wingsoverscotland--2020-10-28--The whole rotten structure

The whole rotten structure

It was my birthday yesterday , readers .
( Late presents still accepted .
The cheapest one is fine . )
I got taken out to lunch and there was someone ’ s new kitten to play with , but mostly what flooded in wasn ’ t birthday cards but new scandal about the SNP .
It ’ s hard to know where to even start tackling the avalanche of new information .
There were extraordinary revelations from the Salmond inquiry .
There were other shocking revelations about the investigation .
There was Alex Salmond ’ s request for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine whether she lied to Parliament ( which it should have been doing in the first place ) .
We ’ ll get to all that stuff in due course .
But because there ’ s nothing like a good delve through some data , we ’ ll kick off with the SNP accounts .
Last night we broke the story that what Wings has been telling you since January was ( as should go without saying , quite frankly ) the truth , despite all of the SNP ’ s indignant denials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ring-fenced ” money raised in two crowdfunders for a second independence referendum campaign , which the SNP swore blind it wouldn ’ t spend on anything else , has been spent on something else .
Since we ran that piece we ’ ve been contacted by SNP insiders with more information about the fundraiser money .
Contrary to previous higher estimates , it ’ s now believed that the second one , launched in April 2019 with the stated intent of producing a book to be called “ An Independent Scotland : Household @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every home in Scotland , only raised about £100,000 .
The guide , of course , was never produced and as far as we ’ re aware was never even written .
( The Wee Blue Book , incidentally , was written by one person in a week in his spare time while still editing a website . )
The fundraiser page is still live and accepting donations , but all mention of the book has been removed and replaced with a general funding appeal branded as Yes Scotland but actually going directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News reported in June 2017 that shortly before being closed down , the first fundraiser had also had its text changed , to say “ Your contribution will greatly benefit the ELECTION campaign ” , one day AFTER the SNP had furiously denied that it would be used for that purpose .
Alarmingly , our extremely well-placed and reliable sources in the party told us that when questioned about the “ ring-fenced ” money , Colin Beattie – the SNP ’ s National Treasurer – had given them two completely different stories in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told members that the money was in the party accounts , just not specifically identified as such ( as you ’ ll see in the NEC minutes a few paragraphs below this one ) .
But this year the line from Beattie is apparently that it ’ s NOT in the accounts , and is kept separately in “ a ledger ” at party HQ .
The latter version would , of course , be completely illegal .
A political party simply can ’ t solicit hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a slush fund .
There are laws about that sort of thing .
So we ’ re keen to hear the party ’ s official explanation for where the “ ring-fenced ” money has gone , which we ’ re sure will be coming along at any moment .
While we wait , let ’ s have a look at some other pages from the accounts .
To the best of our knowledge this is the first time the SNP has released a supposedly official membership figure in a couple of years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit off , because membership income has dropped by nearly 20 % since the 2015 accounts ( from £2.74m to £2.25m ) yet the party is claiming to have 20,000 more members than it did in April of that year .
But in fact the accounts themselves tell us that the 126,000 figure is a complete lie .
Because on page 22 you find this : The footnotes explain what a branch levy is .
The SNP made two branch levies in 2019 – one for the unsuccessful Shetland byelection and one for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in itself , because the EU election was by no means an “ unplanned electoral event ” ) .
In each case the amount levied was £1 per member .
We know this because we have a copy of the minutes from an NEC meeting in summer 2019 .
( The word “ homologated ” just means “ approved ” .
Note also the answer about the ring-fenced funds . )
Those two levies at ( 3 ) and ( 6 ) are separate items – one is for the EU election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on branches , not individual members , so people can ’ t just decline them .
If a branch doesn ’ t voluntarily cough up its £1 per member , party HQ can simply take the money out of its account directly .
It doesn ’ t take a maths professor to calculate that if two levies of £1 per member have raised a total of £174,000 then the total number of members must be 87,000 rather than 126,000 .
Page 25 also contains an interesting titbit .
The party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from £38,000 to £156,000 .
No breakdown of that figure is given , but according to our insiders Colin Beattie has explained the huge leap as mainly due to the defamation case triggered by then-MEP , now MP Alyn Smith ’ s erroneous allegations against the Brexit Party .
The hefty bill for that foolish mistake , which Smith initially doubled down on , was seemingly footed by the SNP , not Smith himself .
There was also a failed court case against ITV over the SNP ’ s inclusion in election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Joanna Cherry against the UK government over its attempted prorogation of Parliament was crowdfunded . )
This site , of course , knows only too well how insanely expensive defamation cases tend to be .
But Wings asked its readers every step of the way whether they wanted their money spent on pursuing Kezia Dugdale over her false smears against us .
SNP members were given no such choices .
The last interesting bit of detail in the accounts is the matter of staff costs .
The cost of staffing party HQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a startling £140,000 last year , despite only one additional employee appearing on the books .
The SNP is infamously opaque regarding the arrangements of its top executives , particularly Peter Murrell , the CEO who ’ s also the husband of leader Nicola Sturgeon .
But we can make a few reasonable assumptions .
Former Yes Scotland staffer Alison Balharry today tweeted the names and positions of current SNP HQ staff .
Here ’ s the full list .
The leader isn ’ t paid a wage by the party , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( who like Sturgeon is an MSP and would have to declare it ) , so that leaves us with 20 people , of whom the big tickets are Murrell , Ruddick , McCann , Martin and Geddes .
If we take a ballpark figure of £30,000 each for the others , that comes to £450,000 out of the total of £874,000 .
The top five would then be splitting the other £424,000 between them , with Murrell obviously getting the biggest slice .
People can only speculate on the exact division for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no way of plausibly coming to any permutation that puts Murrell on less than £100,000 .
Alert readers who joined us for the “ ring-fenced ” money story may have noted the name of Jim Henderson in that list as “ fundraiser ” .
And as it happened that was the second time we ’ d heard his name today .
Because a reader who donated to the first fundraiser in 2017 happened to email us this morning , telling us how they ’ d queried the fact that their donation was going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a separate indyref fund as suggested .
And sent this reply : Jim Henderson wrote back assuring them that their money would indeed be used “ in the referendum campaign ” .
A few months later the reader received more fundraising emails from the SNP , which they ’ re not a member of and should not have been subject to solicitation from .
They wrote back asking for such communications to stop , and asking for reassurance that their donation was in no way to be used as “ general SNP funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reply .
And there has been no referendum campaign .
But the money is gone .
Today ’ s Times contains an extraordinary column from Kenny Farquharson , in a full-blown panic at the thought of Nicola Sturgeon being deposed as leader of the SNP .
By this point even the most dedicated of party diehards might be beginning to wonder why the Unionist establishment is so desperate to keep her in place .
EDIT 1.30pm : The SNP has issued a very aggressively-worded email insisting that all the ring-fenced money – supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] earmarked for the referendum and [ is ] ready to be fully deployed at a moment ’ s notice ” .
Curiously , it neglects to offer ANY sort of explanation as to where it might be identified in the formal accounts of an organisation whose total net assets are less than half of that figure .
It gives the cash a grand title : “ The Referendum Appeal Fund ” , with capital letters and everything .
So given that they know exactly how much it is down to the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a line in the accounts ?
Colour us unconvinced .
However , we attach the full email below for the record .
We note that the National Treasurer says at the end “ if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me ” .
Readers may wish to take up that invitation .

It was my birthday yesterday, readers. (Late presents still accepted. The cheapest one is fine.) I got taken out to lunch and there was someone’s new kitten to play with, but mostly what flooded in wasn’t birthday cards but new scandal about the SNP.
It’s hard to know where to even start tackling the avalanche of new information. There were extraordinary revelations from the Salmond inquiry. There were other shocking revelations about the investigation. There was Alex Salmond’s request for the separate independent inquiry into Nicola Sturgeon to determine whether she lied to Parliament (which it should have been doing in the first place).
We’ll get to all that stuff in due course. But because there’s nothing like a good delve through some data, we’ll kick off with the SNP accounts.
Last night we broke the story that what Wings has been telling you since January was (as should go without saying, quite frankly) the truth, despite all of the SNP’s indignant denials – that almost all of the “ring-fenced” money raised in two crowdfunders for a second independence referendum campaign, which the SNP swore blind it wouldn’t spend on anything else, has been spent on something else.
Since we ran that piece we’ve been contacted by SNP insiders with more information about the fundraiser money. Contrary to previous higher estimates, it’s now believed that the second one, launched in April 2019 with the stated intent of producing a book to be called “An Independent Scotland: Household Guide” and sending a copy to every home in Scotland, only raised about £100,000.
(Unlike the 2017 fundraiser, which had a live public running total until it was suddenly closed at £482,000 in June of that year, the 2019 figure was never revealed.)
The guide, of course, was never produced and as far as we’re aware was never even written. (The Wee Blue Book, incidentally, was written by one person in a week in his spare time while still editing a website.) The fundraiser page is still live and accepting donations, but all mention of the book has been removed and replaced with a general funding appeal branded as Yes Scotland but actually going directly to the SNP.
Interestingly, STV News reported in June 2017 that shortly before being closed down, the first fundraiser had also had its text changed, to say “Your contribution will greatly benefit the ELECTION campaign”, one day AFTER the SNP had furiously denied that it would be used for that purpose.
Alarmingly, our extremely well-placed and reliable sources in the party told us that when questioned about the “ring-fenced” money, Colin Beattie – the SNP’s National Treasurer – had given them two completely different stories in 2019 and 2020. Last year he told members that the money was “sitting in party books”, just not specifically identified as such (as you’ll see in the NEC minutes a few paragraphs below this one).
But this year the line from Beattie is apparently that it’s NOT in the accounts, and is kept separately in “a ledger” at party HQ.
The latter version would, of course, be completely illegal. A political party simply can’t solicit hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations and then hide it off the books in a slush fund. There are laws about that sort of thing.
So we’re keen to hear the party’s official explanation for where the “ring-fenced” money has gone, which we’re sure will be coming along at any moment. While we wait, let’s have a look at some other pages from the accounts.
To the best of our knowledge this is the first time the SNP has released a supposedly official membership figure in a couple of years. And it immediately smelled a wee bit off, because membership income has dropped by nearly 20% since the 2015 accounts (from £2.74m to £2.25m) yet the party is claiming to have 20,000 more members than it did in April of that year.
But in fact the accounts themselves tell us that the 126,000 figure is a complete lie. Because on page 22 you find this:
The footnotes explain what a branch levy is. The SNP made two branch levies in 2019 – one for the unsuccessful Shetland byelection and one for the EU election (which is weird in itself, because the EU election was by no means an “unplanned electoral event”). In each case the amount levied was £1 per member.
We know this because we have a copy of the minutes from an NEC meeting in summer 2019. (The word “homologated” just means “approved”. Note also the answer about the ring-fenced funds.)
Those two levies at (3) and (6) are separate items – one is for the EU election, one for Shetland. Levies are taken out on branches, not individual members, so people can’t just decline them. If a branch doesn’t voluntarily cough up its £1 per member, party HQ can simply take the money out of its account directly.
It doesn’t take a maths professor to calculate that if two levies of £1 per member have raised a total of £174,000 then the total number of members must be 87,000 rather than 126,000.
(Well, unless someone has helped themselves to the missing £78,000.)
Page 25 also contains an interesting titbit.
The party’s legal costs almost exactly quadrupled in 2019, from £38,000 to £156,000. No breakdown of that figure is given, but according to our insiders Colin Beattie has explained the huge leap as mainly due to the defamation case triggered by then-MEP, now MP Alyn Smith’s erroneous allegations against the Brexit Party. The hefty bill for that foolish mistake, which Smith initially doubled down on, was seemingly footed by the SNP, not Smith himself.
There was also a failed court case against ITV over the SNP’s inclusion in election debates. (The court case fronted by Joanna Cherry against the UK government over its attempted prorogation of Parliament was crowdfunded.)
This site, of course, knows only too well how insanely expensive defamation cases tend to be. But Wings asked its readers every step of the way whether they wanted their money spent on pursuing Kezia Dugdale over her false smears against us. SNP members were given no such choices.
The last interesting bit of detail in the accounts is the matter of staff costs.
The cost of staffing party HQ, including pension contributions, leapt by a startling £140,000 last year, despite only one additional employee appearing on the books. The SNP is infamously opaque regarding the financial arrangements of its top executives, particularly Peter Murrell, the CEO who’s also the husband of leader Nicola Sturgeon. But we can make a few reasonable assumptions.
Former Yes Scotland staffer Alison Balharry today tweeted the names and positions of current SNP HQ staff. Here’s the full list.
LEADER: Nicola Sturgeon
CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Peter Murrell
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER: Sue Ruddick
GOVERNANCE AND COMPLIANCE: Ian McCann
SOLICITOR: Scott Martin
TREASURER: Colin Beattie
FUNDRAISER: Jim Henderson
ACCOUNTS: Claire Bennett
EVENTS: Gillian Slider, Heather Wolfe
LEADER SUPPORT: Ria Robertson
MARKETING: Jessica Mennie
CAMPAIGNS: Lorraine Reid
DIGITAL: Ross Colquhoun, Leo Condie, Andrew Barr
COMMUNICATIONS: Erik Geddes, Louise Donegan
POLICY: Jenny Gollan, Richy Edwards
IT: Chris Jones, David Donachie
The leader isn’t paid a wage by the party, and we gather that neither is Colin Beattie (who like Sturgeon is an MSP and would have to declare it), so that leaves us with just 20 people, of whom the big tickets are Murrell, Ruddick, McCann, Martin and Geddes. If we take a ballpark figure of £30,000 each for the others, that comes to £450,000 out of the total of £874,000.
The top five would then be splitting the other £424,000 between them, with Murrell obviously getting the biggest slice. People can only speculate on the exact division for themselves, but there’s basically no way of plausibly coming to any permutation that puts Murrell on less than £100,000.
Alert readers who joined us for the “ring-fenced” money story may have noted the name of Jim Henderson in that list as “fundraiser”. And as it happened that was the second time we’d heard his name today.
Because a reader who donated to the first fundraiser in 2017 happened to email us this morning, telling us how they’d queried the fact that their donation was going to the SNP, rather than to a separate indyref fund as suggested.
They’d received this acknowledgement of the donation:
And sent this reply:
Jim Henderson wrote back assuring them that their money would indeed be used “in the referendum campaign”.
A few months later the reader received more fundraising emails from the SNP, which they’re not a member of and should not have been subject to solicitation from. They wrote back asking for such communications to stop, and asking for reassurance that their donation was in no way to be used as “general SNP funding”.
This time there was no reply. And there has been no referendum campaign. But the money is gone.
Today’s Times contains an extraordinary column from Kenny Farquharson, in a full-blown panic at the thought of Nicola Sturgeon being deposed as leader of the SNP.
By this point even the most dedicated of party diehards might be beginning to wonder why the Unionist establishment is so desperate to keep her in place.
.
EDIT 1.30pm: The SNP has issued a very aggressively-worded email insisting that all the ring-fenced money – supposedly totalling £593,501 – “remain[s] earmarked for the referendum and [is] ready to be fully deployed at a moment’s notice”.
Curiously, it neglects to offer ANY sort of explanation as to where it might be identified in the formal accounts of an organisation whose total net assets are less than half of that figure. It gives the cash a grand title: “The Referendum Appeal Fund”, with capital letters and everything. So given that they know exactly how much it is down to the last pound, why not just have that as a line in the accounts? Colour us unconvinced.
(The line about the donations being “woven through” the accounts is purest cobblers. They all came from the same place and they’re all the same category of thing. None of them are supposed to be spent on party stuff. So why and how would they ever come to be scattered randomly around different bits of the figures?)
However, we attach the full email below for the record.
We note that the National Treasurer says at the end “if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me”. Readers may wish to take up that invitation.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-28--Quick Questions For Colin

Quick Questions For Colin

I note that today you ’ ve sent an email to SNP members on the contentious topic of the party ’ s supposedly “ ring-fenced ” referendum campaign fund , which we ’ ve learned for the first time today has a grand official name – the Referendum Appeal Fund ( which from here on we ’ ll call the RAF for short ) .
The email also contains some rather offensive implied smears about my website and myself , but I ’ m quite used to being abused on the internet so I ’ ll let that slide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of Scottish independence , rather than getting involved in a tit-for-tat slanging match I thought I ’ d try to reach a constructive consensus .
I notice that in your email you invite people who have “ any questions ” on the subject to contact you without hesitation , and while I ’ m not a member of the party I believe I do speak for a considerable number of people who are , so it would likely also save you a lot of tedious copy-and-pasting if you replied publicly to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a simple one , and if the proposal it contains is adopted it would render all the others moot and draw the matter to an immediate and highly satisfactory conclusion , so I hope this will only take a minute .
( 1 ) The SNP currently owns the old Yes Scotland brand , website and company , which is still live .
It appears to be controlled by the party solicitor Scott Martin .
To avoid any future confusion , why doesn ’ t the SNP simply transfer the entire RAF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and divert any future donations through the yes.scot website to the company ’ s account rather than the SNP ’ s ?
This would provide a visible separation between referendum funds and SNP political funds .
Anyone whose primary interest was independence could donate money to Yes Scotland through the yes.scot site for that purpose , while anyone chiefly motivated by Queer Theory , thoughtcrime , stopping people from getting two-for-one pizzas and imprisoning former First Ministers for crimes they didn ’ t commit could donate to the SNP through its own existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be no reason for any noticeable admin costs – Yes Scotland would have only one source of income ( donations ) , no outgoings ( until such times as the imminent second referendum , naturally ) , and Mr Martin ’ s only task would be to file a simple short statement of its account balance every year , which he has to do now anyway .
It seems an obvious , elegant and complete solution .
Should the above proposal be inexplicably rejected , the following questions arise : ( 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and available for use “ at a moment ’ s notice ” , why does the SNP not simply denote it as such in the accounts and avoid all this confusion and bad feeling , as suggested today by senior SNP councillor Chris McEleny ?
( 3 ) Why , for that matter , does it not publish it as a live running total on the yes.scot site , as it did with the 2017 ref.scot fundraiser ?
Is there a reason it should be secret ?
Surely it would boost the morale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond any doubt that it had a healthy fighting fund ready for instant deployment .
( 4 ) How did the money in the RAF come to be “ woven through ” the accounts in various unexplained places , given that it all comes from only two sources – the 2017 ref.scot fundraiser and the 2019-present day yes.scot one – and the SNP apparently knows to the exact pound how much is in it ?
Why would all of those funds not be recorded under the same category ?
( 5 ) The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations would be used to produce a book called “ An Independent Scotland : Household Guide ” , to be distributed to every household in Scotland .
It now contains simply a generic statement that donations will be used to fund “ Yes campaigners ” with “ materials ” .
Are all donations through yes.scot still being directed to the RAF ?
If so , which area of the SNP ’ s accounts would they be included under ?
Donations ?
Prepayments ?
Some other ?
If they ’ re NOT being directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did this change ?
( 6 ) What was the balance of the RAF on 31 December 2017 , 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2019 ?
( 7 ) The SNP ’ s total net current assets according to the 2019 accounts are just under £272,000 .
How then can the party claim to have a fund of almost £600,000 available to spend “ at a moment ’ s notice ” ?
Is it being held “ off the books ” in some way ?
( 8 ) And finally , given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money as far back as January , why has the SNP taken so long to issue even this rather weak attempt at an explanation , allowing the matter to fester damagingly for months ?
I look forward to your response .

TO: Colin Beattie MSP, National Treasurer, SNP
DATE: 28 October 2020
Dear Colin,
I note that today you’ve sent an email to SNP members on the contentious topic of the party’s supposedly “ring-fenced” referendum campaign fund, which we’ve learned for the first time today has a grand official name – the Referendum Appeal Fund (which from here on we’ll call the RAF for short).
The email also contains some rather offensive implied smears about my website and myself, but I’m quite used to being abused on the internet so I’ll let that slide. As we’re both on the side of Scottish independence, rather than getting involved in a tit-for-tat slanging match I thought I’d try to reach a constructive consensus.
I notice that in your email you invite people who have “any questions” on the subject to contact you without hesitation, and while I’m not a member of the party I believe I do speak for a considerable number of people who are, so it would likely also save you a lot of tedious copy-and-pasting if you replied publicly to me as their representative.
(And because, y’know, if you don’t then you’ll probably get about a thousand individual emails from members containing the text below anyway, which doesn’t seem like a productive use of anyone’s time.)
My first question is a simple one, and if the proposal it contains is adopted it would render all the others moot and draw the matter to an immediate and highly satisfactory conclusion, so I hope this will only take a minute.
——————————–
(1) The SNP currently owns the old Yes Scotland brand, website and company, which is still live. It appears to be controlled by the party solicitor Scott Martin.
To avoid any future confusion, why doesn’t the SNP simply transfer the entire RAF to the account of Yes Scotland, and divert any future donations through the yes.scot website to the company’s account rather than the SNP’s?
This would provide a visible separation between referendum funds and SNP political funds. Anyone whose primary interest was independence could donate money to Yes Scotland through the yes.scot site for that purpose, while anyone chiefly motivated by Queer Theory, thoughtcrime, stopping people from getting two-for-one pizzas and imprisoning former First Ministers for crimes they didn’t commit could donate to the SNP through its own existing donations page, located here.
There would be no reason for any noticeable admin costs – Yes Scotland would have only one source of income (donations), no outgoings (until such times as the imminent second referendum, naturally), and Mr Martin’s only task would be to file a simple short statement of its account balance every year, which he has to do now anyway. It seems an obvious, elegant and complete solution.
——————————–
Should the above proposal be inexplicably rejected, the following questions arise:
(2) If the RAF is indeed ring-fenced and available for use “at a moment’s notice”, why does the SNP not simply denote it as such in the accounts and avoid all this confusion and bad feeling, as suggested today by senior SNP councillor Chris McEleny?
(3) Why, for that matter, does it not publish it as a live running total on the yes.scot site, as it did with the 2017 ref.scot fundraiser? Is there a reason it should be secret? Surely it would boost the morale of the entire Yes movement to know beyond any doubt that it had a healthy fighting fund ready for instant deployment.
(4) How did the money in the RAF come to be “woven through” the accounts in various unexplained places, given that it all comes from only two sources – the 2017 ref.scot fundraiser and the 2019-present day yes.scot one – and the SNP apparently knows to the exact pound how much is in it? Why would all of those funds not be recorded under the same category?
(5) The yes.scot website used to state that all donations would be used to produce a book called “An Independent Scotland: Household Guide”, to be distributed to every household in Scotland. It now contains simply a generic statement that donations will be used to provide “Yes campaigners” with “materials”.
Are all donations through yes.scot still being directed to the RAF? If so, which area of the SNP’s accounts would they be included under? Donations? Prepayments? Some other? If they’re NOT being directed to the RAF, on what date did this change?
(6) What was the balance of the RAF on 31 December 2017, 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2019?
(7) The SNP’s total net current assets according to the 2019 accounts are just under £272,000. How then can the party claim to have a fund of almost £600,000 available to spend “at a moment’s notice”? Is it being held “off the books” in some way?
(8) And finally, given that questions were being asked about this money as far back as January, why has the SNP taken so long to issue even this rather weak attempt at an explanation, allowing the matter to fester damagingly for months?
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Stuart Campbell
Editor
Wings Over Scotland


The Sitter

It ’ s important not to understate the magnitude of the chance we ’ re missing .
Because the SNP ’ s abandonment of any hope of Scottish independence until at least 2031 – because make no mistake , that ’ s what happened today at the hands of an anonymous party committee – is all the more criminal when you realise how close to our fingertips the prize is .
A new poll today gave independence another firm lead – 56 % to 44 % – but we ’ ve had a dozen of those now .
That wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it , which is found when you drill down below the headline .
The poll included two levels for agreement and disagreement , but more unusually also two meaningfully-identical “ Don ’ t Know ” options – an actual “ don ’ t know ” but also “ neither agree nor disagree ” for no obvious reason .
The final result in a vote very rarely differs noticeably from the polling with DKs removed , so let ’ s see what we ’ ve got .
One of the most striking findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chart .
“ Scotland ’ s economy would be stronger as an independent country ” This is huge , and really can ’ t be exaggerated .
Traditionally this has always been one of the weakest areas for Yes , and to not just be in the lead but in the lead by a convincing 3:2 margin is absolutely massive .
The Unionist press has been especially dishonest on this point in the wake of Brexit , pretending that independence would be an EXTRA layer of difficulty on top of independence , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for several years now – the exact opposite is true .
There would undoubtedly be a downside in terms of trade with England , but it would be more – much more – than offset by the benefits of being back in Europe , and on the side with all the cards in the EU/rUK relationship .
Brexit will be disastrous for Scotland , and independence is the only cure .
There are also vast majorities for topical issues like the Prime Ministership of Boris Johnson , the Tory rule of the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those are temporary and no good for relying on – Johnson could be deposed , Labour could win an election or a vaccine for the virus could be found – so let ’ s pass over them .
Because the REALLY striking findings of the poll , and the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that the SNP ’ s timid/cynical uselessness is set to squander , are in questions 3 and 5 , which are basically the same question .
“ Arguments about independence dominate everything and becoming independent would allow Scotland to finally end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence is divisive and by becoming independent it would allow us to finally end the division and move on ” It ’ s what you might call the “ sod it ” vote .
People outside the political-activism bubble are sick to death of politics , and especially constitutional politics .
In Scotland they ’ ve had it rammed down their throats for the last 13 years , with no end in sight .
On the basis of polling , on the basis of topical opportunity , and on the basis of letting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of division and hatred and get on with their lives , it ’ s this site ’ s view that a plebiscitary election next May would beyond a reasonable doubt produce a clear and healthy majority for independence , in a manner which would be accepted by the international community .
If we let the whole grim mess drag out for another five years or more , people will just become resigned to it .
Brexit will become a day-to-day reality , the new normal , and the SNP ’ s grotesque hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rule – if Holyrood still exists at all .
It has to be 2021 or we ’ re screwed .
But the SNP are so determined to dither and delay until the moment passes that they won ’ t even let their own conference debate it .
Just like that Gary Naysmith cross into the box 12 years ago this month , it ’ s beyond any credible defence .
At least Chris Iwelumo took the shot .

It’s important not to understate the magnitude of the chance we’re missing.
Because the SNP’s abandonment of any hope of Scottish independence until at least 2031 – because make no mistake, that’s what happened today at the hands of an anonymous party committee – is all the more criminal when you realise how close to our fingertips the prize is.
(Refusing to consider Plan B means no chance of a viable democratic trigger until the 2026 election, and we already know the SNP think it’ll take another five years after a Yes vote to actually achieve independence. Today’s decision is SO bad that even Cosy Feet Pete Wishart thinks it’s a terrible idea.)
A new poll today gave independence another firm lead – 56% to 44% – but we’ve had a dozen of those now. That wasn’t nearly the most interesting thing about it, which is found when you drill down below the headline.
The poll included two levels for agreement and disagreement, but more unusually also two meaningfully-identical “Don’t Know” options – an actual “don’t know” but also “neither agree nor disagree” for no obvious reason. The final result in a vote very rarely differs noticeably from the polling with DKs removed, so let’s see what we’ve got.
One of the most striking findings is stuck second from bottom on that chart.
“Scotland’s economy would be stronger as an independent country”
AGREE: 45% (18% strongly, 27% normally)
DISAGREE: 29% (8% strongly, 21% normally)
(Excluding DKs: 61%–39%)
This is huge, and really can’t be exaggerated. Traditionally this has always been one of the weakest areas for Yes in polling, and to not just be in the lead but in the lead by a convincing 3:2 margin is absolutely massive.
The Unionist press has been especially dishonest on this point in the wake of Brexit, pretending that independence would be an EXTRA layer of difficulty on top of leaving the EU, when – as Wings has been pointing out for several years now – the exact opposite is true.
There would undoubtedly be a downside in terms of trade with England, but it would be more – much more – than offset by the benefits of being back in Europe, and on the side with all the cards in the EU/rUK relationship. Brexit will be disastrous for Scotland, and independence is the only cure.
There are also vast majorities for topical issues like the Prime Ministership of Boris Johnson, the Tory rule of the UK and the coronavirus. But while helpful, those are temporary and no good for relying on – Johnson could be deposed, Labour could win an election or a vaccine for the virus could be found – so let’s pass over them.
Because the REALLY striking findings of the poll, and the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that the SNP’s timid/cynical uselessness is set to squander, are in questions 3 and 5, which are basically the same question.
“Arguments about independence dominate everything and becoming independent would allow Scotland to finally end the debate”
AGREE: 65%
DISAGREE: 13%
(Excluding DKs: 83%–17%)
“The issue of independence is divisive and by becoming independent it would allow us to finally end the division and move on”
AGREE: 59%
DISAGREE: 18%
(Excluding DKs: 77%–23%)
It’s what you might call the “sod it” vote. People outside the political-activism bubble are sick to death of politics, and especially constitutional politics. In Scotland they’ve had it rammed down their throats for the last 13 years, with no end in sight.
On the basis of polling, on the basis of topical opportunity, and on the basis of letting people finally draw a line under years of division and hatred and get on with their lives, it’s this site’s view that a plebiscitary election next May would beyond a reasonable doubt produce a clear and healthy majority for independence, in a manner which would be accepted by the international community.
If we let the whole grim mess drag out for another five years or more, people will just become resigned to it. Brexit will become a day-to-day reality, the new normal, and the SNP’s grotesque hate crime bill will crush any dissent against their rule – if Holyrood still exists at all. It has to be 2021 or we’re screwed.
But the SNP are so determined to dither and delay until the moment passes that they won’t even let their own conference debate it. Just like that Gary Naysmith cross into the box 12 years ago this month, it’s beyond any credible defence.
At least Chris Iwelumo took the shot.


No Fun

The SNP ’ s message to you : What they mean : And our message to the current leader of @ @ @ @ @ There ’ ll Always Be An England ” , ironically enough .

The SNP’s message to you:
What they mean:
And our message to the current leader of the SNP:
From “There’ll Always Be An England”, ironically enough.


Tiers against fears

`` 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)


Light and shade


wingsoverscotland--2020-11-03--The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea

The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea

When we first saw this video on Twitter through bleary half-asleep eyes this morning , we thought it was a well-done satire .
But no .
He actually put it out himself .
There can surely in history have never been anything that demeaned both the office of President and the USA as a nation more than the image halfway through that video of him prancing around in front of Air Force One .
Today America decides its future .
And dear lord , what a choice it has .
Joe Biden ( 77 ) is a weak , senile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s totally in thrall to the transactivist agenda , and has said that if elected he ’ ll pass an “ equality ” act within his first 100 days that will essentially end all women ’ s rights as a sex class as well as demolishing the freedom-of-belief protections that have been in the US Constitution since it was written , along with the entire concept of empirical science .
But the only alternative available is Donald Trump ( 74 ) , whose presidency has been simply a different form of reality denial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has openly encouraged violent racist militia while trampling over just about everything else in the Constitution .
The most positive thing we can think of to say about him is that to a great many people ’ s considerable surprise , his first four years as the chief resident of the White House didn ’ t actually result in a nuclear war .
Imagine , then , the dilemma of a sane woman living in the US today and being asked to vote for one of those two options .
Last December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for either of the only two candidates who could win in Bath , because one of them was a brainless militant transactivist and the other was a Tory .
The only thing my conscience would let me do was this : If a significant proportion of left-leaning women in America can ’ t , when push comes to shove , bring themselves to go out and vote away all their rights today – and voting has been made so absurdly hard that there ’ s actually a noticeable barrier to doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confounded just like in 2016 and Trump will win again .
We know that that sort of thing can happen .
In 2017 almost a third of the SNP ’ s voters , unimpressed with the party ’ s manifesto , simply didn ’ t bother to turn out – its vote share dropped from 50 % to 37 % and the party shed 40 % of its MPs .
Last year , when faced with the choice between a Tory government of demonstrable and spectacular incompetence , obviously hell-bent on a disastrous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party being torn asunder on multiple fronts by idiotic , self-indulgent , factional identity politics , UK voters gave Boris Johnson a hefty five-year majority .
And it ’ s important to note that the Tory vote had barely moved – 13.97m compared to 13.63m at the previous election – but Labour shed more than two and a half million votes and collapsed from a wafer-thin two-point hung-parliament deficit in 2017 to one of the worst results in its history , winning seven fewer seats than in its historic 1979 defeat to Margaret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American women to “ wheesht for Biden ” and vote to sacrifice themselves by undoing centuries of progress in the name of stopping Trump for the good of everyone else .
It ’ s not our rights that are on the line .
To be honest , we ’ re not even sure that a Biden win would be better for the world as a whole – while what Trump has done has been uniformly awful , it ’ s at least been mainly domestic and had little measurable impact on the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uniquely , hasn ’ t gone to war with anyone the US wasn ’ t already at war with , while Barack Obama failed to close Guantanamo in eight years and sent drones to bomb most of the Middle East .
“ Liberals ” like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have been the main drivers of war in the past generation .
And most of Trump ’ s damage is also undoable by a future President .
The harm that Biden would do would – because of the nature of democratic politics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So we don ’ t envy our cousins across the water their situation .
They ’ re literally being asked to pick one of two evils – the destruction of women ’ s rights and material reality versus the destruction of decency and sanity , embodied in two old rich mad white men .
Trump is the more obviously personally despicable , but the only rational response to either of them winning today is horror .
And while Wings rarely comments on politics beyond the shores of the UK , it doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parallels coming our way all too soon .

When we first saw this video on Twitter through bleary half-asleep eyes this morning, we thought it was a well-done satire. But no. He actually put it out himself.
There can surely in history have never been anything that demeaned both the office of President and the USA as a nation more than the image halfway through that video of him prancing around in front of Air Force One.
Today America decides its future. And dear lord, what a choice it has.
Joe Biden (77) is a weak, senile, historically homophobic idiot. He’s totally in thrall to the transactivist agenda, and has said that if elected he’ll pass an “equality” act within his first 100 days that will essentially end all women’s rights as a sex class as well as demolishing the freedom-of-belief protections that have been in the US Constitution since it was written, along with the entire concept of empirical science.
(It’s almost his only concrete policy.)
But the only alternative available is Donald Trump (74), whose presidency has been simply a different form of reality denial. Trump is a borderline actual fascist who has openly encouraged violent racist militia while trampling over just about everything else in the Constitution. The most positive thing we can think of to say about him is that to a great many people’s considerable surprise, his first four years as the chief resident of the White House didn’t actually result in a nuclear war.
Imagine, then, the dilemma of a sane woman living in the US today and being asked to vote for one of those two options.
Last December I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either of the only two candidates who could win in Bath, because one of them was a brainless militant transactivist and the other was a Tory. The only thing my conscience would let me do was this:
If a significant proportion of left-leaning women in America can’t, when push comes to shove, bring themselves to go out and vote away all their rights today – and voting has been made so absurdly hard that there’s actually a noticeable barrier to doing so – then the opinion polls will be confounded just like in 2016 and Trump will win again.
(Or the result will be sufficiently close that Trump might do God knows what rather than concede defeat. Parts of the nation are already convulsed in violent turmoil in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, it really isn’t that big a leap to imagine a full-blown civil war, especially if encouraged and inflamed by the President.)
We know that that sort of thing can happen. In 2017 almost a third of the SNP’s voters, unimpressed with the party’s manifesto, simply didn’t bother to turn out – its vote share dropped from 50% to 37% and the party shed 40% of its MPs.
(And nobody saw it coming. As little as a week before the election the SNP had been polling at 43%. Just seven weeks before the vote it was on 47%.)
Last year, when faced with the choice between a Tory government of demonstrable and spectacular incompetence, obviously hell-bent on a disastrous no-deal Brexit, and a useless Labour party being torn asunder on multiple fronts by idiotic, self-indulgent, factional identity politics, UK voters gave Boris Johnson a hefty five-year majority.
And it’s important to note that the Tory vote had barely moved – 13.97m compared to 13.63m at the previous election – but Labour shed more than two and a half million votes and collapsed from a wafer-thin two-point hung-parliament deficit in 2017 to one of the worst results in its history, winning seven fewer seats than in its historic 1979 defeat to Margaret Thatcher.
This site cannot urge American women to “wheesht for Biden” and vote to sacrifice themselves by undoing centuries of progress in the name of stopping Trump for the good of everyone else. It’s not our rights that are on the line.
To be honest, we’re not even sure that a Biden win would be better for the world as a whole – while what Trump has done has been uniformly awful, it’s at least been mainly domestic and had little measurable impact on the world beyond US borders.
Trump, almost uniquely, hasn’t gone to war with anyone the US wasn’t already at war with, while Barack Obama failed to close Guantanamo in eight years and sent drones to bomb most of the Middle East. “Liberals” like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have been the main drivers of war in the past generation. And most of Trump’s damage is also undoable by a future President. The harm that Biden would do would – because of the nature of democratic politics and the media – be less reversible.
So we don’t envy our cousins across the water their situation. They’re literally being asked to pick one of two evils – the destruction of women’s rights and material reality versus the destruction of decency and sanity, embodied in two old rich mad white men. Trump is the more obviously personally despicable, but the only rational response to either of them winning today is horror.
And while Wings rarely comments on politics beyond the shores of the UK, it doesn’t take a genius to see the parallels coming our way all too soon.


wingsoverscotland--2020-11-05--Nine Times That Same Song

Nine Times That Same Song

Last year I was booed on the stage of the SNP ’ s annual conference for attempting to have a debate on how we can achieve independence in the face of Boris Johnson ’ s unswerving refusal to agree to a referendum .
I know that it still sticks in the craw of many that an SNP representative was booed at an SNP conference for wanting to discuss how Scotland will become independent ( the very idea ! )
, but it only made me even more determined to ensure that the democratic voice of Scotland is heard .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the destination , and more people are joining us , but how we get there is not set in stone .
In the runup to last year ’ s UK election , Angus MacNeil MP and I thought it gave us an opportunity to hold the UK government ’ s feet to the fire .
If we had a plan to grasp our independence , that we ’ d seek a mandate for at an election , perhaps the staunch opposition to an Edinburgh Agreement 2.0 would be diminished .
The leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t need a Plan B because Plan A was working , and that any opposition to a referendum would be unsustainable if the SNP won the general election .
We won a landslide victory at the election , getting over 80 % of Scottish MPs , and it turns out that Boris Johnson did manage to sustain saying “ No ” .
Ultimately , if all you have to do to stop Scotland voting for its independence is tell the people of Scotland that they are not allowed a choice on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather easy for a UK Prime Minister , because telling the people of Scotland what they can and can not do is a prerequisite of the job .
We can stand up in the House of Commons and call Boris Johnson a democracy denier .
But the thing about tinpot dictators is that even the most feckless Francos don ’ t suddenly change their mind just because we keep saying “ By gosh Prime Minister this just isn ’ t cricket ” .
If we always play Westminster ’ s game we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a consistent majority of Scots agree that decisions about the future of Scotland should be made in Scotland .
Right now , the next generation of weapons of mass destruction to occupy the Clyde are being designed .
Scotland stands on the cliff edge of a Tory no-deal Brexit .
And in Whitehall the next bedroom tax , the next rape clause and the next decade of austerity are being drawn up .
It won ’ t be the people of Scotland that get to decide the economic policies best placed to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be the policies of the UK government that are imposed on us as usual .
And we ’ ve now learned that when Scotland wanted the furlough scheme extended to support the battle against COVID-19 the answer was no , but when England needs an extension then there ’ s no questions asked by the Chancellor as he writes another cheque .
This is a UK government that won ’ t devolve bond-issuing powers to Scotland so that we can match our public health response with an economic response , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to have financial support if and when the south of England needs it .
That is why we must act now .
There are those that say that if the SNP win a majority at the Holyrood elections , and with support for independence at a record high , Boris Johnson will suddenly change his mind and agree to a referendum that he knows may well end his precious union .
But why would he do such a thing when all he has to do is keep on saying no ?
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that won ’ t even feed hungry schoolchildren will care one bit about the democratic voice of Scotland ?
Westminster doesn ’ t want to give the Scottish people a choice again , because it knows what they ’ d say this time .
The UK government is never going to agree to another Section 30 order , we know this .
If the Scottish Government asks for one ( for a third time ) , it will be denied , again and again .
If the SNP goes to the polls in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would be , by the lowest possible count , our fourth such mandate .
Why would it succeed where the first three failed ?
It ’ s precisely for that reason Angus MacNeil MP and I proposed a democratic way of countering Westminster ’ s undemocratic intransigence .
Boris Johnson has the power to say no to a consensual referendum .
He may even have the power to take the Scottish Government to court to block a referendum made legitimate by our own parliament and deemed lawful by our own Lord Advocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to stop the people of Scotland voting for their independence at the ballot box next year .
If Westminster won ’ t concede a referendum before next May then we should make the Scottish Parliament election the democratic test that we seek a mandate from the Scottish people for our independence .
We are now informed that there will be no debate on independence strategy at our party conference .
Party members can instead voice their opinion during discussion sessions , but will be denied their constitutional right to debate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we won ’ t accept a Westminster Veto to indyref2 but have no plan for when that outcome becomes a reality .
We said we wouldn ’ t accept the Boris Veto after last year ’ s general election , and we did .
We can huff and puff as much as we want , but without a plan we most certainly will not be blowing Boris Johnson ’ s opposition down .
Ours is a plan that sets out a means of ensuring Scotland ’ s voice is heard , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it should be deployed , with democratic determination .
We don ’ t need another mandate for a vote , we already have several , so let ’ s just have a vote .
It ’ s a plan that ’ s easy to understand and that the people of Scotland can rally around to give it the popular support required for a country to take back its independence .
The coronavirus has rightly taken up the focus of our First Minister .
That is why it is vital a debate among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our leadership can listen to the path we , the members , wish them to lead us on .
The referendum strategy is not integral to our national cause .
It was devised by Alex Salmond and helped create our Scottish Parliament , as well as taking us closer to our independence than we ’ d been for 300 years .
However , if the UK government had blocked a referendum back before 2014 , as they do now , then Alex most certainly would have found another way to ensure that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to self-determination .
The time for talking is over , it ’ s now time for action .
It ’ s time for Plan B .

Last year I was booed on the stage of the SNP’s annual conference for attempting to have a debate on how we can achieve independence in the face of Boris Johnson’s unswerving refusal to agree to a referendum.
I know that it still sticks in the craw of many that an SNP representative was booed at an SNP conference for wanting to discuss how Scotland will become independent (the very idea!), but it only made me even more determined to ensure that the democratic voice of Scotland is heard.
The independence campaign is a journey. We know the destination, and more people are joining us, but how we get there is not set in stone.
In the runup to last year’s UK election, Angus MacNeil MP and I thought it gave us an opportunity to hold the UK government’s feet to the fire. If we had a plan to grasp our independence, that we’d seek a mandate for at an election, perhaps the staunch opposition to an Edinburgh Agreement 2.0 would be diminished.
The leadership of the party said that we didn’t need a Plan B because Plan A was working, and that any opposition to a referendum would be unsustainable if the SNP won the general election.
We won a landslide victory at the election, getting over 80% of Scottish MPs, and it turns out that Boris Johnson did manage to sustain saying “No”. Ultimately, if all you have to do to stop Scotland voting for its independence is tell the people of Scotland that they are not allowed a choice on their own future, then that’s rather easy for a UK Prime Minister, because telling the people of Scotland what they can and cannot do is a prerequisite of the job.
We can stand up in the House of Commons and call Boris Johnson a democracy denier. But the thing about tinpot dictators is that even the most feckless Francos don’t suddenly change their mind just because we keep saying “By gosh Prime Minister this just isn’t cricket”. If we always play Westminster’s game we will always lose.
Since last year, a consistent majority of Scots agree that decisions about the future of Scotland should be made in Scotland. Right now, the next generation of weapons of mass destruction to occupy the Clyde are being designed. Scotland stands on the cliff edge of a Tory no-deal Brexit. And in Whitehall the next bedroom tax, the next rape clause and the next decade of austerity are being drawn up.
It won’t be the people of Scotland that get to decide the economic policies best placed to help us recover from the coronavirus, it’ll be the policies of the UK government that are imposed on us as usual.
And we’ve now learned that when Scotland wanted the furlough scheme extended to support the battle against COVID-19 the answer was no, but when England needs an extension then there’s no questions asked by the Chancellor as he writes another cheque. This is a UK government that won’t devolve bond-issuing powers to Scotland so that we can match our public health response with an economic response, but also one that’ll only allow us to have financial support if and when the south of England needs it.
That is why we must act now. There are those that say that if the SNP win a majority at the Holyrood elections, and with support for independence at a record high, Boris Johnson will suddenly change his mind and agree to a referendum that he knows may well end his precious union. But why would he do such a thing when all he has to do is keep on saying no?
Do we really think that the same Tories that won’t even feed hungry schoolchildren will care one bit about the democratic voice of Scotland? Westminster doesn’t want to give the Scottish people a choice again, because it knows what they’d say this time.
The UK government is never going to agree to another Section 30 order, we know this. If the Scottish Government asks for one (for a third time), it will be denied, again and again. If the SNP goes to the polls in 2021 seeking another mandate for a referendum that would be, by the lowest possible count, our fourth such mandate. Why would it succeed where the first three failed?
It’s precisely for that reason Angus MacNeil MP and I proposed a democratic way of countering Westminster’s undemocratic intransigence. Boris Johnson has the power to say no to a consensual referendum. He may even have the power to take the Scottish Government to court to block a referendum made legitimate by our own parliament and deemed lawful by our own Lord Advocate, but Boris Johnson does NOT have the power to stop the people of Scotland voting for their independence at the ballot box next year.
If Westminster won’t concede a referendum before next May then we should make the Scottish Parliament election the democratic test that we seek a mandate from the Scottish people for our independence.
We are now informed that there will be no debate on independence strategy at our party conference. Party members can instead voice their opinion during discussion sessions, but will be denied their constitutional right to debate a specific policy position. We will say that we won’t accept a Westminster Veto to indyref2 but have no plan for when that outcome becomes a reality. We said we wouldn’t accept the Boris Veto after last year’s general election, and we did. We can huff and puff as much as we want, but without a plan we most certainly will not be blowing Boris Johnson’s opposition down.
Ours is a plan that sets out a means of ensuring Scotland’s voice is heard, and it progresses our mandate for a referendum as it should be deployed, with democratic determination. We don’t need another mandate for a vote, we already have several, so let’s just have a vote. It’s a plan that’s easy to understand and that the people of Scotland can rally around to give it the popular support required for a country to take back its independence.
The coronavirus has rightly taken up the focus of our First Minister. That is why it is vital a debate among the wider party is allowed so that our leadership can listen to the path we, the members, wish them to lead us on.
The referendum strategy is not integral to our national cause. It was devised by Alex Salmond and helped create our Scottish Parliament, as well as taking us closer to our independence than we’d been for 300 years. However, if the UK government had blocked a referendum back before 2014, as they do now, then Alex most certainly would have found another way to ensure that the people of Scotland were not denied their right to self-determination.
The time for talking is over, it’s now time for action. It’s time for Plan B.


wingsoverscotland--2020-11-04--When people tell you who they are

When people tell you who they are

Nobody around here has any time for the Tories .
But if you believe democracy should exist then governments should have oppositions and be subject to legitimate scrutiny .
The two motions the Scottish Government lost today ( not just to the Tories but all the other opposition parties including the pro-independence Greens ) were on providing evidence to the Salmond inquiry – ie they were being asked to do something the First Minister promised to do 19 months ago but which so far hasn ’ t been done – and on a public inquiry into the scandal of care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These motions were the entirely proper business ( and indeed duty ) of a Parliamentary opposition .
In the first instance they were acting on behalf of a cross-party , SNP-led committee which has repeatedly requested evidence it hasn ’ t been given , and in the second instance the SNP didn ’ t even oppose the motion ( their MSPs abstained ) .
Neither of today ’ s motions were anything to do with independence or a referendum , just the normal everyday operation of government , so what Wishart is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rubber-stamping sham Parliament in which the SNP can do whatever it wants all the time without any meaningful scrutiny or challenge – an arrangement better known in communist China or the Third Reich .
We don ’ t know about you , folks , but that ’ s not what we signed up for .

Cosy Feet Pete’s done another tweet.
Nobody around here has any time for the Tories. But if you believe democracy should exist then governments should have oppositions and be subject to legitimate scrutiny.
The two motions the Scottish Government lost today (not just to the Tories but all the other opposition parties including the pro-independence Greens) were on providing evidence to the Salmond inquiry – ie they were being asked to do something the First Minister promised to do 19 months ago but which so far hasn’t been done – and on a public inquiry into the scandal of care home deaths, a genuinely serious issue.
These motions were the entirely proper business (and indeed duty) of a Parliamentary opposition. In the first instance they were acting on behalf of a cross-party, SNP-led committee which has repeatedly requested evidence it hasn’t been given, and in the second instance the SNP didn’t even oppose the motion (their MSPs abstained).
Neither of today’s motions were anything to do with independence or a referendum, just the normal everyday operation of government, so what Wishart is so indignantly demanding for his party is a rubber-stamping sham Parliament in which the SNP can do whatever it wants all the time without any meaningful scrutiny or challenge – an arrangement better known in communist China or the Third Reich.
(Ironically, it’s also exactly the sort of staggeringly arrogant entitlement you’d expect from the most stereotypical Eton Tory.)
We don’t know about you, folks, but that’s not what we signed up for.


wingsoverscotland--2020-11-04--The Great Bin Fire

The Great Bin Fire

So , Joe Biden promised to erase women as a legal concept if he got elected , and then by a quite remarkable coincidence there was a small but possibly crucial swing among women of all colours and ages towards a President who boasts of “ grabbing them by the pussy ” and may well overturn Roe vs Wade ( and more ) if he wins again .
Who could ever have foreseen , etc ?
In a world where almost every vote seems to be on a knife-edge , it seems the woke left still hasn ’ t learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is to alienate 70 % of the population to feed the endless , insatiable narcissism of 0.7 % of the population .
Quite aside from anything else , that ’ s because the only votes you secure by doing so are the votes of people who ’ d never have voted for Donald Trump in a million years anyway .
The only votes you ’ re gambling with are those of the natural left .
And even if only a tiny fraction of the alienated actually turn , it can be enough @ @ @ @ @

So, Joe Biden promised to erase women as a legal concept if he got elected, and then by a quite remarkable coincidence there was a small but possibly crucial swing among women of all colours and ages towards a President who boasts of “grabbing them by the pussy” and may well overturn Roe vs Wade (and more) if he wins again.
Who could ever have foreseen, etc?
(It’s also passingly ironic that if Biden does win – as he still may well do arithmetically, although we wouldn’t necessarily want to put a lot of money on him living long enough to ever actually reach the Oval Office after all the legal wrangling/civil war is over – it’ll be on the votes of white men overturning those of women and people of colour, who all counter-intuitively and inexplicably swung to Trump.)
In a world where almost every vote seems to be on a knife-edge, it seems the woke left still hasn’t learned how criminally, recklessly, suicidally stupid it is to alienate 70% of the population to feed the endless, insatiable narcissism of 0.7% of the population.
Quite aside from anything else, that’s because the only votes you secure by doing so are the votes of people who’d never have voted for Donald Trump in a million years anyway. The only votes you’re gambling with are those of the natural left. And even if only a tiny fraction of the alienated actually turn, it can be enough to change the world.


wingsoverscotland--2020-11-05--Our Number One Fan

Our Number One Fan

Lavish expenses recipient Pete Wishart MP doesn ’ t want to talk about Wings .
So that ’ s probably @ @ @ @ @ Oh .
Well , we ’ ll let you know if he ever stops .

Lavish expenses recipient Pete Wishart MP doesn’t want to talk about Wings.
So that’s probably the end of that.
Oh. Well, we’ll let you know if he ever stops.


Brass rubbing

We have to admit the line below takes some chutzpah to even attempt .
It ’ s a little bit like Harold Shipman refusing to admit to all the murders he committed on the grounds that revealing the victim/patients ’ personal data would break the Hippocratic Oath .
We know , for an absolute and uncontested fact , by the Scottish Government ’ s own admission , that the First Minister has already committed the most serious breach of the Ministerial Code possible – lying to Parliament ( section 1.3c ) .
She lied about the date she first knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the First Minister ’ s own personal written testimony , we know that the reason she lied to Parliament was that she had definitely also committed another breach of the Code , either by using Scottish Parliament premises for party matters ( section 1.3i ) or by failing to record government business discussed therein ( sections 4.22 , 4.23 ) .
So it seems a bit late to be getting all bashful about the Code now .
As a general statement of fact , the first paragraph is true .
The Code does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice : But there ’ s a key detail there that the First Minister is purposely misrepresenting .
The Code prohibits , in normal circumstances , the disclosing of any legal advice given to Ministers or to the Scottish Government .
But we ’ ve been told endlessly by the First Minister that she and her ministers took no part whatsoever in the investigation into the false allegations against Alex Salmond , because her/their involvement would have been improper .
We ’ ve been told that the entire matter was under the sole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary , who is neither a Minister nor a member of the Scottish Government .
She works for and is answerable to the UK Civil Service , and as such the Ministerial Code does not apply to her .
So disclosing advice which would have been given in the first instance to Leslie Evans does NOT risk breaching the Ministerial Code .
The First Minister is lying .
But even if that were not the case , the Code explicitly provides for such advice to be released “ in exceptional circumstances ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – which we ’ re not going to list again here or this article would be 10,000 words long – aren ’ t exceptional then we can not imagine which circumstances could ever qualify .
The First Minister also insists that “ compelling reasons ” would be required to invoke the exception .
But since she herself promised , without any qualifiers or exclusions , to give the inquiry committee “ whatever material they request ” , and the committee has been requesting for several months to see the legal advice , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support that request , then unless her promise was yet another lie to Parliament ( because she had no intention of keeping it ) and therefore yet another breach of the Ministerial Code , the First Minister is indeed now compelled to honour it .
Because the Scottish Parliament is the physical embodiment of Scottish democracy and the elected voice of the Scottish people , and we read somewhere recently that those who rage against democracy don ’ t prevail .
We keenly await the results of the Scottish Government ’ s deliberations @

We have to admit the line below takes some chutzpah to even attempt. It’s a little bit like Harold Shipman refusing to admit to all the murders he committed on the grounds that revealing the victim/patients’ personal data would break the Hippocratic Oath.
We know, for an absolute and uncontested fact, by the Scottish Government’s own admission, that the First Minister has already committed the most serious breach of the Ministerial Code possible – lying to Parliament (section 1.3c). She lied about the date she first knew of the allegations against Salmond.
From the First Minister’s own personal written testimony, we know that the reason she lied to Parliament was that she had definitely also committed another breach of the Code, either by using Scottish Parliament premises for party matters (section 1.3i) or by failing to record government business discussed therein (sections 4.22, 4.23).
So it seems a bit late to be getting all bashful about the Code now.
The article notes:
As a general statement of fact, the first paragraph is true. The Code does contain a section about not divulging legal advice:
But there’s a key detail there that the First Minister is purposely misrepresenting. The Code prohibits, in normal circumstances, the disclosing of any legal advice given to Ministers or to the Scottish Government.
But we’ve been told endlessly by the First Minister that she and her ministers took no part whatsoever in the investigation into the false allegations against Alex Salmond, because her/their involvement would have been improper. We’ve been told that the entire matter was under the sole control of Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary, who is neither a Minister nor a member of the Scottish Government. She works for and is answerable to the UK Civil Service, and as such the Ministerial Code does not apply to her.
(Civil servants have their own code, which contains no provisions or prohibitions at all relating to the disclosure or otherwise of legal advice.)
So disclosing advice which would have been given in the first instance to Leslie Evans does NOT risk breaching the Ministerial Code. The First Minister is lying.
But even if that were not the case, the Code explicitly provides for such advice to be released “in exceptional circumstances”, and if the circumstances of this case – which we’re not going to list again here or this article would be 10,000 words long – aren’t exceptional then we cannot imagine which circumstances could ever qualify.
The First Minister also insists that “compelling reasons” would be required to invoke the exception. But since she herself promised, without any qualifiers or exclusions, to give the inquiry committee “whatever material they request”, and the committee has been requesting for several months to see the legal advice, and the entire Parliament has now voted to support that request, then unless her promise was yet another lie to Parliament (because she had no intention of keeping it) and therefore yet another breach of the Ministerial Code, the First Minister is indeed now compelled to honour it.
Because the Scottish Parliament is the physical embodiment of Scottish democracy and the elected voice of the Scottish people, and we read somewhere recently that those who rage against democracy don’t prevail.
We keenly await the results of the Scottish Government’s deliberations.


The remit back

We ’ ve just made an executive decision that we ’ re going to keep sending Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Government until we get a straight answer to at least one of them .
We expect to be occupied for some time .
As you will be aware , there are currently two processes under way in relation to the conduct of the Scottish Government with regard to false allegations of sexual misconduct against the former First Minister , Alex Salmond .
The first is a Scottish Parliament inquiry led by a committee of MSPs , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ the Inquiry ” .
The second is an independent investigation by James Hamilton into whether the current First Minister , Nicola Sturgeon , broke the Ministerial Code in respect of the allegations .
For clarity I shall subsequently refer to this as “ the Investigation ” .
My request is in relation to the latter .
The remit for the Investigation published on 3 August 2020 by the Scottish Government here could be interpreted , via point ( 4 ) , to mean that the Investigation is charged only with determining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in or otherwise influence events surrounding the allegations against Mr Salmond , in breach of section 1.3 ( j ) of the Ministerial Code , and also in respect of sections 4.22 and 4.23 of the Code concerning the proper recording of meetings .
These sections of the Code contain no specific stated remedies for any breaches .
However , Mr Salmond and several members of the committee of the Inquiry ( including Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP , Murdo Fraser MSP and Jackie Baillie MSP ) have expressed the concern that the Investigation must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misled Parliament in respect of the allegations , and therefore breached article 1.3 ( c ) of the Ministerial Code , which stipulates that any Minister found to have done so must offer their resignation .
Examples of these statements can be seen here and here and here : On 28 October 2020 the First Minister told the Parliament that in her personal opinion the Investigation covers ALL aspects of the Code , including section 1.3 ( c ) , stating : “ My view right now is that James Hamilton , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ministerial code , is not restricted at all in the issues that he can look at .
If he thinks that there are any issues that engage the ministerial code or could in any way constitute a breach of the ministerial code , my view is that he is free to look at them .
If he considers that that requires any change to his official remit , I am sure that he is perfectly able to say that .
However , for the record and to be clear , I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to just one aspect of the ministerial code.
” However , that is merely a statement of the First Minister ’ s “ view right now ” , not a formal confirmation of Mr Hamilton ’ s official remit .
The information I seek is therefore as follows : Does the remit of the Investigation being conducted by James Hamilton officially include whether there has been ANY breach of ANY part of the Ministerial Code by the First Minister – including section 1.3 ( c ) – or is his brief restricted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identified in the remit published by the Scottish Government on 3 August ?
And whichever of the above applies , has Mr Hamilton been made clearly aware which aspects of the Code he ’ s being asked to rule on , particularly in the light of the recent comments by Mr Salmond , Mr Cole-Hamilton , Mr Fraser and Ms Baillie ?

We’ve just made an executive decision that we’re going to keep sending Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Government until we get a straight answer to at least one of them. We expect to be occupied for some time.
So here’s this week’s.
TO: Central Enquiries Unit, Scottish Government
As you will be aware, there are currently two processes under way in relation to the conduct of the Scottish Government with regard to false allegations of sexual misconduct against the former First Minister, Alex Salmond.
The first is a Scottish Parliament inquiry led by a committee of MSPs, which for clarity I shall subsequently refer to as “the Inquiry”. The second is an independent investigation by James Hamilton into whether the current First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, broke the Ministerial Code in respect of the allegations. For clarity I shall subsequently refer to this as “the Investigation”.
My request is in relation to the latter. The remit for the Investigation published on 3 August 2020 by the Scottish Government here could be interpreted, via point (4), to mean that the Investigation is charged only with determining whether the First Minister attempted to intervene in or otherwise influence events surrounding the allegations against Mr Salmond, in breach of section 1.3(j) of the Ministerial Code, and also in respect of sections 4.22 and 4.23 of the Code concerning the proper recording of meetings. These sections of the Code contain no specific stated remedies for any breaches.
However, Mr Salmond and several members of the committee of the Inquiry (including Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP, Murdo Fraser MSP and Jackie Baillie MSP) have expressed the concern that the Investigation must also specifically ascertain whether the First Minister misled Parliament in respect of the allegations, and therefore breached article 1.3(c) of the Ministerial Code, which stipulates that any Minister found to have done so must offer their resignation.
Examples of these statements can be seen here and here and here.
On 28 October 2020 the First Minister told the Parliament that in her personal opinion the Investigation covers ALL aspects of the Code, including section 1.3(c), stating:
“My view right now is that James Hamilton, who is the adviser undertaking the investigation into the ministerial code, is not restricted at all in the issues that he can look at.
If he thinks that there are any issues that engage the ministerial code or could in any way constitute a breach of the ministerial code, my view is that he is free to look at them.
If he considers that that requires any change to his official remit, I am sure that he is perfectly able to say that. However, for the record and to be clear, I do not consider his remit to be limited to just one aspect of the ministerial code.”
However, that is merely a statement of the First Minister’s “view right now”, not a formal confirmation of Mr Hamilton’s official remit.
The information I seek is therefore as follows:
Does the remit of the Investigation being conducted by James Hamilton officially include whether there has been ANY breach of ANY part of the Ministerial Code by the First Minister – including section 1.3(c) – or is his brief restricted to the narrower aspects of the Code specifically identified in the remit published by the Scottish Government on 3 August?
And whichever of the above applies, has Mr Hamilton been made clearly aware which aspects of the Code he’s being asked to rule on, particularly in the light of the recent comments by Mr Salmond, Mr Cole-Hamilton, Mr Fraser and Ms Baillie?


The Scottish Toady


Agents of fear

No explanation is given for why “ writer at large ” Neil Mackay has suddenly conducted a “ wide-ranging , exclusive interview ” with “ one of Britain ’ s most senior spy chiefs ” for today ’ s Herald On Sunday .
As far as we ’ re aware absolutely nothing has happened in respect of the UK ’ s nuclear “ deterrent ” to make the subject topical .
Maybe Mackay just coincidentally bumped into Sir David Omand down the pub or something .
We can ’ t tell by reading the interview either , because the Herald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published it on its website , only the selected quotes from Mackay ’ s front-page splash .
Other than the fact that Mackay has a long track record of sowing division in the Yes movement , we can ’ t think of a single reason for it to have happened now .
The article , it should go without saying , is purest drivel .
Our favourite bit was Omand ’ s hilarious assertion that the UK government has never spied on the Yes movement , which if true we ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about and demanding a refund on our taxes , because that ’ s LITERALLY THE UK SECURITY SERVICES ’ JOB .
We are all of us engaged in an attempt – a peaceful , lawful , democratic attempt – to dismantle the very existence of the United Kingdom , the exact thing that the security services exist to protect .
If they DON ’ T have – at the barest minimum – spies placed in the movement monitoring it ( and more likely actively trying to sabotage it ) then MI5 et al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their professional duty , because Scottish independence currently presents a vastly greater threat to the integrity of the UK than any external force .
We should be their prime directive .
Remarkably , Omand in fact appears to believe that the world ’ s major powers don ’ t spy on every country of actual or potential significance already : But the rest is barely any less comical .
Take this paragraph : It ’ s not at all clear which side Omand and Mackay are saying the Russians would try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Yes side , we ’ re not sure why we ’ re supposed to be worried about that .
We ’ re already up against the entire might of the British state , all the media , big business and JK Rowling .
Frankly we could use and should welcome any hauners that are on offer , just to even things up a tiny bit .
But running all the way through the piece is a quite extraordinary misunderstanding , from a man in Sir David ’ s position , of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Scotland ’ s position in both the UK and the wider international community .
His implication is that Scotland would be a supplicant begging NATO for its protection .
But Scotland ’ s strategic geopolitical position is such that the alliance would have an absolute shrieking panic fit at the thought of Scotland not being a member .
It would be like leaving the Organisation ’ s back door open and the gate unlocked .
We can state with unmitigated confidence that far from being blackmailed into keeping Trident or financially extorted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naked over broken glass to plead with Scotland to be a member , nukes or not .
Scotland is at one end of the “ GIUK Gap ” in the North Atlantic , with the other end being Iceland – one of the 90 % of NATO member states that don ’ t have nuclear weapons .
Indeed , thanks to that strategic position Iceland enjoys NATO membership without having any proper armed forces at all – it has no standing army and no navy , only a coastguard with three small and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same advantages , because if you only control one end of a chain it ’ s no use as a barrier .
We would hold all the cards in a future relationship with NATO , because NATO needs us to keep the Gap secure while we don ’ t actually need protecting from anything .
Nobody is planning to invade Scotland .
Nobody except England has invaded Scotland for the last thousand years , and the only plausible threat to an independent Scotland would be a paranoid England – in very much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always terrified of Cuba , like a cartoon elephant afraid of a mouse .
America , as we know , reacted to that fear by making life very awkward for Cuba , with decades of brutal sanctions and constant attempts to undermine or overthrow its government .
Which is precisely the reason that any remotely sane government of an independent Scotland would be more than happy to keep Trident where it is , while also reaping a highly useful multi-billion pound bonus every year in rent .
Trident is the solid-gold Ace in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its future relationship with the rUK .
It ’ s the bargaining chip that outranks all others .
The UK is so obsessed with retaining its WMDs , to the exclusion of almost all else , that it puts Scotland in a position of massive strength .
We have one thing – and one thing only – that England really , really , really desperately wants : Faslane .
And we know it wants it desperately because we were told by… Sir David Omand .
We do have other cool stuff it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and whatnot , but nothing that it can ’ t ultimately get from elsewhere .
For a nuclear submarine base , it ’ s us or nobody , and “ nobody ” isn ’ t an option it ’ s willing to countenance .
So as long as an independent Scotland can threaten to close down a leased Faslane ( and that would be very easy to do given its isolated location ) , the rUK will ultimately have little choice but to give us whatever we want all the time .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can play as many times as we like .
You might call it a nuclear option .
If we threw that leverage away on the basis of a spurious and infantile argument that some kinds of bombs are more “ moral ” than other kinds of bombs , we ’ d be choosing to put ourselves in a position of enormous and perpetual weakness against a far bigger and more powerful neighbour for no rational reason .
But hey , look at us , falling into Neil Mackay ’ s trap of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who take a different and honestly-held view .
( Although when it comes to NATO membership we ’ d note that the absolutely overwhelming majority of Scots are on our side , whereas there ’ s no majority for expelling Trident . )
It ’ s almost as if that was what he wanted all along .

No explanation is given for why “writer at large” Neil Mackay has suddenly conducted a “wide-ranging, exclusive interview” with “one of Britain’s most senior spy chiefs” for today’s Herald On Sunday.
As far as we’re aware absolutely nothing has happened in respect of the UK’s nuclear “deterrent” to make the subject topical. Maybe Mackay just coincidentally bumped into Sir David Omand down the pub or something.
We can’t tell by reading the interview either, because the Herald doesn’t actually seem to have published it on its website, only the selected quotes from Mackay’s front-page splash. Other than the fact that Mackay has a long track record of sowing division in the Yes movement, we can’t think of a single reason for it to have happened now.
The article, it should go without saying, is purest drivel. Our favourite bit was Omand’s hilarious assertion that the UK government has never spied on the Yes movement, which if true we’ll be writing a stern letter to our MP about and demanding a refund on our taxes, because that’s LITERALLY THE UK SECURITY SERVICES’ JOB.
We are all of us engaged in an attempt – a peaceful, lawful, democratic attempt – to dismantle the very existence of the United Kingdom, the exact thing that the security services exist to protect. If they DON’T have – at the barest minimum – spies placed in the movement monitoring it (and more likely actively trying to sabotage it) then MI5 et al are guilty of an incredibly serious dereliction of their professional duty, because Scottish independence currently presents a vastly greater threat to the integrity of the UK than any external force. We should be their prime directive.
Remarkably, Omand in fact appears to believe that the world’s major powers don’t spy on every country of actual or potential significance already:
But the rest is barely any less comical. Take this paragraph:
It’s not at all clear which side Omand and Mackay are saying the Russians would try to interfere on. If it’s the Yes side, we’re not sure why we’re supposed to be worried about that. We’re already up against the entire might of the British state, all the media, big business and JK Rowling. Frankly we could use and should welcome any hauners that are on offer, just to even things up a tiny bit.
But running all the way through the piece is a quite extraordinary misunderstanding, from a man in Sir David’s position, of the direction of leverage that applies with regard to Scotland’s position in both the UK and the wider international community.
His implication is that Scotland would be a supplicant begging NATO for its protection. But Scotland’s strategic geopolitical position is such that the alliance would have an absolute shrieking panic fit at the thought of Scotland not being a member. It would be like leaving the Organisation’s back door open and the gate unlocked.
We can state with unmitigated confidence that far from being blackmailed into keeping Trident or financially extorted for our safety, NATO would crawl naked over broken glass to plead with Scotland to be a member, nukes or not.
Scotland is at one end of the “GIUK Gap” in the North Atlantic, with the other end being Iceland – one of the 90% of NATO member states that don’t have nuclear weapons. Indeed, thanks to that strategic position Iceland enjoys NATO membership without having any proper armed forces at all – it has no standing army and no navy, only a coastguard with three small and lightly-armed ships.
Scotland would have all the same advantages, because if you only control one end of a chain it’s no use as a barrier. We would hold all the cards in a future relationship with NATO, because NATO needs us to keep the Gap secure while we don’t actually need protecting from anything.
Nobody is planning to invade Scotland. Nobody except England has invaded Scotland for the last thousand years, and the only plausible threat to an independent Scotland would be a paranoid England – in very much the same way that the USA was always terrified of Cuba, like a cartoon elephant afraid of a mouse.
America, as we know, reacted to that fear by making life very awkward for Cuba, with decades of brutal sanctions and constant attempts to undermine or overthrow its government. Which is precisely the reason that any remotely sane government of an independent Scotland would be more than happy to keep Trident where it is, while also reaping a highly useful multi-billion pound bonus every year in rent.
Trident is the solid-gold Ace in Scotland’s deck when it comes to its future relationship with the rUK. It’s the bargaining chip that outranks all others. The UK is so obsessed with retaining its WMDs, to the exclusion of almost all else, that it puts Scotland in a position of massive strength. We have one thing – and one thing only – that England really, really, really desperately wants: Faslane.
And we know it wants it desperately because we were told by… Sir David Omand.
We do have other cool stuff it likes too, including energy and water and whatnot, but nothing that it can’t ultimately get from elsewhere. For a nuclear submarine base, it’s us or nobody, and “nobody” isn’t an option it’s willing to countenance.
So as long as an independent Scotland can threaten to close down a leased Faslane (and that would be very easy to do given its isolated location), the rUK will ultimately have little choice but to give us whatever we want all the time. It’s a magic trump card that we can play as many times as we like. You might call it a nuclear option.
If we threw that leverage away on the basis of a spurious and infantile argument that some kinds of bombs are more “moral” than other kinds of bombs, we’d be choosing to put ourselves in a position of enormous and perpetual weakness against a far bigger and more powerful neighbour for no rational reason.
(Ask the citizens of Hamburg or Tokyo how nice “conventional” bombs are.)
But hey, look at us, falling into Neil Mackay’s trap of inviting an argument with other Yes voices who take a different and honestly-held view. (Although when it comes to NATO membership we’d note that the absolutely overwhelming majority of Scots are on our side, whereas there’s no majority for expelling Trident.)
It’s almost as if that was what he wanted all along.