failures

Twitter yesterday was full of SNP MPs crowing about having been elected exactly one year ago , something achieved on the back of a pledge to “ STOP BREXIT ” and put Scotland ’ s future in its own hands .
But curiously , none of the pics any of them posted with their tweets depicted the party ’ s main campaign slogan .
Because Brexit hasn ’ t been stopped , and Scotland ’ s future is still firmly in the hands of Boris Johnson , who seems hell-bent on making it one of a no-deal catastrophe .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are as responsible for that as anyone else .
Before last year ’ s election , the UK parliament had a clear majority of MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit .
They voted time and time again on a variety of plans that would have prevented it from happening .
But they did so in a manner so incompetent , so tribal and so brainless that they didn ’ t manage to actually get their ducks in a row and deploy that majority , leaving us where we are now .
The SNP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their power to ensure that the UK stayed in the Customs Union – a bad option but one which would at least have prevented the worst of the chaos that ’ s about to descend on the UK ’ s ports and economy .
But they chose not to , whipping their MPs to abstain instead .
Labour had it in their power to pass a Joanna Cherry amendment which would have ensured that in the event of no better deal being agreed , the UK parliament would have been obliged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to , whipping their MPs to abstain instead .
The three parties bickered and squabbled and postured their way out of agreeing on anything that would have either stopped or significantly softened Brexit , but they still had it in their power to prevent Boris Johnson getting his no-deal , because he had no majority and was basically cornered in a Parliament that wouldn ’ t do what he wanted and foiled his attempt to prorogate it out of the way .
So then they contrived to hand him his no-deal on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disastrous election which has left them all powerless to do anything against Johnson ’ s 80-seat majority and given him total control of the Commons for the next four years , rather than 18 months as a lame-duck PM whose worst plans could all be foiled .
The SNP , having loudly demanded the election for weeks on end , actually bottled out of voting for it in the end , feebly abstaining again over a manufactured grievance of three days ’ difference in the election date .
The only thing they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own continued employment on vast salaries and pension contributions for another half-decade while Scotland and the rest of the UK burn .
The events of the last few years have reinforced the view of many people that all politicians are basically a mafioso parasite class , existing only to suck personal benefit out of the country and impose their personal ideologies with no interest in how much harm they do to the populace .
We find that position one that ’ s increasingly hard to refute .
An SNP manifesto web page from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of priorities : Three of those four pledges have been categorically and indisputably failed .
Boris Johnson has not been locked out of No.10 ( quite the reverse ) , Brexit has not been escaped and Scotland ’ s future is no more in “ Scoland ’ s ” hands than it was before .
So perhaps the SNP ’ s seeming total obsession with transgender issues ( because it ’ s done nothing whatsoever for the L , G , B or I of “ LGBTI ” since 2016 ) is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something from the wreckage of their hollow promises .
But either way , if we were them we wouldn ’ t be going out of our way to remind people of what a complete waste of time their presence in the UK parliament has been for the last 12 months , and will be for the next 48 as well .
It ’ s time to get out of this mess before it ’ s too late , and if the current leadership doesn ’ t have a plan for that – which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgently need to get one that does .

Twitter yesterday was full of SNP MPs crowing about having been elected exactly one year ago, something achieved on the back of a pledge to “STOP BREXIT” and put Scotland’s future in its own hands. But curiously, none of the pics any of them posted with their tweets depicted the party’s main campaign slogan.
Which, y’know, is pretty understandable.
Because Brexit hasn’t been stopped, and Scotland’s future is still firmly in the hands of Boris Johnson, who seems hell-bent on making it one of a no-deal catastrophe. And the bitter truth is that the SNP are as responsible for that as anyone else.
Before last year’s election, the UK parliament had a clear majority of MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit. They voted time and time again on a variety of plans that would have prevented it from happening. But they did so in a manner so incompetent, so tribal and so brainless that they didn’t manage to actually get their ducks in a row and deploy that majority, leaving us where we are now.
(That place being very well explained by Fintan O’Toole here.)
The SNP and the Lib Dems both had it in their power to ensure that the UK stayed in the Customs Union – a bad option but one which would at least have prevented the worst of the chaos that’s about to descend on the UK’s ports and economy. But they chose not to, whipping their MPs to abstain instead.
Labour had it in their power to pass a Joanna Cherry amendment which would have ensured that in the event of no better deal being agreed, the UK parliament would have been obliged to revoke Article 50. But they chose not to, whipping their MPs to abstain instead.
The three parties bickered and squabbled and postured their way out of agreeing on anything that would have either stopped or significantly softened Brexit, but they still had it in their power to prevent Boris Johnson getting his no-deal, because he had no majority and was basically cornered in a Parliament that wouldn’t do what he wanted and foiled his attempt to prorogate it out of the way.
So then they contrived to hand him his no-deal on a plate, by pushing for a disastrous election which has left them all powerless to do anything against Johnson’s 80-seat majority and given him total control of the Commons for the next four years, rather than 18 months as a lame-duck PM whose worst plans could all be foiled.
The SNP, having loudly demanded the election for weeks on end, actually bottled out of voting for it in the end, feebly abstaining again over a manufactured grievance of three days’ difference in the election date. The only thing they have any right to be celebrating is their own continued employment on vast salaries and pension contributions for another half-decade while Scotland and the rest of the UK burn.
The events of the last few years have reinforced the view of many people that all politicians are basically a mafioso parasite class, existing only to suck personal benefit out of the country and impose their personal ideologies with no interest in how much harm they do to the populace.
(An opinion supported by the fact that even EU countries have managed to survive for literally years without a government, without falling into anarchy.)
We find that position one that’s increasingly hard to refute.
An SNP manifesto web page from a year ago had an odd list of priorities:
Three of those four pledges have been categorically and indisputably failed. Boris Johnson has not been locked out of No.10 (quite the reverse), Brexit has not been escaped and Scotland’s future is no more in “Scoland’s” hands than it was before.
So perhaps the SNP’s seeming total obsession with transgender issues (because it’s done nothing whatsoever for the L, G, B or I of “LGBTI” since 2016) is just a sign of them trying to rescue something from the wreckage of their hollow promises.
But either way, if we were them we wouldn’t be going out of our way to remind people of what a complete waste of time their presence in the UK parliament has been for the last 12 months, and will be for the next 48 as well.
It’s time to get out of this mess before it’s too late, and if the current leadership doesn’t have a plan for that – which it plainly doesn’t – we urgently need to get one that does.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-14--Mr Peter Murrell: a correction

Mr Peter Murrell: a correction

On 8 December this site ran an article about the Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish National Party , Peter Murrell .
It has recently been drawn to our attention that the piece contained a serious inaccuracy , which we would like to remedy .
Because as it turns out , Peter Murrell IS a liar .
This is a passage from his evidence to the inquiry committee last week : What Murrell is saying there is that if someone had a harassment complaint about an SNP MSP , there are no circumstances in which that complaint would be directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless it was a police matter ) .
But we know that isn ’ t true , because we know it isn ’ t what happened in the case that was used as the trigger for the policy under which Alex Salmond was investigated – that of Mark McDonald .
When a complaint was made in 2017 about Mark McDonald it was first dealt with by the First Minister ’ s chief of staff Liz Lloyd – a Scottish Government employee who holds no office in the SNP .
( We have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the party . )
Murrell also told Jackie Baillie , in reference to a letter sent out by the SNP informing members of how to raise any historical complaints : But “ Scottish Government special advisers or civil servants ” is precisely the category of person that Liz Lloyd belongs in , being both of those things .
Murrell also told the committee this : But that isn ’ t true either , because Mark McDonald was never referred to the SNP ’ s Member Conduct Committee ( or as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Disciplinary Committee ) over harassment issues .
After he resigned as a minister in early November 2017 over a text message he ’ d sent an SNP staffer , the First Minister herself had suggested that his conduct hadn ’ t actually merited such a drastic step .
McDonald wasn ’ t suspended by the party until nine days later , when it received “ new information ” that led to the uncovering of a minor financial irregularity when a different staff member ( “ Witness B ” ) had paid a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him , and been paid back three weeks later .
But that fact had NOT been uncovered by the SNP ’ s disciplinary committee , because the SNP ’ s disciplinary committee were never involved in the process .
In fact the inquiry had been conducted for the party by a private investigation company – none of the complaints ever went near the proper SNP channels suggested by Murrell .
It remains the case that the only sort of “ harassment ” Mark McDonald has been found guilty of was the sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a joke about his iPhone ’ s autocorrect , to which Witness A had the most extraordinary and absurd overreaction , alleging that it contributed towards her being hospitalised .
All the other claims made by her – and by James Dornan MSP , who actually made the complaint on her behalf – were investigated in 2018 by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland , and found to be false .
Indeed , some were found to have been physically impossible , suggesting – in the delicate language employed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and James Dornan were simply flat-out lying .
But it ’ s abundantly clear that both the investigation against McDonald and the media smear campaign were just dry runs for the real target .
Without the trumped-up finding of harassment against Mark McDonald there would have been no figleaf to justify the creation of the rules which were used to unlawfully attack Alex Salmond ( and have still never been used against anyone else before or since , despite a supposed epidemic of sexual harassment at the Parliament ) .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s evidence to the Holyrood inquiry should properly be viewed .
Because in order to cover up the truth about the plot against Salmond , he also has to lie to cover up the events that ( quite deliberately ) led to it .
The inquiry wants to recall Murrell to question him again over the many inconsistencies in his evidence .
We do not as yet know if it will do so , but if it does we hope that some of these troubling issues can be cleared up .

On 8 December this site ran an article about the Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish National Party, Peter Murrell. It has recently been drawn to our attention that the piece contained a serious inaccuracy, which we would like to remedy.
Because as it turns out, Peter Murrell IS a liar.
This is a passage from his evidence to the inquiry committee last week:
What Murrell is saying there is that if someone had a harassment complaint about an SNP MSP, there are no circumstances in which that complaint would be directed to any organisation outside the SNP (unless it was a police matter).
But we know that isn’t true, because we know it isn’t what happened in the case that was used as the trigger for the policy under which Alex Salmond was investigated – that of Mark McDonald.
When a complaint was made in 2017 about Mark McDonald it was first dealt with by the First Minister’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd – a Scottish Government employee who holds no office in the SNP. (We have no idea if she’s even a member of the party.)
(We might note in passing Lloyd’s… interesting approach to conflict resolution: “I hear you might have done something bad but I’m not going to tell you what it is, so tell me some bad things you think you’ve done and I’ll let you know if it’s any of those.” A cynical person might suspect that she knew what she had was absurdly weak and was fishing for something better.)
Murrell also told Jackie Baillie, in reference to a letter sent out by the SNP informing members of how to raise any historical complaints:
But “Scottish Government special advisers or civil servants” is precisely the category of person that Liz Lloyd belongs in, being both of those things.
Murrell also told the committee this:
But that isn’t true either, because Mark McDonald was never referred to the SNP’s Member Conduct Committee (or as it was still known at the time, the Disciplinary Committee) over harassment issues. After he resigned as a minister in early November 2017 over a text message he’d sent an SNP staffer, the First Minister herself had suggested that his conduct hadn’t actually merited such a drastic step.
McDonald wasn’t suspended by the party until nine days later, when it received “new information” that led to the uncovering of a minor financial irregularity when a different staff member (“Witness B”) had paid a rental deposit of a few hundred pounds for him, and been paid back three weeks later.
But that fact had NOT been uncovered by the SNP’s disciplinary committee, because the SNP’s disciplinary committee were never involved in the process. In fact the inquiry had been conducted for the party by a private investigation company – none of the complaints ever went near the proper SNP channels suggested by Murrell.
(Witness B had not wished to participate in the investigation at all.)
It remains the case that the only sort of “harassment” Mark McDonald has been found guilty of was the sending of a single extremely innocuous text making a joke about his iPhone’s autocorrect, to which Witness A had the most extraordinary and absurd overreaction, alleging that it contributed towards her being hospitalised.
All the other claims made by her – and by James Dornan MSP, who actually made the complaint on her behalf – were investigated in 2018 by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, and found to be false. Indeed, some were found to have been physically impossible, suggesting – in the delicate language employed by such reports – that Witness A and James Dornan were simply flat-out lying.
One of the more bizarre aspects was that Witness A claimed to be so “agitated” by the sight of McDonald – despite it having been physically impossible for her to see him – that she couldn’t even face the apparently gruelling prospect of a two-minute taxi ride from Holyrood to Waverley station, and instead phoned up a friend and made him make a 45-minute drive from Motherwell to collect her.
(This was all BEFORE the allegedly harassing texts were sent later that evening. No actual evidence was presented to the committee in respect of why Witness A would feel “agitated” by the sight of McDonald before the receipt of the text messages, other than that they were sometimes in the Parliament restaurant or lobby at the same time and she found this in some way suspicious.)
Dornan couldn’t even get his story straight when recounting how the complaints had been brought to the SNP.
(The committee also expressed their severe displeasure at Dornan’s repeated leaking of information around the investigation, contributing to the enormous and sustained smear campaign against McDonald in the media.)
But it’s abundantly clear that both the investigation against McDonald and the media smear campaign were just dry runs for the real target. Without the trumped-up finding of harassment against Mark McDonald there would have been no figleaf to justify the creation of the rules which were used to unlawfully attack Alex Salmond (and have still never been used against anyone else before or since, despite a supposed epidemic of sexual harassment at the Parliament).
It’s in that frame that Peter Murrell’s evidence to the Holyrood inquiry should properly be viewed. Because in order to cover up the truth about the plot against Salmond, he also has to lie to cover up the events that (quite deliberately) led to it.
The inquiry wants to recall Murrell to question him again over the many inconsistencies in his evidence. We do not as yet know if it will do so, but if it does we hope that some of these troubling issues can be cleared up.


wingsoverscotland--2020-12-15--As they see it

As they see it

There ’ s been a very longstanding grumble from independence supporters about the way the BBC displays its weather map @ @ @ @ @ a bit of footage from the UK general election a year ago this week that @ @ @ @ @ view of the country more truthfully than ever before .
We thought we ’ d @ @ @ @ @ fun .
Screw your eyes up a bit and you can still just about see @ @ @ @

There’s been a very longstanding grumble from independence supporters about the way the BBC displays its weather map, but today we saw a bit of footage from the UK general election a year ago this week that depicts the Corporation’s view of the country more truthfully than ever before. We thought we’d share it with you for fun.
Screw your eyes up a bit and you can still just about see where you are.