No More Lies

We ’ ve just sent a Freedom Of Information request to the Scottish Government .
You can read it below .
As recently as the 3rd of August 2020 , the Scottish Government published an FOI response stating that : That quote can be found under “ Part ( c ) of your review request ” here .
However , an article published on the Sky News website six days earlier made the following statements : The article can be read here .
This would appear to suggest that the Scottish Government was flatly denying that the First Minister had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office at Holyrood on 29 March 2018 six days AFTER it had admitted to Sky News that she did .
A previous FOI response had detailed the First Minister ’ s diary for 29 March 2018 , which did not include any reference to a meeting with Mr Aberdein or any reference that could have been to such a meeting , even though the First Minister is required to record the details of any such meetings on Scottish Parliament premises .
While the response notes that some information has been excluded for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still be a requirement to record that a meeting had taken place , even if the identities of those present and the purpose of the meeting were withheld .
In addition to the First Minister and the “ senior government official ” said by Sky News to have been present , Mr Aberdein stated in the High Court during Mr Salmond ’ s trial that the 29 March 2018 meeting involved one of the women who made complaints of sexual abuse against Mr Salmond .
That report can be read here : Therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows : ( 1 ) In the light of the apparent admission to Sky News , does the Scottish Government wish to reconsider its reply of 3 August to the question of whether the First Minister met with Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018 ?
Did she in fact do so ?
( 2 ) If so , who else , if anyone , was present at this meeting ?
( 3 ) If not , is Sky News mistaken/lying that such an admission was made by a Scottish Government spokesman and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sky News ?
( 4 ) Given the quite remarkable implausibility of the idea that a meeting between the First Minister and Geoff Aberdein at that time could have NOT discussed the matter of the allegations against Mr Salmond – particularly given Mr Aberdein ’ s claim to the High Court that one of the complainers was present at the meeting – does the Scottish Government wish to reconsider its statement that the First Minister and Mr Aberdein did not discuss the allegations on that date ?
( 5 ) If not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or why they can not be disclosed .
We ’ ll let you know when we get a reply .
Incidentally , while putting the request together we discovered something interesting and not a little disturbing .
We ’ d been looking for another FOI response to reference , which we remembered reading because it had this line in it : It had leapt out at us at the time because nobody in the FOI request it was a reply to had actually mentioned Liz Lloyd , either by name or by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a point of bringing her up .
So we tried to find the document on the Scottish Government ’ s FOI page by searching for those words .
But weirdly , no search returned it .
Results are listed by date and even though it had been published on 19 June this year , the first result for the word “ clarity ” was from January 2019 .
The most recent result for “ chief of staff ” was from April 2019 : As was the most recent result for “ Liz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a much more specific phrase from the document – “ any departure from normal policy or procedure ” .
The only result was from two years ago : We remembered that the person who made the initial request had mentioned Geoff Aberdein , so we tried “ Aberdein ” in the search box and got an even bigger surprise : Yet we know for a fact that a minimum of two FOI documents on the site mention Geoff Aberdein ’ s name – the 19 June one and the one from 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a complaint about the unsatisfactory nature of the previous response ) .
So we then picked a random recent response – one about custodial sentences from last month – and searched for a random very specific phrase from it : “ Number of life sentences are available in Table 10d ” .
This time the site had no difficulties whatsoever , proving that it ’ s nothing to do with how recently a response might have been added : Only one possible conclusion can be drawn from all of this : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom Of Information pages to try to hide certain documents relating to the Salmond inquiry from view while still being able to say that they ’ ve been “ published ” .
That ’ s a very curious interpretation of “ freedom of information ” .
And it ’ s not that some odd formatting quirk or suchlike is making those documents or their text “ invisible ” either .
Because if you search for bits of the text on Google , rather than on the Scottish Government website , they pop straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter is that the Scottish Government website is actively concealing them .
We shall of course be seeking an explanation of this too , and will keep you updated .
Always tell the truth , readers .
It ’ s a lot easier to remember .

We’ve just sent a Freedom Of Information request to the Scottish Government.
You can read it below.
REQUESTED BY: Stuart Campbell
DATE: 19 September 2020 As recently as the 3rd of August 2020, the Scottish Government published an FOI response stating that: That quote can be found under “Part (c) of your review request” here. However, an article published on the Sky News website six days earlier made the following statements: This would appear to suggest that the Scottish Government was flatly denying that the First Minister had met with Geoff Aberdein in her official office at Holyrood on 29 March 2018 six days AFTER it had admitted to Sky News that she did. A previous FOI response had detailed the First Minister’s diary for 29 March 2018, which did not include any reference to a meeting with Mr Aberdein or any reference that could have been to such a meeting, even though the First Minister is required to record the details of any such meetings on Scottish Parliament premises. While the response notes that some information has been excluded for a variety of reasons, it would presumably still be a requirement to record that a meeting had taken place, even if the identities of those present and the purpose of the meeting were withheld. In addition to the First Minister and the “senior government official” said by Sky News to have been present, Mr Aberdein stated in the High Court during Mr Salmond’s trial that the 29 March 2018 meeting involved one of the women who made complaints of sexual abuse against Mr Salmond. Therefore, the information I request is as follows: (1) In the light of the apparent admission to Sky News, does the Scottish Government wish to reconsider its reply of 3 August to the question of whether the First Minister met with Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018? Did she in fact do so? (2) If so, who else, if anyone, was present at this meeting? (3) If not, is Sky News mistaken/lying that such an admission was made by a Scottish Government spokesman and what steps have been taken over this misrepresentation by Sky News? (4) Given the quite remarkable implausibility of the idea that a meeting between the First Minister and Geoff Aberdein at that time could have NOT discussed the matter of the allegations against Mr Salmond – particularly given Mr Aberdein’s claim to the High Court that one of the complainers was present at the meeting – does the Scottish Government wish to reconsider its statement that the First Minister and Mr Aberdein did not discuss the allegations on that date? (5) If not, please disclose what matters were discussed, or why they cannot be disclosed.
We’ll let you know when we get a reply.
.
Incidentally, while putting the request together we discovered something interesting and not a little disturbing. We’d been looking for another FOI response to reference, which we remembered reading because it had this line in it:
It had leapt out at us at the time because nobody in the FOI request it was a reply to had actually mentioned Liz Lloyd, either by name or by her job title, yet the response made a point of bringing her up. So we tried to find the document on the Scottish Government’s FOI page by searching for those words.
But weirdly, no search returned it. Results are listed by date and even though it had been published on 19 June this year, the most recent result for the word “clarity” was from January 2019.
The most recent result for “chief of staff” was from April 2019:
As was the most recent result for “Liz Lloyd”:
So we tried it with a much more specific phrase from the document – “any departure from normal policy or procedure”. The only result was from two years ago:
We remembered that the person who made the initial request had mentioned Geoff Aberdein, so we tried “Aberdein” in the search box and got an even bigger surprise:
Yet we know for a fact that a minimum of two FOI documents on the site mention Geoff Aberdein’s name – the 19 June one and the one from 3 August (which is actually in response to a complaint about the unsatisfactory nature of the previous response).
So we then picked a random recent response – one about custodial sentences from last month – and searched for a random very specific phrase from it: “Number of life sentences are available in Table 10d”. This time the site had no difficulties whatsoever, proving that it’s nothing to do with how recently a response might have been added:
Only one possible conclusion can be drawn from all of this: the Scottish Government is deliberately censoring its own Freedom Of Information pages to try to hide certain documents relating to the Salmond inquiry from view while still being able to say that they’ve been “published”.
(The one about the First Minister’s diary on 29 March 2018, for example, also seems to be impossible to find from any search terms.)
That’s a very curious interpretation of “freedom of information”.
And it’s not that some odd formatting quirk or suchlike is making those documents or their text “invisible” either. Because if you search for bits of the text on Google, rather than on the Scottish Government website, they pop straight up:
The inescapable fact of the matter is that the Scottish Government website is actively concealing them. We shall of course be seeking an explanation of this too, and will keep you updated.
Always tell the truth, readers. It’s a lot easier to remember.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-20--Fair’s Fair: the Brexit case for indyref 2

As a right-of-centre English conservative , there are Scottish National Party concepts I haven ’ t so far been able to comprehend .
Perhaps it ’ s because I don ’ t follow Nicola Sturgeon and Ian Blackford .
Should I keep an eye on what The Scotsman is saying ?
SNP leaders talk in the same sentence of a “ free ” and “ independent ” Scotland having a future as a member of the EU .
My grasp of those words is not theirs .
Distinguished lawyers – be they Remainers , Leavers or Don ’ t-Care-Just-Pay-My-Billsers – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court of Justice decisions have established the unqualified supremacy of European Union laws – disguised as “ Regulations and Directives ” – over the national laws of EU states .
By 1970 , the court ruled that Community law must take precedence even over the constitutional laws of member states — including basic laws guaranteeing fundamental rights , such as in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel .
I see this as vassalage , not independence .
I can ’ t understand why the SNP hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Central Bank – deals with small countries it thinks have not grasped the programme .
Perhaps they didn ’ t hear Greece ’ s former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis talking about his country ’ s euro crisis : Would the Scots be content surrendering their sovereignty in the EU envisaged by Guy Verhofstadt , the European Parliament ’ s Brexit co-ordinator ?
I was confused , during the 2014 referendum , when Alex Salmond said an independent Scotland would retain sterling as its currency .
When he said “ It ’ s Scotland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping it ” , he was envisaging an arrangement whereby the Finance Minister in an independent Scottish government would have interest rates in his or her free country set by the Bank of England under a governor appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London .
The suits at the European Central Bank were probably puzzled , too .
But as someone who ’ s been a Brexiteer since before the UK made the great mistake of joining the embryonic European Union in 1972 , I can ’ t see a scintilla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rejection of a demand for a second independence plebiscite , if made manifest in a mandate given to the Edinburgh government next year .
It was the Brexit vote that first put the state of the Union and its profoundly flawed devolution settlement on the agendas of the chattering classes in London , Edinburgh , Cardiff and Belfast – and , doubtless , Dublin .
The Scottish independence movement got a reviving wind , as did conjecture around dinner tables and at the BBC about the ways in which Mrs May ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
Older readers might remember what a British prime minister , Harold MacMillan , said when he was asked what would fix his government ’ s course .
“ Events , dear boy , ” he replied , “ events.
” The 1956 Suez fiasco put MacMillan into Downing Street , and a spies-and-sex scandal in 1963 would help to turf him out .
The COVID-19 event and the different ways in which the UK ’ s four governments have stumbled from one blunder to another has shone a powerful torch on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what ’ s been revealed has come as a bigger surprise in England than elsewhere in the union .
“ Why , ” a traveller returning to London from Portugal recently asked , “ can ’ t there be a single UK quarantine policy ?
” The question was put to a BBC Radio 4 reporter , which was appropriate because one of the intriguing achievements of the BBC since its creation in 1927 has been to render – south of the Solway-Tweed line – “ British ” and “ English ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was heard rarely on the corporation ’ s radio stations before the plague other than in contexts in which it couldn ’ t be dodged : cricket , football and rugby coverage , and weather forecasts .
More significantly , the reality of the UK ’ s constitutional muddle is beginning to bubble up in public discourse .
An English Tory MP this month , while talking about the different and ever-changing quarantine regulations across the UK , referred to the “ English parliament ” .
It was , patently , a slip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know – I assume – that the last time one of those was seen was 1707 .
MPs in the three Unionist legacy parties – I fear we must acknowledge the existence of the Liberal Democrats – now talk about the Four Nations , which brings me to the problem Brexiteers on both the right and left have when denying Scotland another opportunity to make a choice about its future .
For a great many of us in the Brexit movement , the argument was not fundamentally about immigration numbers , the financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best ways in which to sell and move cars , kettles , cows and Cognac across Europe .
Neither was it about any particular EU law that might or might not be useful or useless .
It was at its heart a struggle to restore the right and liberty of a country – albeit at this point a polity comprising four nations – to elect directly the people who make the laws of their state and remove them .
It was about restoring the democratic government of a free nation state .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the words of two English politicians who sat on opposite sides of the Commons chamber but who shared a deep regard for the warp and weft of the democracy as they saw it rooted in these islands .
One was Peter Shore , a nonconformist left-wing minister in the Labour governments of the 1960s and 70s , and an unwavering opponent of UK involvement in the European project .
The other was Margaret Thatcher .
Both could be described as nationalists .
Shore said when the Commons was asked in 1972 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added later : “ I did not come into socialist politics in order to connive in the dismantling of the power of the British people.
” He voted against all of the European treaties and opposed UK participation in elections to the European Parliament .
Mrs Thatcher , meanwhile , in 1988 delivered a speech at the College of Europe in Bruges that set the Conservative Party ’ s Eurosceptic fuse alight : What both of these people – Thatcher somewhat later than others such as Hugh Gaitskell , Tony Benn , Enoch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming down the track was the step-by-stealth creation of exactly what the project ’ s founders had in mind from its origins in the 1920s : a country – or a state – called Europe , its ancient nations reduced to mere counties .
The decades-long struggle by EU-sceptics to regain the sovereignty of the nation they called Britain might , once upon a time , have been recognizable in Ireland as a quest for nothing other than Home Rule .
But now we know there is no such nation as Britain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ England for three centuries and its end is approaching , if not imminent .
It is being seen off by the Brexit vote , the coronavirus plague and the very devolution settlement that was designed to preserve it but that would inevitably fail to do so .
Westminster ’ s devolution legislation was a recognition of the legitimacy of nationalism , at least in Scotland , Wales , and Northern Ireland .
It had not a clue – and still hasn ’ t – what to do about England , where the so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a satisfactory answer to the West Lothian Question , a phrase coined by Enoch Powell after the then Labour MP for that constituency raised the problem repeatedly in devolution debates .
One Labour politician – albeit a former one – who has subjected the devolution mess to a forensic study in the light of the Brexit vote is Professor John Denham , a minister in Blair and Brown administrations and now Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester .
In a 2018 lecture , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics and governance of England ” , he explained concisely what a parliament is for and , in the context of West Lothian Question , which might also be called The English Question , noted : So this is the tangle my Brexiteer friends – Tories , Labour , UKIP folks – appear unwilling or unable to unravel .
They fought for the right of what they thought was a nation – Britain – to make a choice about its future .
Their philosophical case was flawless , it was just that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t and doesn ’ t exist .
But the moral basis of that campaign has been established and is there to be taken and asserted by the SNP with the voice Scotland ’ s parliament , the country ’ s crucible for national debate , gives it .
What makes the Union so “ precious ” for those who see it as such ?
Mere history and sentiment ?
They undoubtedly have weight in the affairs of nations and their alliances , but they do not fix constitutions in stone .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all unions , even those that have survived for three centuries ?
Possibly ; it was quite beyond the comprehension of EU Remainers that Britain ’ s obviously unhappy 48-year marriage with Brussels could ever be brought to an end .
Yanking Britain out of its place in the Brussels Empire – a servitude Oxbridge and the BBC judged everlasting – was the act of radicals .
That radical spirit on the Tory right will be needed again if it ’ s clear that the majority of Scots are as displeased with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or chiefly , the English – were with Europe .
What could the UK ’ s prime minister do if the Scottish government went ahead with a referendum without Westminster ’ s consent ?
The Madrid Solution – send in the riot police to drag old women out of the polling stations ?
There is no coherently defensible alternative to saying Yes when Scotland asks for the opportunity to say “ We ’ re out ” .
Soapbox is a weekend column designed to provoke debate on ( usually ) non-party-political issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Wings Over Scotland , except when we write them ourselves , obviously .
If you ’ d like to contribute a Soapbox piece ( ideally 800-1500 words ) , send it to us via our Contact page , INCLUDING THE WORD ‘ SOAPBOX ’ IN THE SUBJECT LINE .

As a right-of-centre English conservative, there are Scottish National Party concepts I haven’t so far been able to comprehend. Perhaps it’s because I don’t follow Nicola Sturgeon and Ian Blackford. Should I keep an eye on what The Scotsman is saying?
SNP leaders talk in the same sentence of a “free” and “independent” Scotland having a future as a member of the EU. My grasp of those words is not theirs. Distinguished lawyers – be they Remainers, Leavers or Don’t-Care-Just-Pay-My-Billsers – all agree that a series of European Court of Justice decisions have established the unqualified supremacy of European Union laws – disguised as “Regulations and Directives” – over the national laws of EU states.
By 1970, the court ruled that Community law must take precedence even over the constitutional laws of member states — including basic laws guaranteeing fundamental rights, such as in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel.
I see this as vassalage, not independence.
I can’t understand why the SNP hasn’t seen how Brussels – and the European Central Bank – deals with small countries it thinks have not grasped the programme. Perhaps they didn’t hear Greece’s former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis talking about his country’s euro crisis:
Or:
Would the Scots be content surrendering their sovereignty in the EU envisaged by Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator?
I was confused, during the 2014 referendum, when Alex Salmond said an independent Scotland would retain sterling as its currency. When he said “It’s Scotland’s pound and we’re keeping it”, he was envisaging an arrangement whereby the Finance Minister in an independent Scottish government would have interest rates in his or her free country set by the Bank of England under a governor appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London. The suits at the European Central Bank were probably puzzled, too.
But as someone who’s been a Brexiteer since before the UK made the great mistake of joining the embryonic European Union in 1972, I can’t see a scintilla of a moral or logical case justifying the rejection of a demand for a second independence plebiscite, if made manifest in a mandate given to the Edinburgh government next year.
It was the Brexit vote that first put the state of the Union and its profoundly flawed devolution settlement on the agendas of the chattering classes in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast – and, doubtless, Dublin. The Scottish independence movement got a reviving wind, as did conjecture around dinner tables and at the BBC about the ways in which Mrs May’s “precious Union” might crack up.
Older readers might remember what a British prime minister, Harold MacMillan, said when he was asked what would fix his government’s course. “Events, dear boy,” he replied, “events.” The 1956 Suez fiasco put MacMillan into Downing Street, and a spies-and-sex scandal in 1963 would help to turf him out.
The COVID-19 event and the different ways in which the UK’s four governments have stumbled from one blunder to another has shone a powerful torch on the union’s creaking foundations, and what’s been revealed has come as a bigger surprise in England than elsewhere in the union.
“Why,” a traveller returning to London from Portugal recently asked, “can’t there be a single UK quarantine policy?” The question was put to a BBC Radio 4 reporter, which was appropriate because one of the intriguing achievements of the BBC since its creation in 1927 has been to render – south of the Solway-Tweed line – “British” and “English” interchangeable.
The word “England” was heard rarely on the corporation’s radio stations before the plague other than in contexts in which it couldn’t be dodged: cricket, football and rugby coverage, and weather forecasts.
More significantly, the reality of the UK’s constitutional muddle is beginning to bubble up in public discourse. An English Tory MP this month, while talking about the different and ever-changing quarantine regulations across the UK, referred to the “English parliament”. It was, patently, a slip of the tongue, since he must know – I assume – that the last time one of those was seen was 1707.
MPs in the three Unionist legacy parties – I fear we must acknowledge the existence of the Liberal Democrats – now talk about the Four Nations, which brings me to the problem Brexiteers on both the right and left have when denying Scotland another opportunity to make a choice about its future.
For a great many of us in the Brexit movement, the argument was not fundamentally about immigration numbers, the financial cost of EU membership, or the best ways in which to sell and move cars, kettles, cows and Cognac across Europe. Neither was it about any particular EU law that might or might not be useful or useless.
It was at its heart a struggle to restore the right and liberty of a country – albeit at this point a polity comprising four nations – to elect directly the people who make the laws of their state and remove them. It was about restoring the democratic government of a free nation state.
Our philosophical starting point could be best summarized in the words of two English politicians who sat on opposite sides of the Commons chamber but who shared a deep regard for the warp and weft of the democracy as they saw it rooted in these islands.
One was Peter Shore, a nonconformist left-wing minister in the Labour governments of the 1960s and 70s, and an unwavering opponent of UK involvement in the European project. The other was Margaret Thatcher. Both could be described as nationalists.
Shore said when the Commons was asked in 1972 to accept the Treaty of Rome:
He added later: “I did not come into socialist politics in order to connive in the dismantling of the power of the British people.” He voted against all of the European treaties and opposed UK participation in elections to the European Parliament.
Mrs Thatcher, meanwhile, in 1988 delivered a speech at the College of Europe in Bruges that set the Conservative Party’s Eurosceptic fuse alight:
What both of these people – Thatcher somewhat later than others such as Hugh Gaitskell, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell and Ernie Bevin – could see coming down the track was the step-by-stealth creation of exactly what the project’s founders had in mind from its origins in the 1920s: a country – or a state – called Europe, its ancient nations reduced to mere counties.
The decades-long struggle by EU-sceptics to regain the sovereignty of the nation they called Britain might, once upon a time, have been recognizable in Ireland as a quest for nothing other than Home Rule.
But now we know there is no such nation as Britain. It was a construct cobbled together by England for three centuries and its end is approaching, if not imminent. It is being seen off by the Brexit vote, the coronavirus plague and the very devolution settlement that was designed to preserve it but that would inevitably fail to do so.
Westminster’s devolution legislation was a recognition of the legitimacy of nationalism, at least in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It had not a clue – and still hasn’t – what to do about England, where the so-called main parties have failed to come up with a satisfactory answer to the West Lothian Question, a phrase coined by Enoch Powell after the then Labour MP for that constituency raised the problem repeatedly in devolution debates.
One Labour politician – albeit a former one – who has subjected the devolution mess to a forensic study in the light of the Brexit vote is Professor John Denham, a minister in Blair and Brown administrations and now Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester.
In a 2018 lecture, “A nation divided? The identities, politics and governance of England”, he explained concisely what a parliament is for and, in the context of West Lothian Question, which might also be called The English Question, noted:
So this is the tangle my Brexiteer friends – Tories, Labour, UKIP folks – appear unwilling or unable to unravel. They fought for the right of what they thought was a nation – Britain – to make a choice about its future. Their philosophical case was flawless, it was just that the nation they believed they were safeguarding didn’t and doesn’t exist.
But the moral basis of that campaign has been established and is there to be taken and asserted by the SNP with the voice Scotland’s parliament, the country’s crucible for national debate, gives it.
What makes the Union so “precious” for those who see it as such? Mere history and sentiment? They undoubtedly have weight in the affairs of nations and their alliances, but they do not fix constitutions in stone.
Or an intellectual inability to accept the mortality of all unions, even those that have survived for three centuries? Possibly; it was quite beyond the comprehension of EU Remainers that Britain’s obviously unhappy 48-year marriage with Brussels could ever be brought to an end.
Yanking Britain out of its place in the Brussels Empire – a servitude Oxbridge and the BBC judged everlasting – was the act of radicals. That radical spirit on the Tory right will be needed again if it’s clear that the majority of Scots are as displeased with the British union as the British – or chiefly, the English – were with Europe.
What could the UK’s prime minister do if the Scottish government went ahead with a referendum without Westminster’s consent? The Madrid Solution – send in the riot police to drag old women out of the polling stations? There is no coherently defensible alternative to saying Yes when Scotland asks for the opportunity to say “We’re out”.
.
Soapbox is a weekend column designed to provoke debate on (usually) non-party-political issues. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Wings Over Scotland, except when we write them ourselves, obviously.
If you’d like to contribute a Soapbox piece (ideally 800-1500 words), send it to us via our Contact page, INCLUDING THE WORD ‘SOAPBOX’ IN THE SUBJECT LINE.


Compulsory conciliation

Senator Claire Chandler is a Liberal Party member of the Australian Parliament .
Some recent experiences she ’ s had send a very serious warning about the likely outcomes of the Scottish Government ’ s wildly unpopular new Hate Crime Bill .
She ’ s graciously allowed us to publish this column she wrote on the subject .
Early this month I received a letter from Tasmania ’ s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner directing me to attend a compulsory “ conciliation ” conference with somebody offended by my comments about the need to protect women ’ s sport and women ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them here : Ironically , the complaint against me was about an opinion article I wrote about free speech .
You can read it here and make up your own mind whether bureaucrats at the Anti-Discrimination Commission should be able to censor any Australian citizens for this kind of public policy discussion .
The sentence in my op-ed which triggered the complaint was this factual and common sense statement : Since news of this complaint broke , I ’ ve been overwhelmed by the support I ’ ve received from all across Tasmania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to all those who have contacted me and expressed support and encouragement .
My case is just the latest of many examples of Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission bureaucrats around Australia attempting to force radical views and compelled speech onto mainstream Australians .
In past years , university students have been dragged through the courts for comments on social , the late cartoonist Bill Leak was harassed by the Australian Human Rights Commission , and Archbishop Julian Porteous was hauled before a tribunal for defending marriage in accordance with his faith .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canberra radio broadcaster was ordered to pay $ 10,000 [ around £5,600 ] to a former Greens candidate and trans activist for ‘ liking ’ comments on Facebook .
Issues with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act have been known for a long time .
The Tasmanian Liberal Government in 2016 drafted amendments to the Act to prevent activists using it as a weapon to shut down alternative views .
But the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner campaigned against the changes and the Bill was blocked by the Legislative Council .
My legal team and I are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in law and process by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in accepting this complaint and directing me to attend conciliation .
Questions have also been raised about the constitutionality of bureaucrats vetting statements by Members of Parliament for ‘ offensiveness ’ and threatening to take action against them .
Regardless of how this case proceeds , it is abundantly clear that anti-discrimination laws give bureaucrats and unelected tribunals the power to censor perfectly reasonable public policy debate on almost any topic that a minority labels ‘ offensive ’ .
Just a few years ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that women ’ s sports and toilets were designed for females could cause an anti-discrimination body to take action against you .
What will be the next public policy discussion that they will try to silence ?
It could easily be something important to you and your vote .

Senator Claire Chandler is a Liberal Party member of the Australian Parliament. Some recent experiences she’s had send a very serious warning about the likely outcomes of the Scottish Government’s wildly unpopular new Hate Crime Bill. She’s graciously allowed us to publish this column she wrote on the subject.
Early this month I received a letter from Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner directing me to attend a compulsory “conciliation” conference with somebody offended by my comments about the need to protect women’s sport and women’s toilets and changerooms. You can watch them here:
Ironically, the complaint against me was about an opinion article I wrote about free speech. You can read it here and make up your own mind whether bureaucrats at the Anti-Discrimination Commission should be able to censor any Australian citizens for this kind of public policy discussion.
The sentence in my op-ed which triggered the complaint was this factual and common sense statement:
“You don’t have to be a bigot to recognise the differences between the male and female sexes and understand why women’s sports, single sex changing rooms and toilets are important. The overwhelming majority of the world’s population grew up understanding these concepts.”
Since news of this complaint broke, I’ve been overwhelmed by the support I’ve received from all across Tasmania, Australia and the world. Thank you to all those who have contacted me and expressed support and encouragement.
My case is just the latest of many examples of Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission bureaucrats around Australia attempting to force radical views and compelled speech onto mainstream Australians.
In past years, university students have been dragged through the courts for comments on social, the late cartoonist Bill Leak was harassed by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and Archbishop Julian Porteous was hauled before a tribunal for defending marriage in accordance with his faith. As recently as this month, a Canberra radio broadcaster was ordered to pay $10,000 [around £5,600] to a former Greens candidate and trans activist for ‘liking’ comments on Facebook.
Issues with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act have been known for a long time. The Tasmanian Liberal Government in 2016 drafted amendments to the Act to prevent activists using it as a weapon to shut down alternative views.
But the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner campaigned against the changes and the Bill was blocked by the Legislative Council.
My legal team and I are in the process of documenting the numerous errors in law and process by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in accepting this complaint and directing me to attend conciliation. Questions have also been raised about the constitutionality of bureaucrats vetting statements by Members of Parliament for ‘offensiveness’ and threatening to take action against them.
Regardless of how this case proceeds, it is abundantly clear that anti-discrimination laws give bureaucrats and unelected tribunals the power to censor perfectly reasonable public policy debate on almost any topic that a minority labels ‘offensive’.
Just a few years ago, nobody could ever have dreamed that pointing out that women’s sports and toilets were designed for females could cause an anti-discrimination body to take action against you. What will be the next public policy discussion that they will try to silence? It could easily be something important to you and your vote.


Weir’s No Way

The Electoral Commission appears to have missed yet another deadline for publishing the SNP ’ s 2019 accounts ( we ’ re waiting on them to return our phone call ) , so we ’ ve got a moment to talk about something else relating to the party ’ s finances .
[ EDIT 12.56pm : the Commission now “ hopes ” to have the accounts published “ in the next three weeks ” along with those of the other main Westminster parties . ]
The Scottish press covered itself in as much disgrace over the publication of the will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragic death last year as it had done during his life .
Pretty much every paper in the country ran lurid headlines about how he ’ d “ blown ” or “ burned ” ( translation : spent ) half of his £80m share of the 2011 jackpot in nine years .
Weirdly , the Scottish Sun and the Daily Mail stood out for ( mainly ) respectful coverage focused on the fact that Colin Weir had in fact used most of the money on good causes and generous support for friends , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was almost unique in the fact that its headline mentioned something that seemed to stand out as the most obviously newsworthy aspect of the will .
For many years after their win , Colin Weir and his then-wife Chris had been the biggest bankrollers of the SNP in the party ’ s history , donating over £4.5m to the party as well as £1m to the Yes campaign .
But even though Colin died with £41m in the bank , and had made extensive advance preparations for his death , including a spectacular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Largs , he didn ’ t leave a single penny to the SNP .
Wings had of course told its readers about the rumoured rift between the Weirs and the party , and the reasons for it , many months ago : But it ’ s still quite startling that someone who ’ d been a lifelong member , activist and even candidate , and who had such a demonstrably generous spirit , had become so far estranged that even on his deathbed there was no gesture of reconciliation .
And what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scottish press , who ’ ve treated both the SNP and the Weirs with such utter contempt for almost a decade , didn ’ t make a big deal out of it .
Colin Weir died almost nine months ago now , so enough time has passed that it wouldn ’ t even have been ghoulish or tasteless – the post-mortem snub is a legitimately noteworthy news event in its own right .
Yet other than the odd half-hearted attack for the sake of appearances , the Scottish media has for months now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership of Nicola Sturgeon .
It ’ s absolutely clear that given the atrocious state of the opposition parties , which shows no sign of changing any time soon , the Unionist establishment considers a Sturgeon government the least-bad of the achievable options .
And perhaps the SNP don ’ t need Colin Weir ’ s money .
Perhaps when the months-late accounts ARE finally published , whenever that might be , they ’ ll show a party in rude financial health , ready to fight a referendum campaign at a moment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” money it raised in 2017-19 .
Perhaps that ’ s why the story has barely registered – because the SNP has so much cash that it simply doesn ’ t need bequests from the richest independence supporters in the country .
We ’ re sure we ’ ll find out at some point .

The Electoral Commission appears to have missed yet another deadline for publishing the SNP’s 2019 accounts (we’re waiting on them to return our phone call), so we’ve got a moment to talk about something else relating to the party’s finances.
[EDIT 12.56pm: the Commission now “hopes” to have the accounts published “in the next three weeks” along with those of the other main Westminster parties.]
The Scottish press covered itself in as much disgrace over the publication of the will of lottery winner Colin Weir after his tragic death last year as it had done during his life. Pretty much every paper in the country ran lurid headlines about how he’d “blown” or “burned” (translation: spent) half of his £80m share of the 2011 jackpot in nine years.
Weirdly, the Scottish Sun and the Daily Mail stood out for (mainly) respectful coverage focused on the fact that Colin Weir had in fact used most of the money on good causes and generous support for friends, family and strangers.
(Also, both of the Weirs were fairly old and already in quite poor health when they won the money, so why wouldn’t they spend it? You famously can’t take it with you.)
But the Mail was almost unique in the fact that its headline mentioned something that seemed to stand out as the most obviously newsworthy aspect of the will.
For many years after their win, Colin Weir and his then-wife Chris had been the biggest bankrollers of the SNP in the party’s history, donating over £4.5m to the party as well as £1m to the Yes campaign.
But even though Colin died with £41m in the bank, and had made extensive advance preparations for his death, including a spectacular £1m lobsters-and-champagne wake for his pals in Largs, he didn’t leave a single penny to the SNP.
Wings had of course told its readers about the rumoured rift between the Weirs and the party, and the reasons for it, many months ago:
But it’s still quite startling that someone who’d been a lifelong member, activist and even candidate, and who had such a demonstrably generous spirit, had become so far estranged that even on his deathbed there was no gesture of reconciliation.
And what’s even more startling is that the Scottish press, who’ve treated both the SNP and the Weirs with such utter contempt for almost a decade, didn’t make a big deal out of it. Colin Weir died almost nine months ago now, so enough time has passed that it wouldn’t even have been ghoulish or tasteless – the post-mortem snub is a legitimately noteworthy news event in its own right.
Yet other than the odd half-hearted attack for the sake of appearances, the Scottish media has for months now noticeably formed a protective circle around the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon. It’s absolutely clear that given the atrocious state of the opposition parties, which shows no sign of changing any time soon, the Unionist establishment considers a Sturgeon government the least-bad of the achievable options.
And perhaps the SNP don’t need Colin Weir’s money. Perhaps when the months-late accounts ARE finally published, whenever that might be, they’ll show a party in rude financial health, ready to fight a referendum campaign at a moment’s notice with all the “ring-fenced” money it raised in 2017-19.
Perhaps that’s why the story has barely registered – because the SNP has so much cash that it simply doesn’t need bequests from the richest independence supporters in the country. We’re sure we’ll find out at some point.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-23--The None Of Your Business Convener

The None Of Your Business Convener

The SNP have historically been swift to suspend any party members when there ’ s any hint of inappropriate conduct , never mind even a whiff of illegality .
It ’ s been that way since 2015 , with the axe falling on elected members as well as candidates in target seats and critical elections , and ordinary activists .
Not even a by-your-leave , let alone an explanation , is afforded – just suspension with immediate effect .
And that ’ s all well and good , some might say .
No hint of impropriety should attach to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swiftly can be both necessary and appropriate .
So why then no action against the Chief Executive ?
It ’ s over a week since revelations broke of What ’ s App messages sent by Peter Murrell to his Chief Operating Officer purporting to encourage pressure be brought to bear on police in the Alex Salmond case .
Indeed , they appeared even to go beyond that , with the suggestion of the instigation of another enquiry by the Metropolitan Police .
Now those things may or may not be criminal but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party Chief Executive , raising questions about both him and his actions .
After all , the SNP is the governing party and seeking to influence criminal investigations is simply unacceptable .
Supporting an investigation can be laudable , pressurizing those doing the investigating most certainly can ’ t , and the terms of reference seem clear .
You ’ d have therefore thought action would have been swift and speedy .
But no !
The NEC met on Sunday past and yet failed to even discuss it , despite the pleas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Business Convener ruled after just over two hours that the meeting was at an end .
Neither the Chief Executive ’ s actions nor his report were discussed .
Instead the meeting was summarily concluded .
There may have been urgent business that was so essential this required to wait , though that doesn ’ t seem to be the case .
Instead it simply seems to have been viewed of little importance , neither being placed up the agenda nor the meeting extended to ensure that it was addressed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been overly busy this year .
( Other than for some individual members who seem to have been preparing their candidacies and influencing decisions that might favour their own ambitions . )
Having not met for months during lockdown you ’ d have thought that some additional meetings might be called for , or even a modest time extension to those taking place .
This wasn ’ t even an all-day meeting .
After all , critical policy areas remain a vacuum and many of the necessary preliminaries for next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awaited .
But this seems to be the way for the None Of Your Business Convener .
Writing to her last week on this particular issue I still await even the courtesy of a reply .
But why would I expect that when previous requests back in June have similarly gone unanswered and unacknowledged ?
Back then I was also raising issues to do with those now shown to be involved in this controversy .
The aspects that I then sought clarification on were firstly how the salary of the Chief Executive was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d have thought , and something you ’ d consider pretty straightforward to answer .
Surely policies and procedures apply as part of good governance in Scotland ’ s largest political party ?
Sadly , though , I ’ d felt the need to write to the Business Convener because the National Treasurer couldn ’ t tell me .
Colin Beattie – who I hold in the highest regard – wasn ’ t trying to be obstructive , he just didn ’ t know .
I made it clear in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t seeking confidential information or figures , simply the procedures .
But nothing , nada , rien .
Its believed it ’ s a salary above that of a Cabinet Secretary , but all I ’ d like to know is how and by who ’ s it agreed ?
The WhatsApp message was an instruction to the party Chief Operating Officer , and I have also raised questions about her appointment , seemingly in November 2018 .
It ’ s a post that had never before existed in the SNP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chief Executive position from 2013-16 , created it seems to provide a wage for Shirley-Anne Somerville after she failed to win a by-election .
( The position ceased to exist when she left it after winning the same seat at the 2016 election . )
But despite Chief Operating Officer being a brand-new post it doesn ’ t ever appear to have been advertised either within or outwith the party , nor is the salary disclosed .
All that is information that should be available to party members , as is action against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ None Of Your Business ” Convener in charge , not even the NEC seems to get know or do anything about it .

The SNP have historically been swift to suspend any party members when there’s any hint of inappropriate conduct, never mind even a whiff of illegality. It’s been that way since 2015, with the axe falling on elected members as well as candidates in target seats and critical elections, and ordinary activists.
Not even a by-your-leave, let alone an explanation, is afforded – just suspension with immediate effect. And that’s all well and good, some might say. No hint of impropriety should attach to the party and making a virtue of acting swiftly can be both necessary and appropriate.
So why then no action against the Chief Executive?
It’s over a week since revelations broke of What’s App messages sent by Peter Murrell to his Chief Operating Officer purporting to encourage pressure be brought to bear on police in the Alex Salmond case. Indeed, they appeared even to go beyond that, with the suggestion of the instigation of another enquiry by the Metropolitan Police.
(Any doubt there might have been over the document’s authenticity now resolved by the Crown instigating a police investigation into a leak.)
Now those things may or may not be criminal but it’s certainly conduct unbecoming of a party Chief Executive, raising questions about both him and his actions. After all, the SNP is the governing party and seeking to influence criminal investigations is simply unacceptable. Supporting an investigation can be laudable, pressurizing those doing the investigating most certainly can’t, and the terms of reference seem clear. You’d have therefore thought action would have been swift and speedy.
But no! The NEC met on Sunday past and yet failed to even discuss it, despite the pleas and demands of several members. It appears that the Business Convener ruled after just over two hours that the meeting was at an end. Neither the Chief Executive’s actions nor his report were discussed. Instead the meeting was summarily concluded.
There may have been urgent business that was so essential this required to wait, though that doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead it simply seems to have been viewed of little importance, neither being placed up the agenda nor the meeting extended to ensure that it was addressed.
That itself is surprising as the NEC hasn’t been overly busy this year. (Other than for some individual members who seem to have been preparing their candidacies and influencing decisions that might favour their own ambitions.)
Having not met for months during lockdown you’d have thought that some additional meetings might be called for, or even a modest time extension to those taking place. This wasn’t even an all-day meeting. After all, critical policy areas remain a vacuum and many of the necessary preliminaries for next year’s vital election are still awaited.
But this seems to be the way for the None Of Your Business Convener. Writing to her last week on this particular issue I still await even the courtesy of a reply. But why would I expect that when previous requests back in June have similarly gone unanswered and unacknowledged?
Back then I was also raising issues to do with those now shown to be involved in this controversy. The aspects that I then sought clarification on were firstly how the salary of the Chief Executive was set. Not an unreasonable request, you’d have thought, and something you’d consider pretty straightforward to answer. Surely policies and procedures apply as part of good governance in Scotland’s largest political party?
Sadly, though, I’d felt the need to write to the Business Convener because the National Treasurer couldn’t tell me. Colin Beattie – who I hold in the highest regard – wasn’t trying to be obstructive, he just didn’t know. I made it clear in my communications with the Business Convener that I wasn’t seeking confidential information or figures, simply the procedures.
But nothing, nada, rien. Its believed it’s a salary above that of a Cabinet Secretary, but all I’d like to know is how and by who’s it agreed?
The WhatsApp message was an instruction to the party Chief Operating Officer, and I have also raised questions about her appointment, seemingly in November 2018. It’s a post that had never before existed in the SNP, though there had been a Deputy Chief Executive position from 2013-16, created it seems to provide a wage for Shirley-Anne Somerville after she failed to win a by-election. (The position ceased to exist when she left it after winning the same seat at the 2016 election.)
But despite Chief Operating Officer being a brand-new post it doesn’t ever appear to have been advertised either within or outwith the party, nor is the salary disclosed.
All that is information that should be available to party members, as is action against the Chief Executive. But with a “None Of Your Business” Convener in charge, not even the NEC seems to get know or do anything about it.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-24--A change of plans?

A change of plans?

We saw something disturbing in Parliament today .
During a debate on the UK government ’ s recent decision to @ @ @ @ @ self-ID , SNP MP Anne McLaughlin told the Commons chamber that it was still the @ @ @ @ @ strong commitment ” to go ahead with highly controversial reform of the law BEFORE next @ @ @ @ @ .
But that isn ’ t what Scottish voters were told earlier this year .
@ @ @ @ @ very clearly announced that the reforms were being shelved until after the election , and @ @ @ @ @ in the Programme For Government published this month .
Has there been a sudden unadvertised @ @ @ @ @ – who is the party ’ s official Gender WooWoo spokesbeing at Westminster and ought @ @ @ @ @ subject – just a bit clueless ?
( Obviously it could be both . )
@ @ @ @ @ find out .

We saw something disturbing in Parliament today.
During a debate on the UK government’s recent decision to abandon the notion of gender self-ID, SNP MP Anne McLaughlin told the Commons chamber that it was still the Scottish Government’s “strong commitment” to go ahead with highly controversial reform of the law BEFORE next year’s Holyrood election.
But that isn’t what Scottish voters were told earlier this year.
In April the Scottish Government very clearly announced that the reforms were being shelved until after the election, and there was nothing about them in the Programme For Government published this month.
Has there been a sudden unadvertised change, or is McLaughlin – who is the party’s official Gender WooWoo spokesbeing at Westminster and ought to be well-informed on the subject – just a bit clueless? (Obviously it could be both.) We’ll try to find out.
.
[EDIT 3.22pm]


Slip slidin’ away

Just two days ago the Electoral Commission gave us a fourth supposed date for the publication of the SNP ’ s 2019 accounts : having first been due out in early August , they then told us to expect them in early September , and then last week , and then in “ the next three weeks ” , ie the middle of October .
But someone gave us a tipoff that we might be able to request them via Freedom Of Information , since ostensibly the only holdup was that the EC wanted to wait until ALL of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publish them all at once for tidiness .
So we sent one in , and we just got a very quick reply .
Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission dated 23/09/2020 .
The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly and has done so within the statutory timeframe of twenty working days .
Your request is below followed by our response .
I request any information the Electoral Commission holds with regards to the Scottish National Party ’ s accounts ( central party ) for the year to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are public documents and as such do NOT require to be withheld until such times as the Commission is publishing the accounts of other parties .
Our response is as follows : Each year , registered political parties are required to submit a statement of accounts .
Additionally , registered accounting units of central parties , with a total income or expenditure over £25,000 are also required to submit accounts .
Parties and accounting units with a total income or expenditure of £250,000 or under must submit within four months of their year-end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expenditure of over £250,000 must submit within six months and seven days of their year-end .
As the majority of parties , including the SNP , have a year end of 31 December , the deadlines for the 2019 accounts were 30 April 2020 and 07 July 2020 .
The Commission is required to publish this information as soon as is reasonably practicable .
The restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19 caused many parties to miss the deadline meaning that the publication of the 2019 accounts has been delayed .
Though we hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are unable to release it at this time .
Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future .
Information is exempt if , at the time when the public authority receives a request for it : · the public authority intends the information to be published at some future date , whether that date is determined or not ; · and in all the circumstances it is reasonable to withhold the information until its planned publication .
The Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to publish it shortly along the annual accounts of other registered parties in the over £250,000 category .
We have not yet set a date for this publication though we intend to publish here on our website early November .
You will notice that the accounts of all parties with an income or expenditure of £250,000 or under and their relevant accounting units have already been published .
Section 22 is a qualified exemption and therefore requires us to consider if the public interest outweighs the use of the exemption .
We understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the general public and note that the information requested is of public interest .
However , releasing this information early may cause further delays to the publication process of all accounts that we hold .
This would impact our ability to ensure the transparency of accounts submitted by all other parties in the over £250,000 category .
I trust that this information satisfies your request .
The Commission strives to be an open , transparent authority , but in some circumstances we can not responsibly release requested information , and we ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you are not satisfied with this response , please note that the Commission operates a review procedure , details of which can be found on the Commission website .
Please also note that if you have exhausted all internal Commission review procedures and you are still not satisfied you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner .
Details of this procedure can be found on the ICO website .

Just two days ago the Electoral Commission gave us a fourth supposed date for the publication of the SNP’s 2019 accounts: having first been due out in early August, they then told us to expect them in early September, and then last week, and then in “the next three weeks”, ie the middle of October.
But someone gave us a tipoff that we might be able to request them via Freedom Of Information, since ostensibly the only holdup was that the EC wanted to wait until ALL of the main parties’ accounts were ready and publish them all at once for tidiness.
So we sent one in, and we just got a very quick reply.
We’ve highlighted the key bits.
“Dear Stuart Campbell
Our Ref: FOI 116-20
Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission dated 23/09/2020.
The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly and has done so within the statutory timeframe of twenty working days.
Your request is below followed by our response.
I request any information the Electoral Commission holds with regards to the Scottish National Party’s accounts (central party) for the year to 31 December 2019. I believe these are public documents and as such do NOT require to be withheld until such times as the Commission is publishing the accounts of other parties.
Our response is as follows:
Each year, registered political parties are required to submit a statement of accounts. Additionally, registered accounting units of central parties, with a total income or expenditure over £25,000 are also required to submit accounts. Parties and accounting units with a total income or expenditure of £250,000 or under must submit within four months of their year-end. Those with a total income or expenditure of over £250,000 must submit within six months and seven days of their year-end. As the majority of parties, including the SNP, have a year end of 31 December, the deadlines for the 2019 accounts were 30 April 2020 and 07 July 2020.
The Commission is required to publish this information as soon as is reasonably practicable. The restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19 caused many parties to miss the deadline meaning that the publication of the 2019 accounts has been delayed.
Though we hold the information you have requested, we are unable to release it at this time.
Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future. Information is exempt if, at the time when the public authority receives a request for it:
· the public authority holds the requested information;
· the public authority intends the information to be published at some future date, whether that date is determined or not;
· and in all the circumstances it is reasonable to withhold the information until its planned publication.
The Commission holds the requested information and we intend to publish it shortly along the annual accounts of other registered parties in the over £250,000 category. We have not yet set a date for this publication though we intend to publish here on our website early November. You will notice that the accounts of all parties with an income or expenditure of £250,000 or under and their relevant accounting units have already been published.
Section 22 is a qualified exemption and therefore requires us to consider if the public interest outweighs the use of the exemption.
We understand the importance of being transparent and open with the general public and note that the information requested is of public interest. However, releasing this information early may cause further delays to the publication process of all accounts that we hold. This would impact our ability to ensure the transparency of accounts submitted by all other parties in the over £250,000 category.
I trust that this information satisfies your request. The Commission strives to be an open, transparent authority, but in some circumstances we cannot responsibly release requested information, and we ask for your understanding in this regard.
If you are not satisfied with this response, please note that the Commission operates a review procedure, details of which can be found on the Commission website.
Please also note that if you have exhausted all internal Commission review procedures and you are still not satisfied you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. Details of this procedure can be found on the ICO website.
Yours sincerely,
Information Team
The Electoral Commission
electoralcommission.org.uk”


Tumbleweed Halls

`` 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--2020-09-27--Bonfire of the ironies

Bonfire of the ironies

Some days it ’ s not even worth trying to get your jaw off the floor .
The same one @ @ @ @ @ divisive article every few months bitterly attacking all the elements of the Yes movement that @ @ @ @ @ : And also , yes , it ’ s THIS Kezia Dugdale : You know @ @ @ @ @ a journalist and member of the public with disgusting and untrue attacks which FOUR judges @ @ @ @ @ , defamatory and injurious but has yet to apologise for or retract them .
We @ @ @ @ @ and say no more .

Some days it’s not even worth trying to get your jaw off the floor.
Yeah, THAT Neil Mackay.
The same one who writes an provocative and divisive article every few months bitterly attacking all the elements of the Yes movement that he doesn’t like:
And also, yes, it’s THIS Kezia Dugdale:
You know, the one who smeared a journalist and member of the public with disgusting and untrue attacks which FOUR judges ruled to be unequivocally false, defamatory and injurious but has yet to apologise for or retract them.
We shall raise a weary eyebrow and say no more.


What’s going on

The weekend just past saw a convulsion as big as any we can ever recall witnessing on Yes social media , triggered by a series of tweets by Nicola Sturgeon which caused an extraordinary negative reaction out of all proportion to their ostensible content .
The reason was that the First Minister – who had remained silent about countless episodes of hideous misogynistic abuse aimed from her own side at MPs and MSPs like Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry – had chosen to suddenly leap into action in defence of the toxically divisive horror that is Glasgow councillor Rhiannon Spear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making blatantly false claims in a video promoting her attempt to be selected as the candidate for Argyll & Bute .
The move sent the party ’ s woke and sane factions into a frenzy of bloodletting which in itself will have little if any impact on the wider electorate , but nonetheless threw into sharp relief the life-and-death battle currently going on for the SNP ’ s soul .
And since that ’ s related to what we ’ ve been writing about on Wings for the bulk of this year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down on the record once and for all .
Because 2020 has been the least fun year in the almost-decade-long history of this site .
It feels like we ’ ve spent most of it criticising the party that leads the independence movement , from the pitiful let-down of Brexit day to the shameful failed stitch-up of Alex Salmond , through countless other idiocies and failures and terrifyingly bad ideas , right up to the current incredibly dodgy shenanigans around the NEC .
All of that lies squarely at the door of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or malicious intent ( or both ) the party which was once a byword for discipline and common purpose has been allowed to descend into an appalling fractious mess of bitter infighting , to the point where its own MPs are openly calling for the suspension of the CEO ( who also happens to be the husband of the leader ) .
Unlike most pro-indy sites , Wings hasn ’ t shied away from highlighting these issues .
That ’ s because we ’ ve never been an SNP website , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means fighting anyone who ’ s an obstacle to or an enemy of independence , whatever side they purport to be on .
And the cold harsh truth is that right now that category includes a substantial chunk of the SNP .
It would be naive to expect a lot of thanks for such scrutiny , and sure enough it ’ s brought a tsunami of abuse down on our heads , of which these – from just one person in the last few days alone – are a pretty mild example .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ MI5 plants and so on are plentiful .
But hey ho .
Years of poisonous hatred and abuse from Unionists never stopped us and nor will it do so when it comes from from nicely-featherbedded Westminster MPs or blind party loyalists , because independence is far too important a cause to give up on when things get difficult or uncomfortable .
Unfortunately , “ difficult and uncomfortable ” is how things are going to be staying in the immediate future , because the clear , inescapable conclusion of all our analysis – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know what our track record of analysis is like – is that the only hope of securing independence in the next decade is to get rid of the current leadership of the SNP and all their acolytes .
It ’ s not the first time you ’ ve heard us say that .
But it perhaps does need to be starkly laid out that as far as Wings Over Scotland is concerned , expelling them should be by far the most pressing goal of the Yes movement at this critical point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything we ’ ve all fought for since 2007 is at stake right here and now , and this time it ’ s not the Unionists or the media who are the problem .
If Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell are allowed to lead the SNP into the election – if that election actually happens at all – then our view is that there will be absolutely no prospect of another referendum in the next term of the Scottish Parliament , which immediately boots even the theoretical possibility down the road to 2027 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably be effectively no Holyrood left .
That ’ s because the current leadership has no plan whatsoever to achieve it other than meekly asking the UK government for something it ’ s rejected three times already , continues to flatly reject at every opportunity , and which it has a clear and proper electoral mandate – and a 500+ Parliamentary majority – to reject .
All an SNP majority under this leadership will achieve is five more wretched years of indignant , hollow posturing , like all the times Ian Blackford stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scotland would not be dragged out of the EU against its will , right up to the day when Scotland was dragged out of the EU against its will .
We are told with monotonous regularity that attacking the SNP at this point is stupid , because they are the only party that can secure independence and any alternative would take many years to build .
The latter part of that is unquestionably true .
This site does not dispute that the SNP is the only current plausible vehicle to independence .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a burst tyre and smoke pouring out of the engine whose driver is going the wrong way and refuses to listen , you don ’ t have to smash up the car and start walking .
You change the driver , you change the tyre , you fix the engine and you get back in , even if that takes some hard work and you ’ d rather not be doing it because it ’ s cold and raining .
It ’ s at this point that the other tedious mantra of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But what would YOU do , clever-clogs ?
” , cry people who haven ’ t been listening for the past three years every time we ’ ve patiently explained it .
So one more time for the slow kids at the back , here it is .
( Note that this plan excludes things which should have been done but are no longer possible , such as exploiting the SNP ’ s rare arithmetical leverage at Westminster from June 2017 to December 2019 . )
( 1 ) The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally definitively establish whether Holyrood in fact already possesses the legal power to hold an independence referendum , something this site has been explicitly calling for for years and which would and should have been concluded long before now .
This is still very much an unresolved matter in law , and the Scottish Government should have been pursuing it since the day after the EU referendum in 2016 .
Not only has it NOT done so , in a massive dereliction of duty , but it has attacked and actively obstructed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The attempts by Martin Keatings to bring the case to court has sucked hundreds of thousands of pounds from grassroots Yes supporters ’ pockets that could and should quite properly have been paid by the Scottish Government in legitimate pursuit of its clear manifesto mandate from the 2016 election , backed not once but twice by votes of the Scottish Parliament .
Instead it has wasted a pile of money on hiring lawyers to oppose Keatings for several months before shambolically withdrawing from the case , exactly as it did in the judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having first pointlessly blown well over half a million pounds .
A newly-led SNP should offer to take over this case from Keatings and devote all necessary resources to it .
( 2 ) There are three possible outcomes of such a case .
Firstly , we could win and hold a referendum any time and as often we liked .
Secondly , we could win and the UK government could immediately cheat by amending the Scotland Act to overturn the court ’ s decision , rather like it did with the Brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , we could lose .
Not one of those outcomes leaves us any worse off than we are now , so there ’ s nothing to fear .
The first would be revolutionary but the third , and especially the second , while legally useless would be politically powerful in demonstrating that Scotland was effectively being held prisoner in clear contravention of Article 1 of the UN Charter and entitled to take other steps to secure its lawful rights .
( 3 ) The nature of those other steps would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the prevailing circumstances , but could include the dissolution of Holyrood ( theoretically prohibited but de facto possible in the event of a pro-indy majority existing ) and the immediate conducting of a plebiscitary election , and/or the route outlined in compellingly-argued detail by Craig Murray in January .
Everyone would prefer a nice consensual road to independence , but in the face of complete intransigence from the UK government the only options are to fight by all peaceful democratic means possible or to just meekly give up forever .
For as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fight , abrogates its duty and insists that a referendum can only happen with Westminster ’ s approval , there is no downside for the UK government in simply refusing indefinitely .
And the current SNP leadership has made it abundantly plain time and time again that it will only act with Westminster ’ s permission , knowing with absolute certainty that it will be withheld .
Having finally grudgingly allowed at least a debate on a Plan B at next month ’ s party pseudo-conference , it ’ ll be extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes on it , whether it passes , and what happens if it does .
We will be amazed if they back the motion – athough we can think of no possible justification for them not to – and therefore astonished if it passed .
The signals from the party canaries so far have been very clear about which way they ’ ll go .
If it doesn ’ t , every last sliver of doubt will have been removed and it will be unarguable that the current leadership has no meaningful intention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that doubt some time ago , but perhaps this is one of those very rare occasions when we ’ ll have been wrong about something .
Unless it is , we ’ re afraid that if you haven ’ t been enjoying the last few weeks and months , it ’ s not going to get better any time soon .
Wings Over Scotland fought for independence when it was easy and fun to do so , and we ’ ll keep doing it when it ’ s ugly and grim , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no hope left .
We don ’ t think that will be the outcome .
It ’ s our belief that the leadership can not and will not survive until next May , and every day they cling desperately on to power and money just damages the Yes movement a little bit more .
It ’ s also our belief that they know that .
We will fight with every fibre of our being to stop them , whatever it costs .
Scotland deserves better .

The weekend just past saw a convulsion as big as any we can ever recall witnessing on Yes social media, triggered by a series of tweets by Nicola Sturgeon which caused an extraordinary negative reaction out of all proportion to their ostensible content.
The reason was that the First Minister – who had remained silent about countless episodes of hideous misogynistic abuse aimed from her own side at MPs and MSPs like Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry – had chosen to suddenly leap into action in defence of the toxically divisive horror that is Glasgow councillor Rhiannon Spear after Spear had been widely criticised for making blatantly false claims in a video promoting her attempt to be selected as the candidate for Argyll & Bute.
(Sturgeon had no such public condemnation for the torrents of abuse the SNP Twitler Youth then unleased on Kirsten Thornton, the female SNP activist and Generation Yes founder who’d pointed out Spear’s untruths.)
The move sent the party’s woke and sane factions into a frenzy of bloodletting which in itself will have little if any impact on the wider electorate, but nonetheless threw into sharp relief the life-and-death battle currently going on for the SNP’s soul.
And since that’s related to what we’ve been writing about on Wings for the bulk of this year, it seemed worthwhile to get some things down on the record once and for all.
Because 2020 has been the least fun year in the almost-decade-long history of this site. It feels like we’ve spent most of it criticising the party that leads the independence movement, from the pitiful let-down of Brexit day to the shameful failed stitch-up of Alex Salmond, through countless other idiocies and failures and terrifyingly bad ideas, right up to the current incredibly dodgy shenanigans around the NEC.
But all of that lies squarely at the door of the SNP leadership. Through either shocking incompetence or malicious intent (or both) the party which was once a byword for discipline and common purpose has been allowed to descend into an appalling fractious mess of bitter infighting, to the point where its own MPs are openly calling for the suspension of the CEO (who also happens to be the husband of the leader).
Unlike most pro-indy sites, Wings hasn’t shied away from highlighting these issues. That’s because we’ve never been an SNP website, we’re an independence website, and that means fighting anyone who’s an obstacle to or an enemy of independence, whatever side they purport to be on. And the cold harsh truth is that right now that category includes a substantial chunk of the SNP.
It would be naive to expect a lot of thanks for such scrutiny, and sure enough it’s brought a tsunami of abuse down on our heads, of which these – from just one person in the last few days alone – are a pretty mild example.
The accusations of being secret Unionists, MI5 plants and so on are plentiful, although awkwardly if you’re suggesting Wings is now a British secret service operation working to undermine independence then you have to say the same thing about Alex Salmond, Craig Murray, Robin McAlpine, Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill, Angus MacNeil, Chris McEleny, Joan McAlpine, George Kerevan, Iain Lawson and too many others to list.
(To say nothing of the 25% of sitting SNP MSPs who are standing down at next year’s election even though we’re apparently on the very brink of achieving the thing most of them have worked for their whole adult lives and their decades of experience would surely be vital in any campaign.)
Meanwhile Murray “The Vow” Foote works for the SNP. Hmm.
(Wishart is only the most brazen of the party’s elected representatives when it comes to openly expressing his utter contempt for the rank-and-file. He’s very far from alone.)
But hey ho. Years of poisonous hatred and abuse from Unionists never stopped us and nor will it do so when it comes from nicely-featherbedded Westminster MPs or blind party loyalists, because independence is far too important a cause to give up on when things get difficult or uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, “difficult and uncomfortable” is how things are going to be staying in the immediate future, because the clear, inescapable conclusion of all our analysis – and whether you like it or not, you know what our track record of analysis is like – is that the only hope of securing independence in the next decade is to get rid of the current leadership of the SNP and all their acolytes.
It’s not the first time you’ve heard us say that. But it perhaps does need to be starkly laid out that as far as Wings Over Scotland is concerned, expelling them should be by far the most pressing goal of the Yes movement at this critical point in history.
Be under no illusion – everything we’ve all fought for since 2007 is at stake right here and now, and this time it’s not the Unionists or the media who are the problem.
If Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell are allowed to lead the SNP into the election – if that election actually happens at all – then our view is that there will be absolutely no prospect of another referendum in the next term of the Scottish Parliament, which immediately boots even the theoretical possibility down the road to 2027, by which time there’ll probably be effectively no Holyrood left.
That’s because the current leadership has no plan whatsoever to achieve it other than meekly asking the UK government for something it’s rejected three times already, continues to flatly reject at every opportunity, and which it has a clear and proper electoral mandate – and a 500+ Parliamentary majority – to reject.
All an SNP majority under this leadership will achieve is five more wretched years of indignant, hollow posturing, like all the times Ian Blackford stood up in the Commons and proclaimed that Scotland would not be dragged out of the EU against its will, right up to the day when Scotland was dragged out of the EU against its will and all the SNP had to offer by way of a response was “Right, we’re going to jolly well ask for a Section 30 again, in a year and a half’s time, if we win the election”.
We are told with monotonous regularity that attacking the SNP at this point is stupid, because they are the only party that can secure independence and any alternative would take many years to build. The latter part of that is unquestionably true. This site does not dispute that the SNP is the only current plausible vehicle to independence.
But if you’re in a vehicle with a burst tyre and smoke pouring out of the engine whose driver is going the wrong way and refuses to listen, you don’t have to smash up the car and start walking, and nor do you just have to shrug and go “Well, this is the only car we’ve got so I guess we’re just stuck”. You change the driver, you change the tyre, you fix the engine and you get back in and turn it round, even if that takes some hard work and you’d rather not be doing it because it’s cold and raining.
It’s at this point that the other tedious mantra of the loyal Sturgeonettes usually raises its head. “But what would YOU do, then, clever-clogs?”, cry people who haven’t been listening for the past three years every time we’ve patiently explained it.
So one more time for the slow kids at the back, here it is. (Note that this plan excludes things which should have been done but are no longer possible, such as exploiting the SNP’s rare arithmetical leverage at Westminster from June 2017 to December 2019.)
(1) The first, most absolutely basic necessity is to finally definitively establish whether Holyrood in fact already possesses the legal power to hold an independence referendum, something this site has been explicitly calling for for years and which would and should have been concluded long before now.
This is still very much an unresolved matter in law, and the Scottish Government should have been pursuing it since the day after the EU referendum in 2016. Not only has it NOT done so, in a massive dereliction of duty, but it has attacked and actively obstructed the efforts of others to do so.
The attempts by Martin Keatings to bring the case to court have sucked hundreds of thousands of pounds from grassroots Yes supporters’ pockets that could and should quite properly have been spent by the Scottish Government in legitimate pursuit of its clear manifesto mandate from the 2016 election, backed not once but twice by votes of the Scottish Parliament.
(And would have been peanuts in governmental-expenditure terms.)
Instead it has wasted a pile of money on hiring lawyers to oppose Keatings for several months before shambolically withdrawing from the case, exactly as it did in the judicial inquiry over the Alex Salmond allegations, having first pointlessly blown well over half a million pounds on it. (And in reality twice that.)
A newly-led SNP should offer to take over this case from Keatings and devote all necessary resources to it.
(2) There are three possible outcomes of such a case. Firstly, we could win and hold a referendum any time and as often as we liked. Secondly, we could win and the UK government could immediately cheat by amending the Scotland Act to overturn the court’s decision, rather like it did with the Brexit continuity bill. And thirdly, of course, we could lose.
Not one of those outcomes leaves us any worse off than we are now, so there’s nothing to fear. The first would be revolutionary but the third, and especially the second, while legally useless would be politically powerful in demonstrating that Scotland was effectively being held prisoner in clear contravention of Article 1 of the UN Charter and entitled to take other steps to secure its lawful rights.
(3) The nature of those other steps would have to be determined at the time and dependent on the prevailing circumstances, but could include the dissolution of Holyrood (theoretically prohibited but de facto possible in the event of a pro-indy majority existing) and the immediate conducting of a plebiscitary election, and/or the route outlined in compellingly-argued detail by Craig Murray in January.
Everyone would prefer a nice consensual road to independence, but in the face of complete intransigence from the UK government the only options are to fight by all peaceful democratic means possible or to just meekly give up forever.
For as long as the SNP backs down from that fight, abrogates its duty and insists that a referendum can only happen with Westminster’s approval, there is no downside for the UK government in simply refusing indefinitely. And the current SNP leadership has made it abundantly plain time and time again that it will only act with Westminster’s permission, knowing with absolute certainty that it will be withheld.
Having finally grudgingly allowed at least a debate on a Plan B at next month’s party pseudo-conference, it’ll be extremely interesting to see what position the leadership takes on it, whether it passes, and what happens if it does. We will be amazed if they back the motion – athough we can think of no possible justification for them not to – and therefore astonished if it passed. The signals from the party canaries so far have been very clear about which way they’ll go.
If it doesn’t, every last sliver of doubt will have been removed and it will be unarguable that the current leadership has no meaningful intention of delivering independence. This site lost all that doubt some time ago, but perhaps this is one of those very rare occasions when we’ll have been wrong about something.
Unless it is, we’re afraid that if you haven’t been enjoying the last few weeks and months, it’s not going to get better any time soon. Wings Over Scotland fought for independence when it was easy and fun to do so, and we’ll keep doing it when it’s ugly and grim, until such times as there’s no hope left.
We don’t think that will be the outcome. It’s our belief that the leadership cannot and will not survive until next May, and every day they cling desperately on to power and money just damages the Yes movement a little bit more. It’s also our belief that they know that. We will fight with every fibre of our being to stop them, whatever it costs. Scotland deserves better.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-29--A government in hiding

A government in hiding

Here ’ s one more for the list .
The comments from committee convener and SNP MP Linda Fabiani ( we guess she must be another of those MI5 plants/secret Unionists ) are really quite extraordinary .
In terms of Parliamentary language they ’ re only a hair ’ s-breadth short of an invitation to step outside and settle things with an old-school dust-up in the car park .
“ The Committee continues to be completely frustrated with the lack of evidence and , quite frankly , obstruction it is experiencing .
We had hoped to be in a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with responses still outstanding from the Scottish Government , Chief Executive of the SNP and the former First Minister , all of this means that we simply can not proceed at this stage .
We have no choice but to meet in private again next week to review the evidence we have received to date.
” A public inquiry which the First Minister unequivocally promised to “ co-operate fully ” with , and assured its members that they “ will be able to request whatever material they want , and I undertake today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request ” , has now been reduced to sitting around in private twiddling its thumbs and re-reading old submissions because the Scottish Government has treated it with complete contempt , endlessly refused to produce requested documentation , refused to submit statements , refused to appear in person , and attempted to submit illegal files instead .
And it ’ s not a one-off .
Stonewalling is now the Scottish Government ’ s modus operandi .
Any remotely awkward question is met with total silence , not even a “ no comment ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve asked questions on a range of subjects , including the mysterious “ ring-fenced ” indy fundraiser money , and they tell us that without fail they simply vanish into the ether with no reply , not even a denial .
And we know from our own experiences that Freedom Of Information requests meet a similar fate .
It ’ s no different for SNP members , or even elected representatives – we know they can ’ t get any answers either .
Our inbox has been filling up in recent days with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised issues with the leadership and the NEC and been completely blanked .
It seems incredible that the SNP would think it could simply “ LA LA LA LA LA WE ’ RE NOT LISTENING ” its way to next May ’ s general election , but it very much seems to be the strategy it ’ s attempting as it tries to evade scrutiny on an ever-growing catalogue of failure and chicanery .
Only time will tell if it succeeds .

Here’s one more for the list.
The comments from committee convener and SNP MP Linda Fabiani (we guess she must be another of those MI5 plants/secret Unionists) are really quite extraordinary. In terms of Parliamentary language they’re only a hair’s-breadth short of an invitation to step outside and settle things with an old-school dust-up in the car park.
(The emphases below are ours.)
“The Committee continues to be completely frustrated with the lack of evidence and, quite frankly, obstruction it is experiencing. We had hoped to be in a position to hear further oral evidence, but with responses still outstanding from the Scottish Government, Chief Executive of the SNP and the former First Minister, all of this means that we simply cannot proceed at this stage. We have no choice but to meet in private again next week to review the evidence we have received to date.”
A public inquiry which the First Minister unequivocally promised to “co-operate fully” with, and assured its members that they “will be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material they request”, has now been reduced to sitting around in private twiddling its thumbs and re-reading old submissions because the Scottish Government has treated it with complete contempt, endlessly refused to produce requested documentation, refused to submit statements, refused to appear in person, and attempted to submit illegal files instead.
And it’s not a one-off. Stonewalling is now the Scottish Government’s modus operandi.
Any remotely awkward question is met with total silence, not even a “no comment”. We know of several journalists who’ve asked questions on a range of subjects, including the mysterious “ring-fenced” indy fundraiser money, and they tell us that without fail they simply vanish into the ether with no reply, not even a denial. And we know from our own experiences that Freedom Of Information requests meet a similar fate.
(It’s very telling that one of the Scottish Government’s first reactions to the COVID-19 crisis was to try to massively extend the time limit for FOI responses from 20 working days to 60, which seems pointless since the responses almost never actually answer the questions anyway.)
It’s no different for SNP members, or even elected representatives – we know they can’t get any answers either. Our inbox has been filling up in recent days with tales from party members who’ve raised issues with the leadership and the NEC and been completely blanked.
It seems incredible that the SNP would think it could simply “LA LA LA LA LA WE’RE NOT LISTENING” its way to next May’s general election, but it very much seems to be the strategy it’s attempting as it tries to evade scrutiny on an ever-growing catalogue of failure and chicanery. Only time will tell if it succeeds.


The Run-Aways

Incredible , really .
Just one day after we accuse the SNP of trying to dodge its problems by hiding @ @ @ @ @ who brings them up , this happens : Plenty of SNP members , including the @ @ @ @ @ And Industry spokesman , know this approach is untenable .
It really is time the @ @ @ @ @ .
A party that scurries away bleating in terror every time it ’ s threatened @ @ @ @ @ plainly not capable of winning the hard fight for independence .

Incredible, really. Just one day after we accuse the SNP of trying to dodge its problems by hiding from them and censoring anyone who brings them up, this happens:
Plenty of SNP members, including the party’s former Trade And Industry spokesman, know this approach is untenable. It really is time the SNP started listening to them. A party that scurries away bleating in terror every time it’s threatened with the slightest scrutiny is plainly not capable of winning the hard fight for independence.