Wolves and vampires

It seems fair to say that the SNP ’ s shady , ugly coup d ’ etwats yesterday hasn ’ t gone down massively well .
Social media was awash in pictures of cut-up membership cards and resignation letters , and some of the most moderate voices in the commentariat also decried the stitch-ups of Joanna Cherry and James Dornan .
The NEC meeting which forced through the new rules was held in secret and nobody knows who was present or who voted for what .
Indeed , even the identities of the NEC ’ s members are largely not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing we do know .
Alert readers have been aware for some time that the headquarters of the SNP ’ s woke division , and the hotbed of the party ’ s quasi-fascist Twitler Youth wing , was its Stirling branch .
And in perhaps the least shocking revelation of all time , it turns out that this week ’ s events have Stirling SNP ’ s grubby fingerprints all over them .
In March , two members of the SNP branch laid down a motion to be debated at the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as follows : That ’ s the motion that was passed this week to effectively block Joanna Cherry from seeking the nomination to contest Edinburgh Central next year .
It was laid down in the names of Gerry McLaughlin & Grant Thoms .
McLaughlin , pictured below , is the branch convener , and bid for selection as the SNP ’ s Westminster candidate for Stirling in 2015 , but was beaten by Steven Paterson .
Thoms , a lecturer at Stirling University , was a member of the vetting committee which rejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way for Alyn Smith – or “ Daddy ” as the Twitler Youth refer to him – to secure the nomination uncontested .
Three of Smith ’ s staff are also office-bearers in the Stirling branch , and he ’ s widely regarded as the de facto leader of the woke wing .
Along with Angus Robertson – chief beneficiary of the blocking of Joanna Cherry – he was central to a newspaper article last year vilifying “ abusive cybernats ” in the Yes movement .
Smith himself also sits on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fancies himself as a future party leader .
But enough local colour .
The woke takeover of the SNP , of which this week ’ s events are only the latest manifestation , has always been centred on Stirling , fuelled by a toxic mix of extremist ideology , naked careerist ambition and personal grudges which has now spread across the country more virulently than COVID-19 and is sucking the very lifeblood out of the Yes movement .
Would that there were a way to put it in lockdown .

It seems fair to say that the SNP’s shady, ugly coup d’etwats yesterday hasn’t gone down massively well. Social media was awash in pictures of cut-up membership cards and resignation letters, and some of the most moderate voices in the commentariat also decried the stitch-ups of Joanna Cherry and James Dornan.
The NEC meeting which forced through the new rules was held in secret and nobody knows who was present or who voted for what. Indeed, even the identities of the NEC’s members are largely not public knowledge.
But there’s one thing we do know.
Alert readers have been aware for some time that the headquarters of the SNP’s woke division, and the hotbed of the party’s quasi-fascist Twitler Youth wing, was its Stirling branch. And in perhaps the least shocking revelation of all time, it turns out that this week’s events have Stirling SNP’s grubby fingerprints all over them.
In March, two members of the SNP branch laid down a motion to be debated at the party’s since-abandoned conference. It read as follows:
“Conference decides that an elected parliamentarian may not stand for election to another legislative body without the approval of the National Executive Committee, which will take into account the implications of a parliamentarian potentially holding a dual mandate or causing a parliamentary by-election through resignation from the legislature to which they were first elected.”
That’s the motion that was passed this week to effectively block Joanna Cherry from seeking the nomination to contest Edinburgh Central next year. It was laid down in the names of Gerry McLaughlin & Grant Thoms.
McLaughlin, pictured below, is the branch convener, and bid for selection as the SNP’s Westminster candidate for Stirling in 2015, but was beaten by Steven Paterson.
Thoms, a lecturer at Stirling University, was a member of the vetting committee which rejected Paterson for the 2019 election, clearing the way for Alyn Smith – or “Daddy” as the Twitler Youth refer to him – to secure the nomination uncontested.
(Thoms was a failed SNP candidate in 2000 and 2001, losing Glasgow Anniesland to Labour by large majorities both times. He’s also editor of party newspaper The Scots Independent and was Head Of Policy And Strategy for welfare-to-work firm Ingeus, who have been closely involved with the UK government’s controversial and cruel Work Programme. For some reason Thoms omits this post from his LinkedIn CV.)
Three of Smith’s staff are also office-bearers in the Stirling branch, and he’s widely regarded as the de facto leader of the woke wing. Along with Angus Robertson – chief beneficiary of the blocking of Joanna Cherry – he was central to a newspaper article last year vilifying “abusive cybernats” in the Yes movement.
(Strangely those attacked by Smith and Robertson for such offences did not include such Stirling-based SNP members as Smith’s own quite spectacularly abusive young boyfriend Jordon Henderson, or transgender racist Leeze Lawrence, or noted defamer and woman-abuser Cameron Archibald, a young activist who spews torrents of angry tweets (regularly deleted to avoid scrutiny) from his bedroom in his parents’ house near Bannockburn and has recently resigned as secretary of that branch to join the main Stirling one – as well as changing his Twitter name from “MammothWhale” to “TheStirlingWolf”, coincidentally the animal Adolf Hitler characterised himself as.)
Smith himself also sits on the NEC as Policy Development Convener and clearly fancies himself as a future party leader. But enough local colour. The woke takeover of the SNP, of which this week’s events are only the latest manifestation, has always been centred on Stirling, fuelled by a toxic mix of extremist ideology, naked careerist ambition and personal grudges which has now spread across the party/country more virulently than COVID-19 and is sucking the very lifeblood out of the Yes movement.
Would that there were a way to put it in lockdown.


The Great Reverse

So we guess this is an answer to our question : But there are many more questions .
The size and volume of the public backlash to this week ’ s disgraceful goings-on in the SNP National Executive Committee must have frightened the party a very great deal , because there ’ s been quite a stampede of senior figures – even including loyal cabinet ministers – taking the extraordinary , almost unheard-of step of publicly criticising NEC decisions and disassociating themselves from the party ’ s ruling group .
So far the only decision to have been officially cancelled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dornan seeking nomination in Glasgow Cathcart , announced by SNP National Secretary Angus MacLeod in a message he subsequently and rather oddly deleted .
But how on Earth did the National Executive Committee of the SNP ever come to make a decision that was “ unconstitutional ” in the first place ?
How can the NEC , of all entities , not know what the rules are ?
It ’ s literally their entire job to know what ’ s in the SNP constitution and ensure it ’ s adhered to .
Can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was well known and reported in the press weeks ago that Dornan WASN ’ T standing down , and the party rules are very clear that all-women shortlists can only be imposed “ where the incumbent SNP MSP is standing down ” , so how could such a basic “ error ” be made and why did NOBODY in the room – the NEC has over 40 members – seemingly make the point and rule the motion out of order before it could be voted on ?
Elspeth Kerr , who until recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now sits as an independent – one of four formerly SNP councillors in the city to have done so , amid claims of “ bullying and corruption ” – tweeted a claim that the move had been proposed by the party ’ s National Women ’ s Convener , Rhiannon Spear , who is widely believed to have been seeking the Cathcart nomination for herself .
Spear is one of the few people definitely known to have been present at the meeting , because she tweeted about it .
So we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covertly and with nobody allowed to know who was present or who voted , apparently passed an unconstitutional motion which was to the direct personal benefit of the person who proposed it , and peremptorily introduced a new rule which should have been put publicly to members at conference but wasn ’ t , in order to effectively block one of the party ’ s most effective and popular representatives – who is regularly attacked by that same NEC member and those in her faction – from seeking a seat at Holyrood .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile , seems to be clear-cut : It seems fair to posit that this mess isn ’ t going away any time soon .
But now that even Angus Robertson has said the blocking of Joanna Cherry was wrong , we hope that that decision too will be voided and that the damage being done to the SNP and the wider Yes movement by those responsible will be nipped in the bud before it ’ s too late .

So we guess this is an answer to our question:
But there are many more questions.
The size and volume of the public backlash to this week’s disgraceful goings-on in the SNP National Executive Committee must have frightened the party a very great deal, because there’s been quite a stampede of senior figures – even including loyal cabinet ministers – taking the extraordinary, almost unheard-of step of publicly criticising NEC decisions and disassociating themselves from the party’s ruling group.
(The only Parliamentarian we saw who was prepared to back the decisions was dear old Pete Wishart, who’s now been left swinging embarrassingly in the wind.)
So far the only decision to have been officially cancelled is the ban on sitting MSP James Dornan seeking nomination in Glasgow Cathcart, announced by SNP National Secretary Angus MacLeod in a message he subsequently and rather oddly deleted.
But how on Earth did the National Executive Committee of the SNP ever come to make a decision that was “unconstitutional” in the first place? How can the NEC, of all entities, not know what the rules are? It’s literally their entire job to know what’s in the SNP constitution and ensure it’s adhered to. Can they ALL be totally incompetent?
It was well known and reported in the press weeks ago that Dornan WASN’T standing down, and the party rules are very clear that all-women shortlists can only be imposed “where the incumbent SNP MSP is standing down”, so how could such a basic “error” be made and why did NOBODY in the room – the NEC has over 40 members – seemingly make the point and rule the motion out of order before it could be voted on?
Elspeth Kerr, who until recently was an SNP councillor in Glasgow and now sits as an independent – one of four formerly SNP councillors in the city to have done so, amid claims of “bullying and corruption” – tweeted a claim that the move had been proposed by the party’s National Women’s Convener, Rhiannon Spear, who is widely believed to have been seeking the Cathcart nomination for herself.
Spear is one of the few people definitely known to have been present at the meeting, because she tweeted about it.
So we have a situation whereby the SNP NEC, meeting covertly and with nobody allowed to know who was present or who voted, apparently passed an unconstitutional motion which was to the direct personal benefit of the person who proposed it, and peremptorily introduced a new rule which should have been put publicly to members at conference but wasn’t, in order to effectively block one of the party’s most effective and popular representatives – who is regularly attacked by that same NEC member and those in her faction – from seeking a seat at Holyrood.
(Dornan, who like Joanna Cherry has handled the matter with great dignity, issued a subtly barbed comment in a response to one tweeter who said that the SNP “used to be all our party”. Rather than say “it still is”, Dornan pointedly noted “it will be again”.)
The opinion of the grassroots membership, meanwhile, seems to be clear-cut:
It seems fair to posit that this mess isn’t going away any time soon. But now that even Angus Robertson has said the blocking of Joanna Cherry was wrong, we hope that that decision too will be voided and that the damage being done to the SNP and the wider Yes movement by those responsible will be nipped in the bud before it’s too late.


On the march

Symbolism matters in politics .
What ostensibly can appear minor actions can have significant effect .
Simply changing the names of things , whether from Londonderry to Derry or from the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government ( and swapping a UK-focused logo for a Scotland-focused one ) , were hugely important , signalling a new era and enthusing supporters .
Similarly , it ’ s been the case that as well as public actions of political leaders there requires to be mobilisation of grassroots supporters .
That can be in visible displays of support , not just by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The “ million-man march ” on Washington was pivotal for the American Civil Rights Movement and mobilisation of ordinary people linking hands across the Baltic States , crucial in achieving freedom from the Soviet Union for Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania .
Historically , that ’ s been the case in Scotland as well .
Preservation of memory and celebration of a cause have been practiced and participated in .
Within the SNP there ’ s been the annual Bannockburn Rally and other events around the country .
Within Scotland more generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as was the Miners Gala , both nationally and in smaller communities .
In the years when the SNP was a fraction of its current strength , participating in protest rallies was always important .
Before my time the Holy Loch was part of the national movement ’ s calendar , supplanted for future generations by Trident and Faslane .
Joining with the Labour movement in opposing unemployment or factory closures was equally vital .
Though often relegated by Labour Party machinations to the back of the march , it showed willing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wider public was vital .
Though votes might not then have been won , seeds were laid , and success reaped in years to come .
Solidarity was established within the cause and friendships were made amongst the faithful who gathered .
Many activists from those days have tales , humorous or otherwise , to tell .
It was also important because it kept the cause alive and in the public eye when media coverage was limited or non-existent , and it showed the cause to have life and spirit even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a distant dream .
It was the same come the referendum in 2014 .
Major rallies showed the increase in support and the scale of the movement that was being born , when the mainstream media remained implacably hostile and negative in coverage .
Increasing in size and number throughout the campaign , smaller community events were just as important as the large-scale ones .
Inspiration and hope were given to communities that had been suffering for generations and had often been bereft of either .
Activists brought people into the fold and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown eases it ’ s time for the independence movement to get its boots back on and prepare to start marching once again .
Not just those major set-piece rallies that still exist but other ones around the country and especially in our communities .
Preparations are being made and those doing so deserve our thanks and support .
It ’ s important and now is the time .
In recent years I ’ ve counselled against marching , recommending canvassing or direct communication on the door in .
Believing that in communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face-to-face contact preferred , it being essential to show we cared about areas that had been forgotten .
Reaching out to them was and is vital to maintaining hope that things could change and a continued belief in our cause .
But I supported the big organised displays which sustained the cause at a difficult time and equally showed its continued strength when invigoration was required .
I was on several of them and the camaraderie was vital at a difficult time .
Numbers were always far greater than police or council declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before lockdown in Edinburgh was indicative of the continued strength of the independence cause .
Eyes were opened and the establishment was frightened .
But in the new world brought about by coronavirus , canvassing and leafletting will be hard .
Some activists for understandable reasons will not wish to do it .
More importantly many of the public will not welcome it .
Even with a face mask , chapping a door will be frowned on and could be counterproductive at this time .
Even putting a leaflet through a door will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marching must begin .
Socially distanced it must be , and respectful of the guidance provided .
But it ’ s essential .
Smaller marches in deprived housing schemes will show that the cause is still alive in areas that have been suffering .
Moreover , a huge rally on an unprecedented scale is required to show that this is the demand of the Scottish people .
It ’ s time once again to show that independence is on the march .
*Kenny MacAskill is an SNP MP and the former Cabinet Secretary @ @ @

Symbolism matters in politics. What ostensibly can appear minor actions can have significant effect. Simply changing the names of things, whether from Londonderry to Derry or from the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government (and swapping a UK-focused logo for a Scotland-focused one), were hugely important, signalling a new era and enthusing supporters.
Similarly, it’s been the case that as well as public actions of political leaders there requires to be mobilisation of grassroots supporters.
That can be in visible displays of support, not just by the usual political means of leafletting or canvassing. The “million-man march” on Washington was pivotal for the American Civil Rights Movement and mobilisation of ordinary people linking hands across the Baltic States, crucial in achieving freedom from the Soviet Union for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Historically, that’s been the case in Scotland as well. Preservation of memory and celebration of a cause have been practiced and participated in. Within the SNP there’s been the annual Bannockburn Rally and other events around the country. Within Scotland more generally, May Day rallies were important, as was the Miners Gala, both nationally and in smaller communities.
In the years when the SNP was a fraction of its current strength, participating in protest rallies was always important. Before my time the Holy Loch was part of the national movement’s calendar, supplanted for future generations by Trident and Faslane.
Joining with the Labour movement in opposing unemployment or factory closures was equally vital. Though often relegated by Labour Party machinations to the back of the march, it showed willing, and being seen to be there by the wider public was vital. Though votes might not then have been won, seeds were laid, and success reaped in years to come.
Solidarity was established within the cause and friendships were made amongst the faithful who gathered. Many activists from those days have tales, humorous or otherwise, to tell. It was also important because it kept the cause alive and in the public eye when media coverage was limited or non-existent, and it showed the cause to have life and spirit even when political progress was limited and success seemed a distant dream.
It was the same come the referendum in 2014. Major rallies showed the increase in support and the scale of the movement that was being born, when the mainstream media remained implacably hostile and negative in coverage.
Increasing in size and number throughout the campaign, smaller community events were just as important as the large-scale ones. Inspiration and hope were given to communities that had been suffering for generations and had often been bereft of either. Activists brought people into the fold and ultimately out to vote.
Now as lockdown eases it’s time for the independence movement to get its boots back on and prepare to start marching once again. Not just those major set-piece rallies that still exist but other ones around the country and especially in our communities. Preparations are being made and those doing so deserve our thanks and support. It’s important and now is the time.
In recent years I’ve counselled against marching, recommending canvassing or direct communication on the door in. Believing that in communities the old-time activism was best, with face-to-face contact preferred, it being essential to show we cared about areas that had been forgotten. Reaching out to them was and is vital to maintaining hope that things could change and a continued belief in our cause.
But I supported the big organised displays which sustained the cause at a difficult time and equally showed its continued strength when invigoration was required. I was on several of them and the camaraderie was vital at a difficult time. Numbers were always far greater than police or council declared. The size of the last one before lockdown in Edinburgh was indicative of the continued strength of the independence cause. Eyes were opened and the establishment was frightened.
But in the new world brought about by coronavirus, canvassing and leafletting will be hard. Some activists for understandable reasons will not wish to do it. More importantly many of the public will not welcome it. Even with a face mask, chapping a door will be frowned on and could be counterproductive at this time. Even putting a leaflet through a door will raise concerns.
That’s why marching must begin. Socially distanced it must be, and respectful of the guidance provided. But it’s essential. Smaller marches in deprived housing schemes will show that the cause is still alive in areas that have been suffering. Moreover, a huge rally on an unprecedented scale is required to show that this is the demand of the Scottish people.
It’s time once again to show that independence is on the march.
.
*Kenny MacAskill is an SNP MP and the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice.


The Fix

This post was written by an SNP NEC member present at last week ’ s controversial Zoom meeting , who wishes to remain anonymous .
Wings has verified their credentials .
A farce , a shambles , an incompetent mess .
There ’ s no other way to sum up the NEC stitch-up of the Edinburgh Central seat last week .
Bad enough was the situation of the Glasgow Cathcart seat , over which my sources tell me it didn ’ t take long for someone in ministerial tower to realise “ but what if Dornan jumps ship to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just given them a seat in Parliament to promote why our both votes SNP message doesn ’ t make sense.
” And of course those looking at what really matters in the near future were noting “ we could already be relying on Derek Mackay to turn back up at Parliament – and for Mark McDonald to crawl out from the bus we threw him under – to survive a confidence vote if the inquiry doesn ’ t go our way , now we ’ ve just lost Dornan ’ s vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ransom… ” Fast forward a mere day and James Dornan didn ’ t even need to threaten legal action to get that decision overturned .
A decision that was on the agenda for two meetings of the NEC , to be discussed over a period of two months , the papers written by the party ’ s corporate compliance manager , signed off by a CEO on a six-figure salary , sent to a Business Convener that made her career in HR ( and who chaired the meeting ) , before finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary who is guardian of the Constitution of the party , and has responsibility for adjudicating on the interpretation of that Constitution as well as preparing the actual agenda for meetings of the NEC .
Those people are the authors of last week ’ s events .
Let ’ s call them the Fiasco Four .
After the proposal to axe James Dornan had gone through all of those checks and balances , and was approved by the NEC , the following day it was reversed as all of a sudden someone came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional .
This presents the obvious problem choice of which of the two possibilities is worse : ( 1 ) that the people currently charged with running the party are so grossly incompetent that they should resign en masse , or ( 2 ) that they simply lied to get themselves out of a hole .
I am sure readers can come to their own conclusion .
However , Cathcart was a failed coup at a minor level which was quickly fixed – mere YSI child ’ s play compared with the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , the spinsters will claim that this wasn ’ t about blocking Joanna Cherry from getting the nomination to contest the Scottish Parliament at the expense of Angus Robertson , whom the seat had been carved up for .
They say that the party just can ’ t afford our MPs wanting to come back home to Scotland , we have the public purse to think about , what an outrage to have too many MPs wanting to get into Holyrood , the last thing we want is an army of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for independence .
But the problem with this narrative is the awkward truth that in the lead-up to the 2016 elections we had 56 MPs , and not a peep was made about dual mandates then .
In fact , at any time over the years anyone could ’ ve taken a proposal to party members to let them make a choice on this .
Internal democracy has been the foundation of the SNP for over 8 decades but even the most fervent of party loyalists have been left with a sour taste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact hosting a National Assembly this very week– I ’ m sure it wouldn ’ t have been that hard to actually seek the views of the party faithful .
Heaven forbid our members have a say on such an important matter .
As far as the Cathcart debacle goes , the constitutionality ( or rather the apparent lack of it ) was actually not that certain – my take is that it is the constitutional right of the NEC to put in place mechanisms to elect more female MSPs – but a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incompetence of the process and a politically dim decision .
It is beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt , however , that the decision to effectively block Joanna Cherry ( and potentially others ) from standing in next year ’ s Holyrood election is not constitutional .
Big hitters are already expressing their rejection of the ruling .
And just as the party has successfully brought together the Orange Order and the Catholic Church in opposition to the shoddy Hate Crime Bill , even those that have failed to agree on anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn over the controversial GRA reforms have called a truce , with recent former Westminster Depute Leader Kirsty Blackman ( who may or not fancy a move herself ) speaking out in support of Cherry .
And of course , after a poll of members of the Angus Robertson campaign team hosted at SNP HQ , even the person that was to be beneficiary of the move has been forced into calling for the decision to be reversed .
Na h-Eileanan an lar MP Angus MacNeil called on the NEC to recruit his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , apparently an expert in the party ’ s constitution , to sort the mess out .
McEleny ’ s view was that the decision wasn ’ t competent because it ’ s in breach of the party ’ s NEC standing orders , and therefore unconstitutional .
On checking the standing orders it seems he ’ s right – indeed , so much so it ’ s actually now completely unbelievable that the Fiasco Four allowed a situation to occur that they surely knew was contrary to standing orders , yet they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceed .
The standing orders are quite simple to understand if a bit long-winded to explain .
The NEC is supposed to operate on the same rules as the party ’ s conference .
Any member familiar with conference will know that someone can propose a resolution and get it seconded .
If nobody really cares about it or if it ’ s popular it gets passed unanimously by acclaim ( people clapping ) .
If people don ’ t agree they can propose an amendment .
( Think back to the Growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots of amendments can be proposed . )
If you think there ’ s the meat on the bones of a policy but it needs finessed you can propose it is remitted back for further consideration .
And if you are completely opposed you can propose the infamous “ direct negative ” , a tactic often used by conference veteran Gerry Fisher to get some speaking time .
So , one by one you vote on the amendments , the remit back and the direct negative .
If any of the amendments wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amended almost always then gets passed unanimously .
But what we don ’ t do is have a Single Transferable Vote ( STV ) election to determine which of a whole raft of proposals and amendments get adopted – firstly because that ’ s not what the rules say , and secondly because that ’ s a terrible way to use STV that it was never designed for .
The NEC works exactly the same .
So , if someone did want to propose a motion they ’ d do so .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wasn ’ t opposed then that ’ s that .
If someone wanted to propose an amendment ( s ) , or remit it back , or propose the direct negative you would go through the process exactly as set out as above .
So is what happened with Joanna Cherry and Edinburgh Central , then ?
Erm no…there was a vote on whether to do nothing or do something .
This vote was so tight it had to be held twice .
No motion was raised .
At the second count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dual mandates as opposed to just leaving the issue be .
Even though standing orders were at this point already on their way to the shredder , you would think at this point someone would move a motion that would be subject to the standard procedures detailed above .
Instead , Scotland ’ s party of government decided to have a SurveyMonkey poll on the pre-prepared options , which were presumably drafted by the corporate compliance manager ( we weren ’ t told ) .
If you ’ re not familiar with SurveyMonkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free online polling tool pensioners in care homes use to vote on Christmas dinner options , but the upside of it is that the results are available instantly .
So however shoddy and improper a process this appears , at least you would assume that the meeting would get the results right away , right ?
Erm , no again .
The meeting continued for at least another 30 minutes as we waited on the corporate compliance manager “ pulling the results together and collating them ” .
The results were flashed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s screens by the party clerk and lo and behold , the constitution was overwritten : if Joanna Cherry wanted to stand in the Holyrood election she ’ d need to resign her Westminster seat months in advance to contest the nomination .
And of course , no decent employer/human being is going to make all their staff unemployed in the current climate .
So where are we now ?
As things are , the decision stands .
Any half-competent QC would have a field day contesting it but I imagine our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in beating Boris Johnson in court than having to take their own party there , so that ’ s not going to happen .
A farce , a shambles , an incompetent and unconstitutional mess .
We need our leader to step in now and sort it .

This post was written by an SNP NEC member present at last week’s controversial Zoom meeting, who wishes to remain anonymous. Wings has verified their credentials.
A farce, a shambles, an incompetent mess. There’s no other way to sum up the NEC stitch-up of the Edinburgh Central seat last week.
Bad enough was the situation of the Glasgow Cathcart seat, over which my sources tell me it didn’t take long for someone in ministerial tower to realise “but what if Dornan jumps ship to an Indy list party, we’ve just given them a seat in Parliament to promote why our both votes SNP message doesn’t make sense.”
And of course those looking at what really matters in the near future were noting “we could already be relying on Derek Mackay to turn back up at Parliament – and for Mark McDonald to crawl out from the bus we threw him under – to survive a confidence vote if the inquiry doesn’t go our way, now we’ve just lost Dornan’s vote, the Greens are going to hold us to ransom…”
Fast forward a mere day and James Dornan didn’t even need to threaten legal action to get that decision overturned.
A decision that was on the agenda for two meetings of the NEC, to be discussed over a period of two months, the papers written by the party’s corporate compliance manager, signed off by a CEO on a six-figure salary, sent to a Business Convener that made her career in HR (and who chaired the meeting), before finally being given the OK by the National Secretary who is guardian of the Constitution of the party, and has responsibility for adjudicating on the interpretation of that Constitution as well as preparing the actual agenda for meetings of the NEC.
Those people are the authors of last week’s events. Let’s call them the Fiasco Four.
After the proposal to axe James Dornan had been subjected to all of those checks and balances, and was approved by the NEC, the following day it was reversed as all of a sudden someone came to the realisation that it was not constitutional.
This presents the obvious problem choice of which of the two possibilities is worse: (1) that the people currently charged with running the party are so grossly incompetent that they should resign en masse, or (2) that they simply lied to get themselves out of a hole. I am sure readers can come to their own conclusion.
However, Cathcart was a failed coup at a minor level which was quickly fixed – mere YSI child’s play compared with the real bourach at hand: Edinburgh Central.
Of course, the spinsters will claim that this wasn’t about blocking Joanna Cherry from getting the nomination to contest the Scottish Parliament at the expense of Angus Robertson, whom the seat had been carved up for. They say that the party just can’t afford our MPs wanting to come back home to Scotland, we have the public purse to think about, what an outrage to have too many MPs wanting to get into Holyrood, the last thing we want is an army of staff at hand to support a drive for independence.
But the problem with this narrative is the awkward truth that in the lead-up to the 2016 elections we had 56 MPs, and not a peep was made about dual mandates then. In fact, at any time over the years anyone could’ve taken a proposal to party members to let them make a choice on this.
Internal democracy has been the foundation of the SNP for over 8 decades but even the most fervent of party loyalists have been left with a sour taste over this. The party is in fact hosting a National Assembly this very week– I’m sure it wouldn’t have been that hard to actually seek the views of the party faithful. Heaven forbid our members have a say on such an important matter.
As far as the Cathcart debacle goes, the constitutionality (or rather the apparent lack of it) was actually not that certain – my take is that it is the constitutional right of the NEC to put in place mechanisms to elect more female MSPs – but a mere cover story to disguise the outright incompetence of the process and a politically dim decision.
It is beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, however, that the decision to effectively block Joanna Cherry (and potentially others) from standing in next year’s Holyrood election is not constitutional.
Some big hitters eg Humza Yousaf and Philippa Whitford have already expressed their unhappiness with the ruling. And just as the party has successfully brought together the Orange Order and the Catholic Church in opposition to the shoddy Hate Crime Bill, even those that have failed to agree on anything for the past year because of lines drawn over the controversial GRA reforms have called a truce, with recent former Westminster Depute Leader Kirsty Blackman (who may or not fancy a move herself) speaking out in support of Cherry.
And of course, after a poll of members of the Angus Robertson campaign team hosted at SNP HQ, even the person that was to be beneficiary of the move has been forced into calling for the decision to be reversed.
Na h-Eileanan an lar MP Angus MacNeil called on the NEC to recruit his “Plan B” colleague Chris McEleny, apparently an expert in the party’s constitution, to sort the mess out. McEleny’s view was that the decision wasn’t competent because it’s in breach of the party’s NEC standing orders, and therefore unconstitutional.
On checking the standing orders it seems he’s right – indeed, so much so it’s actually now completely unbelievable that the Fiasco Four allowed a situation to occur that they surely knew was contrary to standing orders, yet they also allowed the Cherry blocking strategy to proceed.
The standing orders are quite simple to understand if a bit long-winded to explain. The NEC is supposed to operate on the same rules as the party’s conference. Any member familiar with conference will know that someone can propose a resolution and get it seconded. If nobody really cares about it or if it’s popular it gets passed unanimously by acclaim (people clapping).
If people don’t agree they can propose an amendment. (Think back to the Growth Commission debate and you’ll remember lots of amendments can be proposed.) If you think there’s the meat on the bones of a policy but it needs finessed you can propose it is remitted back for further consideration. And if you are completely opposed you can propose the infamous “direct negative”, a tactic often used by conference veteran Gerry Fisher to get some speaking time.
So, one by one you vote on the amendments, the remit back and the direct negative. If any of the amendments wins a simple majority, the motion as amended almost always then gets passed unanimously. But what we don’t do is have a Single Transferable Vote (STV) election to determine which of a whole raft of proposals and amendments get adopted – firstly because that’s not what the rules say, and secondly because that’s a terrible way to use STV that it was never designed for.
The NEC works exactly the same. So, if someone did want to propose a motion they’d do so. The relevant questions would be asked and if it wasn’t opposed then that’s that. If someone wanted to propose an amendment(s), or remit it back, or propose the direct negative you would go through the process exactly as set out as above.
So that’s what happened with Joanna Cherry and Edinburgh Central, then? Erm, no… there was a vote on whether to do nothing or do something. This vote was so tight it had to be held twice. No motion was raised.
At the second count the NEC voted to do something about dual mandates as opposed to just leaving the issue be. Even though standing orders were at this point already on their way to the shredder, you would think at this point someone would move a motion that would be subject to the standard procedures detailed above.
Instead, Scotland’s party of government decided to have a SurveyMonkey poll on the pre-prepared options, which were presumably drafted by the corporate compliance manager (we weren’t told). If you’re not familiar with SurveyMonkey, it’s the sort of free online polling tool pensioners in care homes use to vote on Christmas dinner options, but the upside of it is that the results are available instantly.
So however shoddy and improper a process this appears, at least you would assume that the meeting would get the results right away, right? Erm, no again. The meeting continued for at least another 30 minutes as we waited on the corporate compliance manager “pulling the results together and collating them”.
The results were flashed for a few brief seconds up on everyone’s screens by the party clerk and lo and behold, the constitution was overwritten: if Joanna Cherry wanted to stand in the Holyrood election she’d need to resign her Westminster seat months in advance to contest the nomination. And of course, no decent employer/human being is going to make all their staff unemployed in the current climate.
So where are we now? As things are, the decision stands. Any half-competent QC would have a field day contesting it but I imagine our QCs in the party are rather more interested in beating Boris Johnson in court than having to take their own party there, so that’s not going to happen.
A farce, a shambles, an incompetent and unconstitutional mess. We need our leader to step in now and sort it.


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-05--The closed eyes of the law

The closed eyes of the law

Alert readers will be aware of very considerable recent active involvement by Police Scotland in matters relating to alleged contempt of court with regard to the trial of Alex Salmond .
A blog in April by Craig Murray gave some details .
So we were extremely surprised by a letter we received this week .
It rather speaks for itself , so we ’ ll just let you read it .
But if you ’ re pressed for time , allow us to summarise : “ Contempt of court is not a criminal offence in Scotland , so it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the police – unless of course the people alleged to have committed the contempt are supportive of Alex Salmond and we go round to their houses to threaten them about it , in which case the rules are different because [ SOMEONE WAS SUPPOSED TO INSERT SOME REASONS HERE BEFORE WE SENT THIS OUT ] .
Now go away and stop asking awkward questions.
” Yes , that all seems absolutely fine .
Nothing to worry about at all .
Definitely fair and above board and absolutely normal .
As you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beds , for justice is abroad .

Alert readers will be aware of very considerable recent active involvement by Police Scotland in matters relating to alleged contempt of court with regard to the trial of Alex Salmond. A blog in April by Craig Murray gave some details.
So we were extremely surprised by a letter we received this week.
It rather speaks for itself, so we’ll just let you read it.
But if you’re pressed for time, allow us to summarise:
“Contempt of court is not a criminal offence in Scotland, so it’s got nothing to do with us, the police – unless of course the people alleged to have committed the contempt are supportive of Alex Salmond and we go round to their houses to threaten them about it, in which case the rules are different because [SOMEONE WAS SUPPOSED TO INSERT SOME REASONS HERE BEFORE WE SENT THIS OUT]. Now go away and stop asking awkward questions.”
Yes, that all seems absolutely fine. Nothing to worry about at all. Definitely fair and above board and absolutely normal. As you were, everyone. Sleep soundly in your beds, for justice is abroad.


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-07--The stench of rotten stables

The stench of rotten stables

It seems to be becoming apparent to the SNP ’ s aggressive woke wing that they badly overreached themselves with last week ’ s trainwreck of an NEC meeting .
The backlash from ordinary members has clearly been severe , with senior party figures lining up to distance themselves from the decisions made , and one of the two contentious moves ( the effective deselection of James Dornan ) has already been reversed , although the one regarding Joanna Cherry still stands at the time of writing .
Yes-supporter social media was aflame last night as Stirling MP Alyn “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move in which he basically threw most of the Twitler Youth members of the NEC under the bus in an attempt to save himself .
To save you straining your eyes on that tiny text , key highlights follow below .
“ The NEC is too big , unwieldy , unfocussed and , as recent events have proven , politically unsound .
Since last week ’ s unedifying meeting I have seen a grumbling bemusement amongst the membership turn in parts to anger , not without justification , at the conduct of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically .
For the best of reasons , over the last few years we have allowed the NEC to expand , and while each change has been discussed and approved with good intentions ( all of which I supported ) , I think we need to learn lessons of recent experience .
Expanding the NEC to 42 people is an experiment which has failed .
The Equalities ‘ brief ’ has expanded to by my count almost a dozen people representing one strand or another of their interpretation of the Equalities agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gay man equalities are close to my heart , but not as close as independence .
I am not alone in thinking that too much of the Party ’ s oxygen has been taken up by discussion of peripheral issues like GRA reform , with a small but vocal number of NEC members focussing on these peripheral issues , however worthy , to the exclusion of all else .
This imbalance has not served that debate , the Party , or the Cause well and has led to pushback and resentment from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ political unsoundness ” Smith proposed that more than half of the NEC be removed , cutting it from 42 to just 18 members .
Booted out to advisory committees in such a restructuring would be most of the leading lights of the woke division , eg women ’ s convener Rhiannon Spear , equalities convener Fiona Robertson , students convener Julia Stachurska , BAME convener Graham Campbell , disabled members ’ convener Morag Fulton , Out For Independence rep Josh “ I use female toilets all the time ” Mennie and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two other extremely woke and extremely loyal leadership allies , Julie Hepburn ( a former NEC member who holds no public office but ran to be the SNP ’ s Depute Leader in 2018 and previously worked for Pete Wishart ) and Alex Kerr ( a current NEC member and unsuccessful 2019 MEP candidate said to be close to the First Minister ) , also have an article in today ’ s National calling for NEC reform .
On the face of it , the reforms suggested by Smith , Hepburn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to streamlining the NEC and reducing the disproportionate representation of fringe groups , Hepburn and Kerr have proposed that the NEC itself be elected by the full membership , rather than only by delegates at conference as now .
But a note of caution should be sounded .
Due to its great electoral success in recent years , the SNP now has a “ payroll vote ” – that is to say , MPs , MSPs , councillors , their staff and general party staff – numbered in the hundreds , perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , MSPs and councillors alone total 541 – 47 , 63 and 431 respectively . )
All of the payroll vote is expected ( and whipped ) to vote for whatever the official party line is , and a voting bloc of that size at conference would on most occasions be enough to swing whatever policies the leadership wanted .
Nevertheless , any prospect that the SNP ’ s governing body might be rebalanced in favour of people who actually prioritise independence is one to be welcomed .
The party appears to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent days , and a lot of people are scrabbling for the last helicopter out of Saigon .
Alyn Smith , the woke faction ’ s choice for next leader and someone who formerly had a very warm relationship with this site before he decided to spend his time attacking ordinary Yes campaigners , certainly isn ’ t happy , as another email from him this week ( leaked to us by a concerned party member and reader ) reveals : “ You may have seen that a blog called Wings over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is attempting to create an entirely misleading impression of the Party nationwide and locally that there is a culture of bullying .
This is utterly false , but I am afraid it is gaining traction in some quarters and I write to stop it now .
This blog has previous form on attacking me and other members of the Party .
It recommended in the December election that I was not worth support , yet , we took this seat from the Tories with 51 % of the vote .
I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of modern politics that politicians are targets for abuse , and I get more than most .
This is entirely because we are winning , and I am in a senior position within the Party and the Cause of Independence .
I also do not suffer fools gladly and am direct in my dealings .
The latest Wings over Scotland article on Stirling is a remarkably fact free attack on Stirling City Branch office bearers , and attempts to insinuate they somehow had anything to do with the recent NEC decisions ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a daft conspiracy theory and does not bear scrutiny .
A particularly unpleasant smear is to try to link me to posts made on social media by other people , particularly my ex partner .
It seems remarkable to have to explain that I am not responsible for anyone else ’ s twitter output , but I am not .
I speak for myself , and I condemn all abuse , online or otherwise , from anyone .
The recent blogpost on Stirling also attempts to smear me by association with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is as absurd as it is unpleasant.
” We shan ’ t dwell on the misleading and untruthful claims in that email here .
It is in fact solely because of the reporting of sites like Wings , rather than the “ shush for indy ” crowd , that this problem has been brought out into the open to be addressed at all .
But the way things stand in the current SNP , the fact of Smith ’ s unhappiness alone may be the most optimistic sign there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @

It seems to be becoming apparent to the SNP’s aggressive woke wing that they badly overreached themselves with last week’s trainwreck of an NEC meeting. The backlash from ordinary members has clearly been severe, with senior party figures lining up to distance themselves from the decisions made, and one of the two contentious moves (the effective deselection of James Dornan) has already been reversed, although the one regarding Joanna Cherry still stands at the time of writing.
Yes-supporter social media was aflame last night as Stirling MP Alyn “Daddy Bear” Smith pulled an unexpected move in which he basically threw most of the Twitler Youth members of the NEC under the bus in an attempt to save himself.
To save you straining your eyes on that tiny text, key highlights follow below.
“The NEC is too big, unwieldy, unfocussed and, as recent events have proven, politically unsound. Since last week’s unedifying meeting I have seen a grumbling bemusement amongst the membership turn in parts to anger, not without justification, at the conduct of the NEC as a whole and some individuals specifically. For the best of reasons, over the last few years we have allowed the NEC to expand, and while each change has been discussed and approved with good intentions (all of which I supported), I think we need to learn lessons of recent experience. Expanding the NEC to 42 people is an experiment which has failed. The Equalities ‘brief’ has expanded to by my count almost a dozen people representing one strand or another of their interpretation of the Equalities agenda. This is of course important, as a gay man equalities are close to my heart, but not as close as independence. I am not alone in thinking that too much of the Party’s oxygen has been taken up by discussion of peripheral issues like GRA reform, with a small but vocal number of NEC members focussing on these peripheral issues, however worthy, to the exclusion of all else. This imbalance has not served that debate, the Party, or the Cause well and has led to pushback and resentment from the membership.”
To solve the problem of “political unsoundness” Smith proposed that more than half of the NEC be removed, cutting it from 42 to just 18 members. Booted out to advisory committees in such a restructuring would be most of the leading lights of the woke division, eg women’s convener Rhiannon Spear, equalities convener Fiona Robertson, students convener Julia Stachurska, BAME convener Graham Campbell, disabled members’ convener Morag Fulton, Out For Independence rep Josh “I use female toilets all the time” Mennie and Young Scots for Independence rep Cailyn McMahon.
Two other extremely woke and extremely loyal leadership allies, Julie Hepburn (a former NEC member who holds no public office but ran to be the SNP’s Depute Leader in 2018 and previously worked for Pete Wishart) and Alex Kerr (a current NEC member and unsuccessful 2019 MEP candidate said to be close to the First Minister), also have an article in today’s National calling for NEC reform.
(All of this also represents a rather embarrassing ditching of Glasgow councillor Mhairi Hunter, the First Minister’s election agent, who only last Sunday was despatched to the pages of the same paper to obediently defend the NEC’s conduct and has now, like Pete Wishart, somewhat been left dangling in the breeze.)
On the face of it, the reforms suggested by Smith, Hepburn and Kerr are unarguably positive ones. In addition to streamlining the NEC and reducing the disproportionate representation of fringe groups, Hepburn and Kerr have proposed that the NEC itself be elected by the full membership, rather than only by delegates at conference as now.
But a note of caution should be sounded.
Due to its great electoral success in recent years, the SNP now has a “payroll vote” – that is to say, MPs, MSPs, councillors, their staff and general party staff – numbered in the hundreds, perhaps as high as 1000. (MPs, MSPs and councillors alone total 541 – 47, 63 and 431 respectively.)
All of the payroll vote is expected (and whipped) to vote for whatever the official party line is, and a voting bloc of that size at conference would on most occasions be enough to swing whatever policies the leadership wanted.
(Pictured below is Nicola Sturgeon’s keynote speech to the party’s last full conference, in October 2019. Judge for yourself roughly how many are present for the gathering’s main event, never mind for a dry procedural debate.)
Nevertheless, any prospect that the SNP’s governing body might be rebalanced in favour of people who actually prioritise independence is one to be welcomed. The party appears to have had a real shock to the system in recent days, and a lot of people are scrabbling for the last helicopter out of Saigon.
Alyn Smith, the woke faction’s choice for next leader and someone who formerly had a very warm relationship with this site before he decided to spend his time attacking ordinary Yes campaigners, certainly isn’t happy, as another email from him this week (leaked to us by a concerned party member and reader) reveals:
“You may have seen that a blog called Wings over Scotland has tried to smear me personally and is attempting to create an entirely misleading impression of the Party nationwide and locally that there is a culture of bullying. This is utterly false, but I am afraid it is gaining traction in some quarters and I write to stop it now. This blog has previous form on attacking me and other members of the Party. It recommended in the December election that I was not worth support, yet, we took this seat from the Tories with 51% of the vote. I am afraid it is a fact of life of modern politics that politicians are targets for abuse, and I get more than most. This is entirely because we are winning, and I am in a senior position within the Party and the Cause of Independence. I also do not suffer fools gladly and am direct in my dealings. The latest Wings over Scotland article on Stirling is a remarkably fact free attack on Stirling City Branch office bearers, and attempts to insinuate they somehow had anything to do with the recent NEC decisions (which I emailed on last night). This is a daft conspiracy theory and does not bear scrutiny. A particularly unpleasant smear is to try to link me to posts made on social media by other people, particularly my ex partner. It seems remarkable to have to explain that I am not responsible for anyone else’s twitter output, but I am not. I speak for myself, and I condemn all abuse, online or otherwise, from anyone. The recent blogpost on Stirling also attempts to smear me by association with tweets my ex partner sent in 2012. This is as absurd as it is unpleasant.”
We shan’t dwell on the misleading and untruthful claims in that email here. It is in fact solely because of the reporting of sites like Wings, rather than the “shush for indy” crowd, that this apparently serious problem within the party has been brought out into the open to be addressed at all. One might think that a little gratitude was in order.
But the way things stand in the current SNP, the fact of Smith’s unhappiness alone may be the most optimistic sign there’s been for quite some time.


Her masters’ voices

`` 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)


England’s prisoners

Labour sub-faction the Scottish Fabians this weekend published a call for “ a new Act Of Union ” , an idea that ’ s been kicking around in the party for some time since failed branch office manager Kezia Dugdale came up with it in 2016 .
And at first it sounds almost intelligent and democratic , proposing a clearly defined path by which any of the four constituent nations of the UK could become independent .
But then you get to the small print .
The Scottish Parliament has 129 seats .
Under the Fabian proposals , two successive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral system custom-built to prevent majorities , to secure at least 87 seats in favour of a referendum for it to happen .
Even in the crushing SNP landslide of 2011 , where pro-independence parties got a bigger vote share ( 47.7 % ) than any UK governing party has done for more than half a century , they still only secured 71 seats .
It would be all but mathematically impossible under the Holyrood system to get anywhere near 87 without “ gaming the system ” with new list parties – a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ cheating ” .
Even if such a miracle were achieved , the referendum itself would also require a two-thirds majority .
And while on the face of it a “ supermajority ” for such a dramatic change sounds a defensible position , the reality of it is this : Even if independence won a second referendum by 66-34 , a colossal margin of 32 points , Scotland would be held prisoner against its will by England , and would be forbidden from even asking the question again for at least another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 % .
More concisely : 66 % Yes , 34 % No would be treated as a win for No .
It ’ s effectively an announcement that Labour would simply refuse to honour a clear democratic vote , and then outlaw democracy for 30 years .
It ’ s on a par with current suggestions in some quarters that Donald Trump is contemplating cancelling the US Presidential election in November on the pretence of coronavirus because he thinks he ’ s going to lose – an idea which everyone is quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , under this proposal , were the SNP to stand on a platform of an immediate unilateral declaration of independence , and get 100 % of the vote – literally every single vote cast in the election , both constituency and list – this “ new Act Of Union ” would still forbid independence for a minimum of five years .
( During which period Westminster could simply vote to abolish Holyrood to prevent it from being enacted . )
Such an intolerable situation would fly in the face of every democratic principle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act Of Union ” therefore actually seeks to enshrine in law the complete practical impossibility of Scotland asserting the right to self-determination guaranteed for all peoples in Chapter 1 , Article 1 of the UN Charter .
In writing it down , the Scottish Fabians have revealed how Scottish Labour really sees the Union – as an infinite jail sentence without hope of parole , a hostile takeover of Scotland enacted in 1707 to endure forever rather than a treaty between voluntary and equal partners which either of them is free to withdraw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shock , of course , but it ’ s good to see it finally laid out in the open in black and white .
We wish Labour – a party currently sitting at around 15 % ( and falling ) in opinion polls with around 40 % of its own voters supporting independence – the very best of British luck in getting elected on a platform of making Scots the slaves of England for all time .

Labour sub-faction the Scottish Fabians this weekend published a call for “a new Act Of Union”, an idea that’s been kicking around in the party for some time since failed branch office manager Kezia Dugdale came up with it in 2016.
And at first it sounds almost intelligent and democratic, proposing a clearly defined path by which any of the four constituent nations of the UK could become independent.
But then you get to the small print.
The Scottish Parliament has 129 seats. Under the Fabian proposals, two successive Parliaments would need, in a proportional electoral system custom-built to prevent majorities, to secure at least 87 seats in favour of a referendum for it to happen.
Even in the crushing SNP landslide of 2011, where pro-independence parties got a bigger vote share (47.7%) than any UK governing party has done for more than half a century, they still only secured 71 seats. It would be all but mathematically impossible under the Holyrood system to get anywhere near 87 without “gaming the system” with new list parties – a concept Unionists are already bitterly whining about as “cheating”.
(No peacetime UK government in history, including coalitions, has ever met the 67% threshold being demanded here, by any measure. The nearest was the 2010 Tory-Lib Dem coalition, which could claim to represent 59% of the electorate – 36% Tories and 23% LDs. In terms of seats the closest was Labour’s 1997 landslide, which got 63% of seats but on just 43% of the vote, in itself highly undemocratic.)
Even if such a miracle were achieved, the referendum itself would also require a two-thirds majority. And while on the face of it a “supermajority” for such a dramatic change sounds a defensible position, the reality of it is this:
Even if independence won a second referendum by 66-34, a colossal margin of 32 points, Scotland would be held prisoner against its will by England, and would be forbidden from even asking the question again for at least another three decades even if public support reached 100%.
More concisely: 66% Yes, 34% No would be treated as a win for No.
It’s effectively an announcement that Labour would simply refuse to honour a clear democratic vote, and then outlaw democracy for 30 years. It’s on a par with current suggestions in some quarters that Donald Trump is contemplating cancelling the US Presidential election in November on the pretence of coronavirus because he thinks he’s going to lose – an idea which everyone is quite rightly reacting to with outrage.
Indeed, under this proposal, were the SNP to stand on a platform of an immediate unilateral declaration of independence, and get 100% of the vote – literally every single vote cast in the election, both constituency and list – this “new Act Of Union” would still forbid independence for a minimum of five years. (During which period Westminster could simply vote to abolish Holyrood to prevent it from being enacted.)
Such an intolerable situation would fly in the face of every democratic principle and international law. The “New Act Of Union” therefore actually seeks to enshrine in law the complete practical impossibility of Scotland asserting the right to self-determination guaranteed for all peoples in Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter.
(Something that’s already Labour’s position informally, also as pioneered by Dugdale.)
In writing it down, the Scottish Fabians have revealed how Scottish Labour really sees the Union – as an infinite jail sentence without hope of parole, a hostile takeover of Scotland enacted in 1707 to endure forever rather than a treaty between voluntary and equal partners which either of them is free to withdraw from.
None of which is exactly a shock, of course, but it’s good to see it finally laid out in the open in black and white. We wish Labour – a party currently sitting at around 15% (and falling) in opinion polls with around 40% of its own voters supporting independence – the very best of British luck in getting elected in Scotland on a platform of making Scots the slaves of England for all time.


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-10--The other shoe drops

The other shoe drops

Ah , so NOW we know why the SNP ’ s woke junior league stitched up the NEC to stop serious , talented and experienced politicians like Joanna Cherry and Philippa Whitford standing as MSPs in next year ’ s Holyrood election .
Who could ever have guessed , etc ?
You CAN probably guess what sort of people they are , though – the standard-issue hyper-intolerant piously quasi-fascist Twitler Youth trooper that dominates the party ’ s younger faction and wants all dissenting voices not just disagreed with or debated but silenced and shut down completely .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t blame the party ’ s ambitious males for trying to carve out some sort of career opening – the SNP already hold the vast majority of Scottish constituencies ( 59/73 ) , and the party ’ s rules are that if an incumbent SNP MSP stands down they should be replaced by an all-female shortlist , so there are only a tiny handful of seats where anyone with a penis has a hope of being elected for the party unless they pop a frock and a bit of lipstick on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t help but think – given the selection process isn ’ t even officially under way yet – that it might have looked just a bit less crooked if they ’ d waited until the stushie over the dodgy meeting was over before announcing their intentions .
Because while the “ unconstitutional ” vote barring James Dornan and mandating a female replacement has now been overturned , there ’ s still been no word from the SNP ’ s national secretary Angus MacLeod about whether the rest of the controversial and questionable decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stand .
But it was enlightening to find out what sort of people backed MacLeod for election to the key post which controls the whole party ’ s direction .
We think “ He knows the rulebook inside out ” is our favourite .

Ah, so NOW we know why the SNP’s woke junior league stitched up the NEC to stop serious, talented and experienced politicians like Joanna Cherry and Philippa Whitford standing as MSPs in next year’s Holyrood election.
Who could ever have guessed, etc?
You CAN probably guess what sort of people they are, though – the standard-issue hyper-intolerant piously quasi-fascist Twitler Youth trooper that dominates the party’s younger faction and wants all dissenting voices not just disagreed with or debated but silenced and shut down completely.
On the one level, of course, we can’t blame the party’s ambitious males for trying to carve out some sort of career opening – the SNP already hold the vast majority of Scottish constituencies (59/73), and the party’s rules are that if an incumbent SNP MSP stands down they should be replaced by an all-female shortlist, so there are only a tiny handful of seats where anyone with a penis has a hope of being elected for the party unless they pop a frock and a bit of lipstick on.
But still, we can’t help but think – given the selection process isn’t even officially under way yet – that it might have looked just a bit less crooked if they’d waited until the stushie over the dodgy meeting was over before announcing their intentions.
Because while the “unconstitutional” vote barring James Dornan and mandating a female replacement has now been overturned, there’s still been no word from the SNP’s national secretary Angus MacLeod about whether the rest of the controversial and questionable decisions from the NEC meeting will be allowed to stand.
But it was enlightening to find out what sort of people backed MacLeod for election to the key post which controls the whole party’s direction.
We think “He knows the rulebook inside out” is our favourite.


The Unaccountables

We have written yet again , wearily and with little hope of a meaningful response , to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service , a body with the power to destroy people ’ s lives but which appears to be answerable to no-one .
The letter is attached below .
Thank you for your extremely belated response .
It is , as I ’ m sure you ’ re aware , wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory , particularly given the extraordinary length of time it took .
I hope that you can remedy this by clarifying some issues that arise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is constitutionally responsible for the systems of prosecution of crime and investigation of deaths in Scotland , and is answerable to the Scottish Parliament for the operation of those systems .
That remains the position , regardless of whether or not he has been personally involved in the decision-making in any individual case .
We do not name the individual member or members of Crown Counsel involved in decision making as it is the Lord Advocate who is responsible for their decisions.
” This is confusing as on 20 May this year I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice of the Scottish Government stating : “ [ COPFS ] is independent of the Scottish Ministers and , indeed , of all others .
Section 48 ( 5 ) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that : - Any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person .
You will , of course , be aware that the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In any event , I am sure you appreciate the dangers that would be inherent in any constitutional position that allowed politicians to direct the work of the prosecution system , and of the courts ” This appears to be a clear statement that the Lord Advocate is NOT in fact answerable in any way to the Scottish Parliament .
Which is correct ?
With whom should we properly raise issues about the conduct of the Lord Advocate as head of COPFS , given that the Scottish Government has directly disavowed any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Parliament as a whole ?
Your response instructs me to raise any complaints about COPFS with COPFS itself – specifically at the Complaints email address which I in fact originally wrote to you at .
It surely can not be the case that the sole arbiter of complaints against COPFS is COPFS itself .
That would be absurd , undemocratic and plainly open to all manner of abuse .
Yet I have been unable to identify anyone else overseeing COPFS ’ actions .
HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland also washed its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me on 28 May this year , again directing me to the COPFS complaints address .
“ I am not a regulator , and have no power to enforce compliance .
Where there are concerns about the handling by COPFS of individual cases , these are more appropriately dealt with by the complaints handling function of COPFS “ Is it really the case , as these responses would suggest , that COPFS is simply and quite literally a law unto itself , in all meaningful and practical senses answerable to no-one ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ answerability be put into practice ?
To whom , if not the Scottish Government , Scottish Parliament or HMIPS – all of whom have expressly denied the responsibility – do I raise my concerns ?
( 2 ) You also said : “ As previously advised , each of the publications you referred to were carefully considered and a decision taken not to take action .
As with any allegation of contempt of court the Crown requires to consider each case on its own facts and circumstances , having regard to both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both to assess whether or not there has in fact been a breach of the legislation and if it is in the public interest to take action .
It is not appropriate for COPFS to provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to a decision in each case and I shall not do so.
” Perhaps , then , as a bare minimum of accountability to the Scottish public , you can tell me which of those two explanations applied .
Did COPFS conclude ( a ) that there had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ( b ) for some reason it was not in the public interest to pursue those breaches ?
In each case ( and all are materially the same ) it must have been one or the other , and I can see no reason for you not to specify which .
But as I have plainly detailed how the articles in each publication DID provide a clear means of jigsaw identification of a witness – [ REDACTED ] – it can really only be the second reason .
It is perfectly possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into any specific detail .
Please do so .
( 3 ) You also said : “ Further , you ask for advice on whether or not you can publish specific materials .
I have to advise you that it is not the role of COPFS to provide legal advice to journalists .
It is the responsibility of individual journalists and media outlets to seek their own independent legal advice about contempt of court when considering whether or not to publish articles.
“ This , I ’ m afraid , is very gravely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your duty .
Any and every part of the law and order system has a responsibility not only to prosecute crime but to prevent it .
It is therefore your duty , where possible , to avoid the situation of a protected witness being publicly identified if you are presented with an opportunity to do so .
If I were to see a man wearing an expensive and attractive Rolex watch in the street , with a police officer standing nearby , and I went up to the police officer and asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that man , punch him in the face and steal his watch – is that okay ?
” , I would not be advised to seek independent legal advice .
I would be clearly told that my intended actions were against the law and warned not to carry them out .
( Indeed , I might even be arrested solely for the intent . )
COPFS is not merely “ another opinion ” in this matter .
It is not analogous to a lawyer .
A lawyer can only interpret and advise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision .
It is the only valid authority .
It is analogous to a football referee – when a player believes an opponent has handled the ball he appeals to the referee to make a judgement because only the referee is empowered to do so .
He does not appeal to another player , or to a spectator , or a club official .
They may well all have a strong and clear opinion on the matter , but their opinion counts for nothing .
You are the only entity with the authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ms Garavelli and the others ’ articles will be subject to a prosecution or not .
It is of no value and no protection for that person to solicit the opinion of anyone other than COPFS , because only COPFS ’ opinion has any material consequence .
Therefore , I must insist , once again , on an answer : may I , or may I not , simply quote from these articles , which you have already deemed not appropriate for prosecution ?
The answer seems extremely obvious – those people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the articles have not been amended , the information is therefore fully in the public domain and has been for many months now .
Why , therefore , are you unwilling to tell me that the law is the same for me as it is for everyone else and that I can publish exactly the same information , literally word for word , as these people have been permitted , after your analysis , to publish freely ?
Why might I be prosecuted – as you clearly imply could be the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quoting them ?
I have not proposed or suggested adding a single piece of new information , merely quoting material that is already firmly in the public domain , which you have been made aware of and have “ carefully considered ” and concluded does not require any action ?
This should not be a remotely difficult question , Ms Miller .
The law is supposed to be the same for everyone .
If they can say it , why would I be risking prosecution for doing so ?
I look forward to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefully in under four months this time .

We have written yet again, wearily and with little hope of a meaningful response, to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, a body with the power to destroy people’s lives but which appears to be answerable to no-one.
The letter is attached below.
Dear Ms Miller,
Thank you for your extremely belated response. It is, as I’m sure you’re aware, wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory, particularly given the extraordinary length of time it took.
I hope that you can remedy this by clarifying some issues that arise from it.
(1) You state:
“the Lord Advocate is constitutionally responsible for the systems of prosecution of crime and investigation of deaths in Scotland, and is answerable to the Scottish Parliament for the operation of those systems. That remains the position, regardless of whether or not he has been personally involved in the decision-making in any individual case. We do not name the individual member or members of Crown Counsel involved in decision making as it is the Lord Advocate who is responsible for their decisions.”
This is confusing as on 20 May this year I received a letter from the Directorate of Justice of the Scottish Government stating:
“[COPFS] is independent of the Scottish Ministers and, indeed, of all others. Section 48(5) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that:-
Any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person.
You will, of course, be aware that the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament do not have the power to change this provision. In any event, I am sure you appreciate the dangers that would be inherent in any constitutional position that allowed politicians to direct the work of the prosecution system, and of the courts”
This appears to be a clear statement that the Lord Advocate is NOT in fact answerable in any way to the Scottish Parliament. Which is correct? With whom should we properly raise issues about the conduct of the Lord Advocate as head of COPFS, given that the Scottish Government has directly disavowed any responsibility on behalf of both itself and the Parliament as a whole?
Your response instructs me to raise any complaints about COPFS with COPFS itself – specifically at the Complaints email address which I in fact originally wrote to you at. It surely cannot be the case that the sole arbiter of complaints against COPFS is COPFS itself. That would be absurd, undemocratic and plainly open to all manner of abuse.
Yet I have been unable to identify anyone else overseeing COPFS’ actions. HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland also washed its hands of any responsibility in a letter to me on 28 May this year, again directing me to the COPFS complaints address.
“I am not a regulator, and have no power to enforce compliance. Where there are concerns about the handling by COPFS of individual cases, these are more appropriately dealt with by the complaints handling function of COPFS“
Is it really the case, as these responses would suggest, that COPFS is simply and quite literally a law unto itself, in all meaningful and practical senses answerable to no-one? And if not, how can its answerability be put into practice? To whom, if not the Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament or HMIPS – all of whom have expressly denied the responsibility – do I raise my concerns?
(2) You also said:
“As previously advised, each of the publications you referred to were carefully considered and a decision taken not to take action. As with any allegation of contempt of court the Crown requires to consider each case on its own facts and circumstances, having regard to both the content and context of the publication, both to assess whether or not there has in fact been a breach of the legislation and if it is in the public interest to take action. It is not appropriate for COPFS to provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances giving rise to a decision in each case and I shall not do so.”
Perhaps, then, as a bare minimum of accountability to the Scottish public, you can tell me which of those two explanations applied. Did COPFS conclude (a) that there had been no breach, or did it conclude that (b) for some reason it was not in the public interest to pursue those breaches? In each case (and all are materially the same) it must have been one or the other, and I can see no reason for you not to specify which.
But as I have plainly detailed how the articles in each publication DID provide a clear means of jigsaw identification of a witness – [REDACTED] – it can really only be the second reason. It is perfectly possible for you to confirm this without going into any specific detail. Please do so.
(3) You also said:
“Further, you ask for advice on whether or not you can publish specific materials. I have to advise you that it is not the role of COPFS to provide legal advice to journalists. It is the responsibility of individual journalists and media outlets to seek their own independent legal advice about contempt of court when considering whether or not to publish articles.“
This, I’m afraid, is very gravely dissatisfactory indeed, and a clear dereliction of your duty. Any and every part of the law and order system has a responsibility not only to prosecute crime but to prevent it. It is therefore your duty, where possible, to avoid the situation of a protected witness being publicly identified if you are presented with an opportunity to do so.
If I were to see a man wearing an expensive and attractive Rolex watch in the street, with a police officer standing nearby, and I went up to the police officer and asked “I intend to go up to that man, punch him in the face and steal his watch – is that okay?”, I would not be advised to seek independent legal advice. I would be clearly told that my intended actions were against the law and warned not to carry them out. (Indeed, I might even be arrested solely for the intent.)
COPFS is not merely “another opinion” in this matter. It is not analogous to a lawyer. A lawyer can only interpret and advise, but COPFS actually gets to make the decision. It is the only valid authority. It is analogous to a football referee – when a player believes an opponent has handled the ball he appeals to the referee to make a judgement because only the referee is empowered to do so. He does not appeal to another player, or to a spectator, or a club official. They may well all have a strong and clear opinion on the matter, but their opinion counts for nothing.
You are the only entity with the authority to determine whether a person quoting from Ms Garavelli and the others’ articles will be subject to a prosecution or not. It is of no value and no protection for that person to solicit the opinion of anyone other than COPFS, because only COPFS’ opinion has any material consequence.
Therefore, I must insist, once again, on an answer: may I, or may I not, simply quote from these articles, which you have already deemed not appropriate for prosecution?
The answer seems extremely obvious – those people and publications have not been prosecuted or sanctioned, the articles have not been amended, the information is therefore fully in the public domain and has been for many months now.
Why, therefore, are you unwilling to tell me that the law is the same for me as it is for everyone else and that I can publish exactly the same information, literally word for word, as these people have been permitted, after your analysis, to publish freely?
Why might I be prosecuted – as you clearly imply could be the case in your final paragraph – for simply quoting them? I have not proposed or suggested adding a single piece of new information, merely quoting material that is already firmly in the public domain, which you have been made aware of and have “carefully considered” and concluded does not require any action?
This should not be a remotely difficult question, Ms Miller. The law is supposed to be the same for everyone. If they can say it, why would I be risking prosecution for doing so?
I look forward to your response, and with respect, hopefully in under four months this time.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Campbell


The Hackneyed Empire

It is our grave and solemn duty to inform readers that there ’ s been another entrant in the New Act Of Union Of The Year competition .
( This is an extremely niche joke . )
The details of this one , which is arguably even more bonkers than the last one , needn ’ t concern us here .
But they ’ re a reminder of something we DO need to remember .
Because as this site has pointed out before , Boris Johnson has a mandate too .
He was elected , and has a huge effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported by Labour , the Lib Dems and the DUP ) , on a clear platform of flatly rejecting another indyref .
Scottish voters , who delivered just six seats of that majority , have no leverage over Johnson .
They can do nothing to either hurt or help him , and are therefore of zero interest to him .
He is concerned with the views of the people in England who elected him , and they would regard his concession of another referendum as a total betrayal by the man who campaigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So as the Yes movement congratulates itself on another poll showing a slender lead for independence , accompanied still by no credible plan whatsoever for securing an actual vote on the subject , it should keep reminding itself that there are two teams on the pitch and two sets of fans in the stands here , not just ours .
And it ’ s an away match .
The other side has all the actual power , and its supporters are increasingly reminding it pointedly that granting MORE powers and MORE concessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all and only made the SNP stronger , and that they might prefer things to in fact start moving in the opposite direction .
And while we ’ re just a slightly irritating buzzing noise in the far corner to him , Johnson cares what the home crowd thinks .
Labour and the Tories may have slightly differing views on the route , but they agree on the destination – a Holyrood stripped of any kind of ability to act on the constitution .
If we don ’ t come up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more empty puffed-up appeals to the UK government ’ s sense of fair play ” pretty soon , we might find that events have overtaken us .

It is our grave and solemn duty to inform readers that there’s been another entrant in the New Act Of Union Of The Year competition. (This is an extremely niche joke.)
The details of this one, which is arguably even more bonkers than the last one, needn’t concern us here. But they’re a reminder of something we DO need to remember.
Because as this site has pointed out before, Boris Johnson has a mandate too. He was elected, and has a huge effective majority (as he’s also supported by Labour, the Lib Dems and the DUP), on a clear platform of flatly rejecting another indyref.
Scottish voters, who delivered just six seats of that majority, have no leverage over Johnson. They can do nothing to either hurt or help him, and are therefore of zero interest to him. He is concerned with the views of the people in England who elected him, and they would regard his concession of another referendum as a total betrayal by the man who campaigned as “Minister Of The Union”.
So as the Yes movement congratulates itself on another poll showing a slender lead for independence, accompanied still by no credible plan whatsoever for securing an actual vote on the subject, it should keep reminding itself that there are two teams on the pitch and two sets of fans in the stands here, not just ours. And it’s an away match.
The other side has all the actual power, and its supporters are increasingly reminding it pointedly that granting MORE powers and MORE concessions to Holyrood has done them no good at all and only made the SNP stronger, and that they might prefer things to in fact start moving in the opposite direction. And while we’re just a slightly irritating buzzing noise in the far corner to him, Johnson cares what the home crowd thinks.
Labour and the Tories may have slightly differing views on the route, but they agree on the destination – a Holyrood stripped of any kind of ability to act on the constitution. If we don’t come up with a more credible gameplan than “yet more empty puffed-up appeals to the UK government’s sense of fair play” pretty soon, we might find that events have overtaken us.


An Auld Sang


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-13--How to waste your vote

How to waste your vote

We ’ ve been having a closer look at the latest polling for next year ’ s Holyrood election ( YouGov , from this week ) , and in particular the list numbers .
We thought you might be interested in a little stat from them .
That ’ s the full breakdown .
But that ’ s not the graphic that really tells the story .
Assuming that turnout was the same as 2016 , the YouGov figures would translate to 1,213,000 list votes for pro-indy parties , and 939,000 for Unionist parties .
But all those votes would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three down on 2016 despite the pro-indy vote share going up from 48 % to 53 % ) , and 48 Unionist list seats .
If your primary motivation at next year ’ s election is “ being fair to Unionists and keeping people like Annie Wells , Murdo Fraser , Jackie Baillie , Jamie Greene , James Kelly , Alex Cole-Hamilton and Kirstene Hair in Parliament ” , and if those are the people you think are best qualified to hold an SNP government to account and pressure them to pursue independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both your votes to the SNP .
If not , it might be something you want to think about .

We’ve been having a closer look at the latest polling for next year’s Holyrood election (YouGov, from this week), and in particular the list numbers. We thought you might be interested in a little stat from them.
That’s the full breakdown. But that’s not the graphic that really tells the story.
Assuming that turnout was the same as 2016, the YouGov figures would translate to 1,213,000 list votes for pro-indy parties, and 939,000 for Unionist parties.
But all those votes would deliver just seven pro-indy list seats (three down on 2016 despite the pro-indy vote share going up from 48% to 53%), and 48 Unionist list seats.
If your primary motivation at next year’s election is “being fair to Unionists and keeping people like Annie Wells, Murdo Fraser, Jackie Baillie, Jamie Greene, James Kelly, Alex Cole-Hamilton and Kirstene Hair in Parliament”, and if those are the people you think are best qualified to hold an SNP government to account and pressure them to pursue independence meaningfully, then by all means give both your votes to the SNP.
If not, it might be something you want to think about.