Darwin’s Failures

The BBC ran a completely insane story this week about a transman ( ie a woman ) who almost died of kidney failure because she didn ’ t tell her doctors what sex she really was .
The standout paragraph was probably the one below , in which the atom-brained narcissist imbecile of a patient explained to a startled nation that apparently having a mental disorder also changes your physical biology : But anyway .
When we commission opinion polls , we ’ ve often noted that in any given poll you can expect around 5-10 % of respondents to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options – either as a “ joke ” , or because they ’ re too dim to have understood the question , or whatever .
And last week we thought we ’ d put that to the test .
So we got Panelbase to ask a sample of 1,011 voters ( the same sample that returned the 55 % Yes result ) a series of controversial and not-so-controversial questions .
The results , even allowing for the 5-10 % rule , pretty much blew our minds .
We ’ re going to list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order of least popular to most popular .
Buckle up , readers , this one ’ s going to get crazy .
12 .
“ Sometimes it ’ s okay for an adult to have sex with a child.
” Well , that ’ s a relief .
Despite “ MAPs ” ( Minor-Attracted Persons , or paedophiles in the old money ) being a protected category on Twitter and agitating for admission into the ever-expanding LGBTQIA+ “ community ” , even the 16-34 age group was unsupportive of paedophilic rape , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept it .
The biggest agreement overall came from Labour voters ( 5 % ) , followed by Lib Dems ( 3 % ) and SNP ( 1 % ) , with the Tories in last at less than 1 % .
Much lower than we were expecting , to be honest , given how many institutions have been captured by transgender ideology and how many “ brave and stunning ” heavily-bearded and bepenised men like Alex Drummond ( below ) are walking around loudly demanding that lesbians sleep with them or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unsurprising the youth demographic was keenest on this idea , with 9 % of 16-34s agreeing , compared to just 4 % of 35-54s and 3 % of over-55s .
And again Labour voters were most supportive ( 8 % ) , followed by SNP ( 5 % ) , Lib Dems ( 4 % ) and Tories ( 1 % ) .
10 .
“ Sometimes it ’ s possible to stop the tides of the ocean from coming in or going out ” Famously , of course , even King Canute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and conducted his famous experiment in an attempt to demonstrate that it WASN ’ T possible .
But 5 % of Scots do , and once again it ’ s young people and Labour voters in the lead .
The three age groups went 7 % -5 % -2 % , youngest to oldest , while party voters were Lab 7 % , Lib Dem/Con 4 % , SNP 3 % .
Erk .
Alert readers will be aware that this is a debate that ’ s been raging implausibly for the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triggered again by transgender activists .
So it was a bit of a surprise when over-55s were the most likely age group to agree with the proposition ( 9 % ) , compared to 7 % of younger voters and 6 % of the middle-aged .
Labour voters ( perhaps desperately hoping it was a route to more votes ) led overall with 11 % agreement , vs 8 % from Lib Dems , 7 % from SNP and 5 % of Tories .
8 .
“ Sometimes it ’ s better for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This is actually a relatively mainstream political viewpoint , mainly on the right , usually used to defend “ strong leaders ” in foreign regimes who are friendly with the West .
And sure enough Tory voters ( 12 % ) were most likely to agree , followed by Labour ( 9 % ) , SNP ( 5 % ) and Lib Dem ( 4 % ) voters .
Young people were most likely to lust after a bit of authoritarianism , with 10 % agreeing compared to 8 % and 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
7 .
“ Sometimes white people can become black people , or vice versa ” Rather weirdly , while trans activists insist that human beings can change their sex just by announcing it , they get extremely irate at the idea that they could also change their race in the same way , such as in the case of Rachel Dolezal ( below ) .
But the youth were still the most supportive here , with 10 % agreeing compared to 8 % of the middle-aged and 3 % of the old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % , SNP 6 % , Lib Dem/Tory 4 % .
We thought this might score a little higher in these troubled times , with so many people in desperate need and hunger , but the voters of Scotland were pretty firm , perhaps believing that ( eg ) foodbanks were picking up the slack .
A hefty 23 % of the youth demographic did agree , though – dramatically higher than the 10 % and 8 % of the middle-aged and old respectively .
Labour voters recorded 18 % , SNP 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tories 6 % .
5 .
“ Sometimes the law should be different for different groups of people ” No big deal here , just the core principle of criminal justice – that the law should be the same for everyone – being casually tossed aside by almost one in seven Scots .
Rather unexpectedly , Lib Dem voters ( 16 % ) were keenest to have the law altered by demographics , with Labour and SNP supporters tied on 12 % and Tories on 9 % .
Once more young people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 % ) compared to 12 % and 10 % for middle and older ages .
And while it ’ s traditionally Lady Justice who ’ s blindfolded , women ( 14 % ) were keener on the prospect of seeing the defendant before making the rules than men ( 11 % ) .
4 .
“ Sometimes it ’ s safe to drive significantly faster than the speed limit ” While it ’ s one of the highest scores in the poll , we also thought more people would agree with this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
The UK ’ s current speed limits were introduced in 1965 , when cars were incredibly primitive and dangerous machines compared to today ’ s models equipped with power steering , anti-lock brakes , crumple zones , airbags and whatnot , so the idea that you can ’ t safely do 80mph on an empty motorway at 3am seems absurd .
But only one in five Scots concurred with that opinion .
Tories and Labour voters ( both on 25 % ) were most likely to regard the limits as over-restrictive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % , with SNP supporters on just 16 % .
The middle-aged ( 23 % ) were the biggest speed-freaks , followed by the young ( 20 % ) and the elderly ( 19 % ) .
This is a strange one , because while only 5 % of Scots think that men can be lesbians , more than four times as many think women can have penises .
How does THAT work ?
To nobody ’ s surprise young voters ( 34 % ) were most likely to accept this proposition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % ) and old ( 14 % ) .
Labour voters backed ladydique by 25 % , just ahead of the SNP ’ s on 23 % , Lib Dems on 18 % and Tories on 12 % .
There was almost no difference between men ( 21 % ) and women ( 22 % ) , ironically .
2 .
“ Sometimes it ’ s possible to communicate with the dead ” While technically a tie with the female-penises question , marginally more people ( 222 vs 220 ) agreed that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deceased .
Unexpectedly , the over-55s were the LEAST likely to agree ( 18 % ) , with the middle-aged group the most seance-friendly ( 20 % ) and the young in the middle ( 23 % ) .
27 % of Labour voters thought they could talk to the toddled-off , plus 23 % of the SNP ’ s , 16 % of Tories and 12 % of Lib Dems .
Curiously , people who rented their home were almost twice as likely ( 31 % ) to believe in supernatural dialogue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even religious people tend to only think you get to talk to your deceased relatives once you too shuffle from this mortal coil .
What could possibly be more doolally than this ?
1 .
“ Sometimes the Sun revolves around the Earth ” Okay , we ’ re going to need a minute .
Scotland , you need to have a word with yourself .
MORE THAN A QUARTER of people WHO ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS apparently still aren ’ t too sure about that dodgy Galileo bloke .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit .
The maddest bit is the “ sometimes ” .
Apparently one in four of our fellow Scots think that not only is several centuries of established astronomy a load of old cobblers , but that it VARIES according to unspecified circumstances .
We ’ ve never wanted to go back and pose follow-up questions more .
Like , WHEN do people think it flips ?
Leap years ?
Full moons ?
We… we can ’ t even .
A mind-boggling 35 % of voters aged 35-54 believe this gibbering lunacy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of over-55s and 22 % of the young .
Fully 33 % of Labour voters are STARK STARING MAD , like 27 % of SNP voters and 24 % of Lib Dems and Tories .
So in amongst some relatively sane propositions like being able to drive a little fast sometimes and thinking maybe we shouldn ’ t come down too hard on hungry people stealing food , by far the most popular ideas of the ones we put to Scottish voters were that you can communicate with the dead , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sun SOMETIMES revolves around the Earth .
Though these are perhaps the three most fundamental concepts of human existence – the Earth revolves around the Sun , men aren ’ t women and the dead don ’ t come back to life – around a million of us don ’ t believe in them .
Suddenly , readers , it feels like what the country needs is a lot more kidney disease .

The BBC ran a completely insane story this week about a transman (ie a mentally ill woman) who almost died of kidney failure because she didn’t tell her doctors what sex she really was. The standout paragraph was probably the one pictured below, in which the atom-brained narcissist imbecile explained to a startled nation that apparently having a mental disorder also changes your physical biology:
(Also, y’know, “cute and awesome!” is definitely how men talk.)
But anyway. When we commission opinion polls, we’ve often noted that in any given poll you can expect around 5-10% of respondents to vote for even the most seemingly ridiculous options – either as a “joke”, or because they’re too dim to have understood the question, or whatever.
And last week we thought we’d put that to the test.
So we got Panelbase to ask a sample of 1,011 voters (the same sample that returned the 55% Yes result) a series of controversial and not-so-controversial questions. The results, even allowing for the 5-10% rule, pretty much blew our minds.
We’re going to list the 12 propositions we put to voters in order of least popular to most popular. Buckle up, readers, this one’s going to get crazy.
12. “Sometimes it’s okay for an adult to have sex with a child.”
Agree: 2%
Disagree: 98%
Well, that’s a relief. Despite “MAPs” (Minor-Attracted Persons, or paedophiles in the old money) being a protected category on Twitter and agitating for admission into the ever-expanding LGBTQIA+ “community”, even the 16-34 age group was unsupportive of paedophilic rape, with only 3% of them willing to accept it.
The biggest agreement overall came from Labour voters (5%), followed by Lib Dems (3%) and SNP (1%), with the Tories in last at less than 1%.
11. “Sometimes men can be lesbians.”
Agree: 5%
Disagree: 95%
Much lower than we were expecting, to be honest, given how many institutions have been captured by transgender ideology and how many “brave and stunning” heavily-bearded and bepenised men like Alex Drummond (below) are walking around loudly demanding that lesbians have sex with them or be cast out as disgusting bigots.
Unsurprisingly the youth demographic was keenest on this idea, with 9% of 16-34s agreeing, compared to just 4% of 35-54s and 3% of over-55s. And again Labour voters were most supportive (8%), followed by SNP (5%), Lib Dems (4%) and Tories (1%).
10. “Sometimes it’s possible to stop the tides of the ocean from coming in or going out”
Agree: 5%
Disagree: 95%
Famously, of course, even King Canute himself didn’t believe this, and conducted his famous experiment in an attempt to demonstrate that it WASN’T possible. But 5% of Scots do, and once again it’s young people and Labour voters in the lead. The three age groups went 7%-5%-2%, youngest to oldest, while party voters were Lab 7%, Lib Dem/Con 4%, SNP 3%.
9. “Sometimes 2+2=5”
Agree: 7%
Disagree: 93%
Erk. Alert readers will be aware that this is a debate that’s been raging implausibly for the last couple of weeks on social media, triggered again by transgender activists. So it was a bit of a surprise when over-55s were the most likely age group to agree with the proposition (9%), compared to 7% of younger voters and 6% of the middle-aged.
Labour voters (perhaps desperately hoping it was a route to more votes) led overall with 11% agreement, vs 8% from Lib Dems, 7% from SNP and 5% of Tories.
8. “Sometimes it’s better for dictators to rule countries, not democracy”
Agree: 7%
Disagree: 93%
This is actually a relatively mainstream political viewpoint, mainly on the right, usually used to defend “strong leaders” in foreign regimes who are friendly with the West. And sure enough Tory voters (12%) were most likely to agree, followed by Labour (9%), SNP (5%) and Lib Dem (4%) voters.
Young people were most likely to lust after a bit of authoritarianism, with 10% agreeing compared to 8% and 5% respectively among the middle-aged and old.
7. “Sometimes white people can become black people, or vice versa”
Agree: 7%
Disagree: 93%
Rather weirdly, while trans activists insist that human beings can change their sex just by announcing it, they get extremely irate at the idea that they could also change their race in the same way, such as in the case of Rachel Dolezal (below).
But the youth were still the most supportive here, with 10% agreeing compared to 8% of the middle-aged and 3% of the old. Politically the split was Labour 7%, SNP 6%, Lib Dem/Tory 4%.
6. “Sometimes it’s acceptable to steal”
Agree: 12%
Disagree: 88%
We thought this might score a little higher in these troubled times, with so many people in desperate need and hunger, but the voters of Scotland were pretty firm, perhaps believing that (eg) foodbanks were picking up the slack.
A hefty 23% of the youth demographic did agree, though – dramatically higher than the 10% and 8% of the middle-aged and old respectively. Labour voters recorded 18%, SNP 14%, Lib Dems 7% and Tories 6%.
(We should perhaps point out here that there were no really big differences for any of the questions between Yes and No voters, or Remainers and Leavers.)
5. “Sometimes the law should be different for different groups of people”
Agree: 13%
Disagree: 87%
No big deal here, just the core principle of criminal justice – that the law should be the same for everyone – being casually tossed aside by almost one in seven Scots.
Rather unexpectedly, Lib Dem voters (16%) were keenest to have the law altered by demographics, with Labour and SNP supporters tied on 12% and Tories on 9%. Once more young people were also the most supportive age group (17%) compared to 12% and 10% for middle and older ages.
And while it’s traditionally Lady Justice who’s blindfolded, women (14%) were keener on the prospect of seeing the defendant before making the rules than men (11%).
4. “Sometimes it’s safe to drive significantly faster than the speed limit”
Agree: 20%
Disagree: 80%
While it’s one of the highest scores in the poll, we also thought more people would agree with this proposition because it’s so manifestly true. The UK’s current speed limits were introduced in 1965, when cars were incredibly primitive and dangerous machines compared to today’s models equipped with power steering, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, airbags and whatnot, so the idea that you can’t safely do 80mph on an empty motorway at 3am seems absurd.
But only one in five Scots concurred with that opinion. Tories and Labour voters (both on 25%) were most likely to regard the limits as over-restrictive, followed by Lib Dems at 22%, with SNP supporters on just 16%. The middle-aged (23%) were the biggest speed-freaks, followed by the young (20%) and the elderly (19%).
3. “Sometimes women have penises”
Agree: 22%
Disagree: 78%
This is a strange one, because while only 5% of Scots think that men can be lesbians, more than four times as many think women can have penises. How does THAT work?
To nobody’s surprise young voters (34%) were most likely to accept this proposition, way ahead of the middle-aged (20%) and old (14%). Labour voters backed ladydique by 25%, just ahead of the SNP’s on 23%, Lib Dems on 18% and Tories on 12%.
There was almost no difference between men (21%) and women (22%), ironically.
2. “Sometimes it’s possible to communicate with the dead”
Agree: 22%
Disagree: 78%
While technically a tie with the female-penises question, marginally more people (222 vs 220) agreed that you can have the occasional chinwag with the deceased. Unexpectedly, the over-55s were the LEAST likely to agree (18%), with the middle-aged group the most seance-friendly (20%) and the young in the middle (23%).
27% of Labour voters thought they could talk to the toddled-off, plus 23% of the SNP’s, 16% of Tories and 12% of Lib Dems. Curiously, people who rented their home were almost twice as likely (31%) to believe in supernatural dialogue as homeowners (16%).
(This was the only question in which those two groups differed so dramatically.)
Even religious people tend to only think you get to talk to your deceased relatives once you too shuffle from this mortal coil. What could possibly be more doolally than this?
1. “Sometimes the Sun revolves around the Earth”
Agree: 27%
Disagree: 73%
Wait, WHAT?
[checks data tables]
Seriously?
Okay, we’re going to need a minute.
[lengthy pause]
Scotland, you need to have a word with yourself. MORE THAN A QUARTER of people WHO ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS apparently still aren’t too sure about that dodgy Galileo bloke. But that’s even not the maddest bit.
The maddest bit is the “sometimes”. Apparently one in four of our fellow Scots think that not only is several centuries of established astronomy a load of old cobblers, but that it VARIES according to unspecified circumstances. We’ve never wanted to go back and pose follow-up questions more. Like, WHEN do people think it flips? Leap years? Full moons? We… we can’t even.
A mind-boggling 35% of voters aged 35-54 believe this gibbering lunacy to be the truth, as do 24% of over-55s and 22% of the young. Fully 33% of Labour voters are STARK STARING MAD, like 27% of SNP voters and 24% of Lib Dems and Tories.
Help.
So in amongst some relatively sane propositions like being able to drive a little fast sometimes and thinking maybe we shouldn’t come down too hard on hungry people stealing food, by far the most popular ideas of the ones we put to Scottish voters were that you can communicate with the dead, that women can have penises and that the Sun SOMETIMES revolves around the Earth.
Though these are perhaps the three most fundamental concepts of human existence – the Earth revolves around the Sun, men aren’t women and the dead don’t come back to life – around a million of us don’t believe in them.
Suddenly, readers, it feels like what the country needs is a lot more kidney disease.


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-21--You Are The Boris Johnson

You Are The Boris Johnson

Much as we might wish otherwise , we haven ’ t been able to help noticing other pro-indy websites doubling down on the “ BOTH VOTES SNP , TRUST IN QUEEN NICOLA , THE 10TH MANDATE IS THE ONE THAT ’ LL WORK !
” routine lately .
And however much we ’ ve tried to get people to grasp the seemingly-obvious fact that Boris Johnson is not looking at this debate from the same viewpoint we all are , reality doesn ’ t seem to be getting through to everyone yet .
So we thought we ’ d try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not very good at impressions .
Q : DO YOU WANT TO BE REMEMBERED BY HISTORY AS THE PRIME MINISTER WHO BROKE UP THE UK ?
( a ) Yes , I do .
I ’ m sick of listening to their silly MPs complaining and I can ’ t wait to spend all that money we currently subsidise the ungrateful whinging Jockos with on something else .
It ’ s nearly £200m a week , maybe we ’ ll give it all to the NHS !
Dominic , do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
( b ) No , of course I bally well don ’ t .
The subsidy is a total myth , we wouldn ’ t have anywhere to park our nuclear subs , the Irish would probably reunite and I ’ d look a proper chump as the only Prime Minister of the Conservative And Unionist Party who failed to conserve the Union .
Q : IF THERE WAS AN INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM HELD IN SCOTLAND NEXT YEAR , DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD WIN IT ?
( a ) Of course !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could just trot out all that old stuff about the price of stamps going up and losing Doctor Who and they ’ d soon come trotting meekly back .
Is that McDougall cove still available ?
( b ) Oh no , we ’ d get a proper spanking , old boy .
They ’ re at 55 % already and Brexit hasn ’ t even really happened yet .
If we let them anywhere near a ballot box in the forseeable we ’ re well and truly scuppered .
Q : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ THE UK IS GOING TO GET BETTER OR WORSE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS ?
( a ) It ’ s going to be super !
We took back control !
What could go wrong ?
( b ) It ’ s a damn tricky pickle , to be honest – we still haven ’ t got a deadly pandemic under control , the economy is plummetting faster than a working-class oik ’ s exam grades as a result , unemployment ’ s going absolutely through the roof when we cut off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re about to dump a no-deal Brexit on top of the whole terrible mess for good measure .
You and I and our old Bullingdon chums will be fine , of course – there ’ s nothing quite like a good bit of disaster capitalism for energising one ’ s pension pot – but I ’ ll be honest with you , I don ’ t think the common-or-garden Jockos are about to suddenly fall back in love with dear old Blighty any time soon .
Q : DO YOU THINK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A VIABLE STRATEGY ?
( a ) No .
We could end up being unpopular in Scotland , and we in the Conservative Party have no experience of unpopularity in Scotland – I simply don ’ t know how we ’ d cope .
I mean , we won an election there barely 65 years ago !
The very idea is simply intolerable and perish it all to heck .
( b ) Well , yes – as opposed to what , my dear fellow ?
Is the idea that we should grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d lose , because in future their support might get higher and we might lose ?
Are you telling me we should concede defeat now in order to avoid defeat in future ?
To chuck in the towel at the Oval before the second innings even starts ?
I won ’ t have it , chaps !
Or are you telling me that it ’ d be smart to do it now because we might actually win ?
I must admit , I don ’ t quite get why the tartan-trousered separatists would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve spent these last six years crying patience , and now that they ’ re a fragile handful of points ahead they want to rush headlong at it rather than waiting a little longer for what they ’ d consider an absolutely certain victory ?
But I don ’ t buy it .
I mean , even if we were accepting it was only a matter of time , surely we ’ d want to hold off until the last possible moment so that we could bleed the place dry , cripple that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many barriers between them and the EU as we can so that going it alone is as difficult and unattractive a prospect as possible , if only to discourage the Paddies and the Taffs from following suit ?
And the longer we delay , the better the chance of a change in fortune – no matter how far behind you are there ’ s always a chance of rain stopping play , after all , and there looks to be at least a fair fighting chance that the ghastly Nats might tear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or another .
But damn it all , isn ’ t “ holding out heroically to the last man ” the Blitz Spirit that made this country great ?
We didn ’ t get ourselves out of Dunkirk by saying “ it ’ s all hopeless ” and waving the white flag to old Johnny Hitler on the spot , did we ?
We shall fight them on the benches !
No surrender , I say !
Mostly ( a ) s : You are not Boris Johnson .
You ’ re a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees things from the same “ what ’ s best for Scotland ” perspective you do .
And he really , really , really , really doesn ’ t .
Good grief , haven ’ t you noticed that by now ?
Mostly ( b ) s : You are Boris Johnson and you should probably be at work .
Although speaking on behalf of the nation , no rush .

Much as we might wish otherwise, we haven’t been able to help noticing other pro-indy websites doubling down on the “BOTH VOTES SNP, TRUST IN QUEEN NICOLA, THE 10TH MANDATE IS THE ONE THAT’LL WORK!” routine lately.
And however much we’ve tried to get people to grasp the seemingly-obvious fact that Boris Johnson is not looking at this debate from the same viewpoint we all are, reality doesn’t seem to be getting through to everyone yet.
So we thought we’d try a new tack.
DISCLAIMER: We’re not very good at impressions.
Q: DO YOU WANT TO BE REMEMBERED BY HISTORY AS THE PRIME MINISTER WHO BROKE UP THE UK?
(a) Yes, I do. I’m sick of listening to their silly MPs complaining and I can’t wait to spend all that money we currently subsidise the ungrateful whinging Jockos with on something else. It’s nearly £200m a week, maybe we’ll give it all to the NHS! Dominic, do you know where we can hire another bus?
(b) No, of course I bally well don’t. The subsidy is a total myth, we wouldn’t have anywhere to park our nuclear subs, the Irish would probably reunite and I’d look a proper chump as the only Prime Minister of the Conservative And Unionist Party who failed to conserve the Union.
Q: IF THERE WAS AN INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM HELD IN SCOTLAND NEXT YEAR, DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD WIN IT?
(a) Of course! Sure, the polls look bad but we could just trot out all that old stuff about the price of stamps going up and losing Doctor Who and they’d soon come trotting meekly back. Is that McDougall cove still available?
(b) Oh no, we’d get a proper spanking, old boy. They’re at 55% already and Brexit hasn’t even really happened yet. If we let them anywhere near a ballot box in the forseeable we’re well and truly scuppered.
Q: DO YOU THINK THE GENERAL SITUATION IN THE UK IS GOING TO GET BETTER OR WORSE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS?
(a) It’s going to be super! We took back control! What could go wrong?
(b) It’s a damn tricky pickle, to be honest – we still haven’t got a deadly pandemic under control, the economy is plummetting faster than a working-class oik’s exam grades as a result, unemployment’s going absolutely through the roof when we cut off the furlough scheme in a few weeks and we’re about to dump a no-deal Brexit on top of the whole terrible mess for good measure.
You and I and our old Bullingdon chums will be fine, of course – there’s nothing quite like a good bit of disaster capitalism for energising one’s pension pot – but I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think the common-or-garden Jockos are about to suddenly fall back in love with dear old Blighty any time soon.
Q: DO YOU THINK THAT REFUSING A SECOND REFERENDUM INDEFINITELY IS A VIABLE STRATEGY?
(a) No. We could end up being unpopular in Scotland, and we in the Conservative Party have no experience of unpopularity in Scotland – I simply don’t know how we’d cope. I mean, we won an election there barely 65 years ago! The very idea is simply intolerable and perish it all to heck.
(b) Well, yes – as opposed to what, my dear fellow? Is the idea that we should grant a referendum now, when we’d lose, because in future their support might get higher and we might lose? Are you telling me we should concede defeat now in order to avoid defeat in future? To chuck in the towel at the Oval before the second innings even starts? I won’t have it, chaps!
Or are you telling me that it’d be smart to do it now because we might actually win? I must admit, I don’t quite get why the tartan-trousered separatists would be arguing for that. They’ve spent these last six years crying patience, and now that they’re a fragile handful of points ahead they want to rush headlong at it rather than waiting a little longer for what they’d consider an absolutely certain victory?
But I don’t buy it. I mean, even if we were accepting it was only a matter of time, surely we’d want to hold off until the last possible moment so that we could bleed the place dry, cripple that blasted toytown Parliament of theirs and create as many barriers between them and the EU as we can so that going it alone is as difficult and unattractive a prospect as possible, if only to discourage the Paddies and the Taffs from following suit?
And the longer we delay, the better the chance of a change in fortune – no matter how far behind you are there’s always a chance of rain stopping play, after all, and there looks to be at least a fair fighting chance that the ghastly Nats might tear themselves to pieces soon over one thing or another.
But damn it all, isn’t “holding out heroically to the last man” the Blitz Spirit that made this country great? We didn’t get ourselves out of Dunkirk by saying “it’s all hopeless” and waving the white flag to old Johnny Hitler on the spot, did we? We shall fight them on the benches! No surrender, I say!
ANSWERS:
Mostly (a)s: You are not Boris Johnson. You’re a Yes supporter who thinks the Prime Minister sees things from the same “what’s best for Scotland” perspective you do. And he really, really, really, really doesn’t. Good grief, haven’t you noticed that by now?
Mostly (b)s: You are Boris Johnson and you should probably be at work. Although speaking on behalf of the nation, no rush.


The second opinion

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

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


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-23--The gums of the tiger

The gums of the tiger

The Sunday Times carries a quite surprising story today .
( And not just because the person in the picture isn ’ t actually Liz Lloyd at all . )
We ’ ll pause for but a brief moment to contemplate the assertion that this unelected , unaccountable civil servant might be “ the second most powerful woman in the Scottish government ” and then move on to the interesting bit .
The revelation is surprising because less than a week ago the Scottish Government ( in the form of no less a personage than the Deputy First Minister ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trouble and effort to insist that Ms Lloyd – despite having had what appears a fairly central role in the entire Salmond affair from the beginning – SHOULDN ’ T appear before the inquiry .
We can only hope that her sudden willingness to give evidence isn ’ t connected to the already-growing impression that the committee is a toothless beast which , through a combination of its own self-censorship and the Scottish Government ’ s shameful lack of cooperation ( after Nicola Sturgeon ’ s repeated promises – now revealed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material [ the committee ] will request ” ) , will produce nothing other than a tame whitewash .

The Sunday Times carries a quite surprising story today. (And that’s not just because the person in the picture isn’t actually Liz Lloyd at all.)
We’ll pause for but a brief moment to contemplate the assertion that this unelected, unaccountable civil servant might be “the second most powerful woman in the Scottish government” and then move on to the interesting bit.
The revelation is surprising because less than a week ago the Scottish Government (in the form of no less a personage than the Deputy First Minister) was still going to a considerable amount of trouble and effort to insist that Ms Lloyd – despite having had what appears a fairly central role in the entire Salmond affair from the beginning – SHOULDN’T appear before the inquiry.
We can only hope that her sudden willingness to give evidence isn’t connected to the already-growing impression that the committee is a toothless beast which, through a combination of its own self-censorship and the Scottish Government’s shameful lack of cooperation (after Nicola Sturgeon’s repeated promises – now revealed as barefaced lies – to “provide whatever material [the committee] will request”), will produce nothing other than a tame whitewash.


The distant choir

During the 2014 indyref , the astonishingly vast imbalance of the mainstream Scottish media was partly compensated by a huge rise in new media , with dozens and dozens of sites filling the gaping chasms where printed and broadcast media would have been in any country with a press worthy of the name at such an exciting time .
The subsequent shrivelling of that presence has been one of the least observed and explored phenomena of the six years since the referendum , and especially since the SNP ’ s election victory in 2016 .
The incredibly wide-ranging , mutually-supportive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tiny handful of outlets , most of which are barely read ( and most of which would celebrate if the others burned down in a chemical fire ) .
There are many and varied reasons for this worrying situation , but before we get into those let ’ s have a quick look at who ’ s still who and what ’ s still what .
To get our figures we went to the web traffic analysis site SimilarWeb , which had the greatest breadth of statistics in the Scottish-politics field .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ five sites ( one of which , The Ferret , is quite a big stretch in terms of our criteria – it ’ s politically neutral , though it sprang up out of the Yes movement – but we thought we ’ d include it anyway for interest and just to pad the sparse data out a bit ) .
Every other indy site that ’ s still producing content on a reasonably regular basis wasn ’ t being visited enough to register on SimilarWeb ’ s radar at all – we checked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Munguin ’ s Republic , Newsnet , Source ( the replacement for CommonSpace ) and The Common Green but none even moved the needle .
Other once-popular sites and voices , of course , have simply vanished entirely ( taking all their work with them ) or exist only as historical curios not updated in several years .
Arc Of Prosperity , Dateline Scotland , Derek Bateman , Indyref2 , Lallands Peat Worrier , Peter Bell , To September And Beyond and many more are dead or dormant .
Of the survivors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or put another way : From our own perspective those numbers are mildly astounding , given that we ’ re now banned from Twitter ( which has knocked around 20 % off our traffic ) , that we ’ ve been on holiday for fully half of the year , and that we ’ ve spent what feels like most of the rest of the time giving the SNP a kicking .
What ’ s especially interesting is that the most hackneyed criticism of the new media – that it only got an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ converted and telling them what they wanted to hear – is pretty comprehensively disproved by those numbers .
We ’ ve been dealing in some ugly , unpleasant home truths that nobody wanted to hear for most of 2020 – and been bitterly and repeatedly attacked by some of those other sites for it – but we ’ re still crushing everyone else put together .
But overall none of this is great news .
Years of inaction and worse from the SNP have drained much of the enthusiasm and strength from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge of activity that characterised 2011-14 has withered away , with only the occasional march ( now scuppered by COVID-19 ) helping to keep spirits up .
The once-huge and diverse army of campaigners , lacking a focus for its energies , has predictably turned in on itself and split into warring factions , while other parts have just lost heart and wandered back to their normal lives .
It remains to be seen if another referendum would see an outbreak of unity and common purpose , but as the Salmond inquiry rolls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s soul – between its careerist , devolutionist woke wing and those who are actually focused on independence – shows no sign of abating , it looks like the road ahead has a lot more rocks and potholes in it than smooth tarmac .
As to whether there ’ ll be anyone to document the journey , should it ever get properly underway again , we can only hope .
*We should note that these figures are the most generous we could find in terms of the other sites , by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SEMRush.com Wings still recorded 624,000 visits a month ( only 7 % less than the 670,000 returned by SimilarWeb ) , but Wee Ginger Dug showed only 101,000 ( less than a third of the 309,000 stat from SW ) , Bella Caledonia got just 61,000 ( not 75,000 ) and the others didn ’ t even register .

During the 2014 indyref, the astonishingly vast imbalance of the mainstream Scottish media was partly compensated by a huge rise in new media, with dozens and dozens of sites filling the gaping chasms where printed and broadcast media would have been in any country with a press worthy of the name at such an exciting time.
The subsequent shrivelling of that presence has been one of the least observed and explored phenomena of the six years since the referendum, and especially since the SNP’s election victory in 2016. The incredibly wide-ranging, mutually-supportive pro-Yes new media is now down to a tiny handful of outlets, most of which are barely read (and most of which would celebrate if the others burned down in a chemical fire).
There are many and varied reasons for this worrying situation, but before we get into those let’s have a quick look at who’s still who and what’s still what.
To get our figures we went to the web traffic analysis site SimilarWeb, which had the greatest breadth of statistics in the Scottish-politics field. But even that only produced numbers for five sites – one of which we didn’t even know existed in its present form, so little had it reached outside the echo chamber.
Every other indy site that’s still producing content on a reasonably regular basis wasn’t being visited enough to register on SimilarWeb’s radar at all – we checked Business For Scotland, Grouse Beater, Munguin’s Republic, Newsnet, Source (the replacement for CommonSpace) and The Common Green but none even moved the needle.
(This, incidentally, was also true for every Unionist blogsite we could think of.)
Other once-popular sites and voices, of course, have simply vanished entirely (taking all their work with them) or exist only as historical curios not updated in several years. Arc Of Prosperity, Dateline Scotland, Derek Bateman, Indyref2, Lallands Peat Worrier, To September And Beyond and many more are dead or dormant.
Of the survivors, these are the monthly visits stats*.
Or put another way:
From our own perspective those numbers are mildly astounding, given that we’re now banned from Twitter (which has knocked around 20% off our traffic), that we’ve been on holiday for fully half of the year, and that we’ve spent what feels like most of the rest of the time giving the SNP a kicking.
(Wings has also retained its position among UK-wide politics blogs to a degree we find frankly extraordinary. In June 2017 we were ranked at #6,931 in the UK, well behind Guido Fawkes and Conservative Home. Today we’ve climbed to #3,529 while Guido has slipped to #1,380 and Conservative Home now trails behind Wings at #4,588.)
What’s especially interesting is that the most hackneyed criticism of the new media – that it only got an audience because it was preaching to the converted and telling them what they wanted to hear – is pretty comprehensively disproved by those numbers. We’ve been dealing in some ugly, unpleasant home truths that nobody wanted to hear for most of 2020 – and been bitterly and repeatedly attacked by some of those other sites for it – but we’re still crushing everyone else put together.
(By way of an illustration, Wee Ginger Dug – which we don’t think it’s unfair to say has leant very much more towards the “give them what they want” ethos – has done a lot worse in relative terms since Wings started posting again after our extended break.)
But overall none of this is great news. Years of inaction and worse from the SNP have drained much of the enthusiasm and strength from the Yes movement, and the great grassroots surge of activity that characterised 2011-14 has withered away, with only the occasional march (now scuppered by COVID-19) helping to keep spirits up.
The once-huge and diverse army of campaigners, lacking a focus for its energies, has predictably turned in on itself and split into warring factions, while other parts have just lost heart and wandered back to their normal lives.
It remains to be seen if another referendum would see an outbreak of unity and common purpose, but as the Salmond inquiry rolls on and the battle for the SNP’s soul – between its careerist, devolutionist woke wing and those who are actually focused on independence – shows no sign of abating, it looks like the road ahead has a lot more rocks and potholes in it than smooth tarmac.
As to whether there’ll be anyone to document the journey, should it ever get properly underway again, we can only hope.
.
*We should note that these figures are the most generous we could find in terms of the other sites, by a dramatic margin. For example, on SEMRush.com Wings still recorded 624,000 visits a month (only 7% less than the 670,000 returned by SimilarWeb), but Wee Ginger Dug showed only 101,000 (less than a third of the 309,000 stat from SW), Bella Caledonia got just 61,000 (not 75,000) and the others didn’t even register.


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-26--GERS Day for Mercy

GERS Day for Mercy

Last week , in the biggest city in Scotland , a young mother was found dead next to her starving @ @ @ @ @ ’ s economic , immigration and welfare policies are decided hundreds of miles away in @ @ @ @ @ party that Scots haven ’ t voted for in 65 years but which has ruled @ @ @ @ @ years anyway .
There ’ s other stuff about GERS too , but that seems @ @ @ @

Last week, in the biggest city in Scotland, a young mother was found dead next to her starving infant child, because Scotland’s economic, immigration and welfare policies are decided hundreds of miles away in a foreign country by a party that Scots haven’t voted for in 65 years but which has ruled Scotland for 42 of those years anyway.
There’s other stuff about GERS too, but that seems the important bit.


By gaslight


For certain purposes

We suppose we should be happy to learn that Scottish Government ministers are at least still sometimes capable of understanding @ @ @ @ @ different and there are times when it ’ s inappropriate for men to be in @ @ @ @ @ We just wish they didn ’ t keep reminding us of something so much .
@ @ @ @ @ % of Scots who already think the Sun revolves around the Earth isn ’ t @ @ @

We suppose we should be happy to learn that Scottish Government ministers are at least still sometimes capable of understanding that men and women are different and there are times when it’s inappropriate for men to be in women’s spaces.
We just wish they didn’t keep reminding us of something so much.
We really hope the 27% of Scots who already think the Sun revolves around the Earth isn’t getting bigger.


The blockage

If only we ’ d been telling you for the last two years , eh ?
We ’ d honestly love to hear some of the “ have faith in Nicola !
” loyalists explain this one away , and we ’ re sure we will .
We ’ re sure they ’ ll find some tortured justification , and the gullible will swallow it because the reality is just too painful to face .
But any lingering shreds of credibility for the defence just died in public and everyone knows it .
And of course it shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in those shoes .
It was the job of the SNP , to whom voters and the Scottish Parliament have now given EIGHT mandates to do something about independence , and who have stood twiddling their thumbs and looking the other way and filling their pension pots for four long years since England and Wales voted to drag Scotland out of Europe against its will and into an endless hell of English nationalist Tory rule , which will have been 15 years long by the end of this Parliamentary term and very likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in a statement so pathetic , so craven and so arrogant that it would boil the blood of anyone who genuinely wants independence , the party proudly announced that it had done absolutely nothing , and reasserted its blind , idiotic lie that Boris Johnson – who has happily ignored eight mandates already and has a huge majority until 2025 that he won on a manifesto that plainly stated it would not allow another indyref , and who has literally nothing to gain and everything to lose if he was to allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will suddenly crumble in the event of a ninth .
Be assured , readers , because we absolutely promise you this is true : the SNP doesn ’ t believe that any more than Wings Over Scotland does .
They ’ ll win next year ’ s election , they ’ ll put on a big show of indignantly demanding a referendum again , they ’ ll get the same answer they ’ ve been getting since 2017 , and they ’ ll harrumph and blow and bluster and then they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another five cosy years in power and get on with letting rapists into women ’ s toilets and changing rooms and prisons and arresting anyone who objects for a “ hate crime ” .
By the time they ’ re done , Scotland won ’ t be worth fighting for , which is probably why nearly a quarter of the party ’ s MSPs are standing down at this election despite the supposed impending arrival of their entire life ’ s goal .
If they had a plan to do something about Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d have done it by now .
What was stopping them ?
It ’ s not like it wasn ’ t urgent .
The BEST-case scenario now is independence being delivered years into Brexit when much of the damage will have been done and will be largely irreversible .
Getting back into the EU will be much harder than staying in it would have been .
And it ’ s not like there weren ’ t options .
This court case could have been started the day after the Brexit vote and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 whether Holyrood had the power to hold a referendum or not .
Imagine the power a victory would have put in the Scottish Government ’ s hands .
Westminster could have been held to ransom all the way through the Brexit negotiating period .
But even if that didn ’ t work , for the whole of 2018 and 2019 the SNP held arithmetical leverage at Westminster anyway – which is , ironically , a once-in-a-generation scenario .
It could have offered the Tories the votes to pass a soft Brexit deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great service by avoiding the vastly worse no-deal exit that was utterly predictable and is now basically inevitable – in exchange for another vote .
This site consistently advocated both of those things , and was relentlessly attacked by party loyalists for it .
Even if they hadn ’ t worked neither could possibly have left us any worse off , and there are no bettter plans .
All people have left to desperately cling to is that a woman who couldn ’ t even see the exams fiasco coming is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan up her sleeve so astonishing that not a living soul has been able to imagine it , and which for some reason has to wait until we ’ re already out of Europe and half-ruined to be executed .
Simply not doing either thing would have been useless enough .
But to have actively OPPOSED one of them , to have openly stood in the way of actual independence campaigners , for the supposed party of independence to deliberately see the wasting of a six-figure sum raised from the pockets of hard-pressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endurance , is a betrayal almost beyond words .
There is no longer any room for the benefit of the doubt .
The greedy , power-hungry , careerist New SNP has become the biggest obstacle to independence .
So go on , loyal Sturgeon fans .
Defend it to us .
Give it your best shot .
We ’ re all ears .

Well, imagine our surprise.
If only we’d been telling you for the last two years, eh?
We’d honestly love to hear some of the “have faith in Nicola!” loyalists explain this one away, and we’re sure we will. We’re sure they’ll find some tortured justification, and the gullible will swallow it because the reality is just too painful to face. But any lingering shreds of credibility for the defence just died in public and everyone knows it.
And of course it shouldn’t have been for Martin Keatings to stand in those shoes. It was the job of the SNP, to whom voters and the Scottish Parliament have now given EIGHT mandates to do something about independence, and who have stood twiddling their thumbs and looking the other way and filling their pension pots for four long years since England and Wales voted to drag Scotland out of Europe against its will and into an endless hell of English nationalist Tory rule, which will have been 15 years long by the end of this Parliamentary term and very likely to be another five after that.
But in a statement so pathetic, so craven and so arrogant that it would boil the blood of anyone who genuinely wants independence, the party proudly announced that it had done absolutely nothing, and reasserted its blind, idiotic lie that Boris Johnson – who has happily ignored eight mandates already and has a huge majority until 2025 that he won on a manifesto that plainly stated it would not allow another indyref, and who has literally nothing to gain and everything to lose if he was to allow Scotland a second opportunity to leave – will suddenly crumble in the event of a ninth.
Be assured, readers, because we absolutely promise you this is true: the SNP doesn’t believe that any more than Wings Over Scotland does.
They’ll win next year’s election, they’ll put on a big show of indignantly demanding a referendum again, they’ll get the same answer they’ve been getting since 2017, and they’ll harrumph and blow and bluster and then they’ll sit back down and settle in for another five cosy years in power and get on with letting rapists into women’s toilets and changing rooms and prisons and arresting anyone who objects for a “hate crime”.
By the time they’re done, Scotland won’t be worth fighting for, which is probably why nearly a quarter of the party’s MSPs are standing down at this election despite the supposed impending arrival of their entire life’s goal.
If they had a plan to do something about Johnson’s absolutely certain refusal, they’d have done it by now. What was stopping them? It’s not like it wasn’t urgent. The BEST-case scenario now is independence being delivered years into Brexit when much of the damage will have been done and will be largely irreversible. Getting back into the EU will be much harder than staying in it would have been.
And it’s not like there weren’t options. This court case could have been started the day after the Brexit vote and we’d have known back in 2017 whether Holyrood had the power to hold a referendum or not. Imagine the power a victory would have put in the Scottish Government’s hands. Westminster could have been held to ransom all the way through the Brexit negotiating period.
But even if that didn’t work, for the whole of 2018 and 2019 the SNP held arithmetical leverage at Westminster anyway – which is, ironically, a once-in-a-generation scenario. It could have offered the Tories the votes to pass a soft Brexit deal – doing the rest of the UK a great service by avoiding the vastly worse no-deal exit that was utterly predictable and is now basically inevitable – in exchange for another vote.
This site consistently advocated both of those things, and was relentlessly attacked by party loyalists for it. Even if they hadn’t worked neither could possibly have left us any worse off, and there are no bettter plans. All people have left to desperately cling to is that a woman who couldn’t even see the exams fiasco coming is a galactic genius who has a super-secret cunning plan up her sleeve so astonishing that not a living soul has been able to imagine it, and which for some reason has to wait until we’re already out of Europe and half-ruined to be executed.
Simply not doing either thing would have been useless enough. But to have actively OPPOSED one of them, to have openly stood in the way of actual independence campaigners, for the supposed party of independence to deliberately see the wasting of a six-figure sum raised from the pockets of hard-pressed ordinary Yes supporters who are frustrated past endurance, is a betrayal almost beyond words.
(Incidentally, the party’s 2019 accounts are due to be published a week tomorrow. If there isn’t at least £700,000 in the SNP bank account – and perhaps there will be, but we’ll be astounded – then they’ve literally and directly robbed you to boot.)
There is no longer any room for the benefit of the doubt. The greedy, power-hungry, careerist New SNP has become the biggest obstacle to independence.
So go on, loyal Sturgeon fans. Defend it to us. Give it your best shot. We’re all ears.


Blah, blah, blah

Oh , is it that time again ?
Gosh , it seems to come round quicker every year .
So forgive us if we feel like we ’ ve heard this song already .
Because we remember when it was going to be in 2017 .
And we remember when it was going to be in 2018 or 2019 .
And we remember when it was going to be in 2020 .
But the important thing is that it ’ s definitely up to Nicola and Nicola alone .
So we can ’ t help wondering what ’ s taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do know that it ’ s always just around the next corner .
The war , we know , is always within measurable distance of its end .
And all the legislation must be nearly ready by now , because they ’ ve been “ preparing ” it for more than four years to make sure we don ’ t get taken out of the EU .
But we suppose that “ if necessary ” from 2016 is pretty flexible .
And now we know that we ’ re not even getting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitely no possibility of a vote before mid-2022 at the very earliest , assuming Boris Johnson co-operates , which he won ’ t ) when do you think it might be necessary enough , readers ?

Oh, is it that time again? Gosh, it seems to come round quicker every year.
So forgive us if we feel like we’ve heard this song already.
Because we remember when it was going to be in 2017.
And we remember when it was going to be in 2018 or 2019.
And we remember when it was going to be in 2020.
But the important thing is that it’s definitely up to Nicola and Nicola alone.
So we can’t help wondering what’s taking so long. Although at least we do know that it’s always just around the next corner. The war, we know, is always within measurable distance of its end.
And all the legislation must be nearly ready by now, because they’ve been “preparing” it for more than four years to make sure we don’t get taken out of the EU.
But we suppose that “if necessary” from 2016 is pretty flexible. And now we know that we’re not even getting a plan until spring 2021, (so definitely no possibility of a vote before mid-2022 at the very earliest, assuming Boris Johnson co-operates, which he won’t) when do you think it might be necessary enough, readers?


Expressing a preference

Throughout the summer , the Scottish Government has been talking consistently about its goal being the “ total elimination ” @ @ @ @ @ specifically contrasting that with England ’ s approach of merely “ suppressing ” it .
@ @ @ @ @ decision making ” published in late April , the administration stated bluntly that “ There @ @ @ @ @ a level of “ acceptable loss ” “ from the virus .
But then yesterday @ @ @ @ @ Programme For Government setting out the policy goals for the next 12 months , the @ @ @ @ @ .
As of yesterday , the aim was no longer an uncompromising pursuit of total @ @ @ @ @ of losses , but only an England-style “ suppress ” approach , with elimination downgraded @ @ @ @ @ No acknowledgement or explanation was offered for this ostensibly significant change , and we can @ @ @ @ @ reason why the Scottish Government would want to accept the prospect of the pandemic going @ @ @ @ @ minute .
Now we get it .

Throughout the summer, the Scottish Government has been talking consistently about its goal being the “total elimination” of the coronavirus, and specifically contrasting that with England’s approach of merely “suppressing” it.
In the “framework for decision making” published in late April, the administration stated bluntly that “There is no such thing as a level of “acceptable loss”“ from the virus. But then yesterday something changed.
In the Programme For Government setting out the policy goals for the next 12 months, the bar had been lowered somewhat.
As of yesterday, the aim was no longer an uncompromising pursuit of total elimination with no acceptable level of losses, but only an England-style “suppress” approach, with elimination downgraded to a mere preference.
No acknowledgement or explanation was offered for this ostensibly significant change, and we can’t think of any reason why the Scottish Government would want to accept the prospect of the pandemic going on indefinitely oh wait a minute.
Now we get it.


Selling the jerseys

Let ’ s be clear about something straight away – we ’ re NOT about to write an article in defence of Tony Abbott .
He IS a sexist , a misogynist and a climate change denier ( and a homophobe ) , and as far as we can ascertain he ’ s NOT actually all that good at trade either .
So even though the bar for improving the competence of the UK government is astonishingly low , we don ’ t want him in it any more than anyone else does .
But this is still an incredibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains a lot about what ’ s gone wrong everywhere .
To understand why , readers , imagine yourselves for a moment as Lionel Scaloni , the manager of Argentina ’ s national football team .
Imagine that you ’ re picking the side for the opening match of the Copa America .
Do you give this guy a game ?
But what if it turned out Messi didn ’ t believe in climate change ?
What then ?
One of this site ’ s favourite quotes is from the 17th-century French cleric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Cardinal Richelieu .
It goes like this : It ’ s perhaps the first recorded reference in history to something now often known as the “ purity spiral ” , which is the most destructive force ever to afflict progressive liberal politics .
And the short version of it is that you can never have anyone on your team unless they ’ re absolutely flawlessly perfect in every single way – with the terms of that “ perfection ” subject to instant and arbitrary change at any moment .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of course intimately familiar .
More or less since we launched in 2011 we ’ ve been the subject of hysterical and bitter attacks from opponents and allies alike over every imaginable kind of “ imperfection ” , from swearing too much ( although we never actually swear on the site ) to believing in biological sex and just about every other conceivable prejudice under the sun .
But it ’ s not just vile asking-for-it cyber-monsters such as us .
You can be as pleasant and mild and utterly inoffensive as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong side of a screaming witch-hunt , like iScot magazine did a couple of years back when it dared to put a rather elegant parody of a famous painting on its front cover .
Or you can be painstakingly , agonisingly hyper-woke and still get it in the neck from the even-woker-than-thou , like The National did in 2017 , because it ’ s never possible to be pure enough for the Purity Police .
If it ’ ll serve their personal agenda in any way , they ’ ll always find something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a point we laid out in detail almost four and a half years ago , and even in a history of predictions which we must immodestly note is pretty damn good , we may never have written anything more prescient .
We ’ re not sure if it ’ s a coincidence that so many of the statistical indicators of good governance in Scotland , from education to health and crime and most other areas , all of which had been improving since the SNP took power in 2007 , started moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took over and began allocating ministerial jobs according to people ’ s genitalia rather than their competence .
But we don ’ t think sex is the reason .
Correlation is not causation , and plenty of males in the Scottish Government have also ballsed things up over the period in question .
The problem is that positions of power in the Scottish Government are seemingly now handed out according to how well you toe the current line of idelogical orthodoxy , which is the only rational explanation for why the party has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its contorted and corrupt attempts to exclude the supremely able Joanna Cherry from Holyrood .
Lionel Messi ’ s job is to play football .
If you want to win at football you put him in your team , you don ’ t spend all your time looking for non-football-related reasons to kick him out of it so that you can lose but in a way you get to feel morally superior about .
Nigel Farage , Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are some of the most ( quite rightly ) mocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of the planet , but their respective parties knew that normal voters don ’ t vote according to what either mainstream media satirists or a tiny , over-amplified handful of shrieking nutters on Twitter say , so they chose them to lead anyway because they wanted to win .
If you want to win a fight , you pick the people to fight for you that your opponents hate the most , because those are the people they fear .
Leavers and Trumpists aren ’ t the brightest of people – look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted – but they were smart enough to at least know that .
It ’ s a shame that our First Minister and what appears to be a steadily increasing percentage of the Yes movement don ’ t , just when we ’ re told it ’ s about to matter again .

Let’s be clear about something straight away – we’re NOT about to write an article in defence of Tony Abbott. He IS a sexist, a misogynist and a climate change denier (and a homophobe), and as far as we can ascertain he’s NOT actually all that good at trade either. So even though the bar for improving the competence of the UK government is astonishingly low, we don’t want him in it any more than anyone else does.
But this is still an incredibly brainless thing to say:
And it explains a lot about what’s gone wrong everywhere.
To understand why, readers, imagine yourselves for a moment as Lionel Scaloni, the manager of Argentina’s national football team. Imagine that you’re picking the side for the opening match of the Copa America. Do you give this guy a game?
But what if it turned out Messi didn’t believe in climate change? What then?
One of this site’s favourite quotes is from the 17th-century French cleric Armand Jean du Plessis, generally known as Cardinal Richelieu. It goes like this:
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
It’s perhaps the first recorded reference in history to something now often known as the “purity spiral”, which is the most destructive force ever to afflict progressive liberal politics. And the short version of it is that you can never have anyone on your team unless they’re absolutely flawlessly perfect in every single way – with the terms of that “perfection” subject to instant and arbitrary change at any moment.
It’s a phenomenon with which Wings Over Scotland is of course intimately familiar. More or less since we launched in 2011 we’ve been the subject of hysterical and bitter attacks from opponents and allies alike over every imaginable kind of “imperfection”, from swearing too much (although we never actually swear on the site) to believing in biological sex and just about every other conceivable prejudice under the sun.
But it’s not just vile asking-for-it cyber-monsters such as us. You can be as pleasant and mild and utterly inoffensive as possible and still find yourself on the wrong side of a screaming witch-hunt, like iScot magazine did a couple of years back when it dared to put a rather elegant parody of a famous painting on its front cover.
(The middle one was Arlene Foster, if you’re wondering.)
Or you can be painstakingly, agonisingly hyper-woke and still get it in the neck from the even-woker-than-thou, like The National did in 2017, because it’s never possible to be pure enough for the Purity Police. If it’ll serve their personal agenda in any way, they’ll always find something to hang you for.
It’s a point we laid out in detail almost four and a half years ago, and even in a history of predictions which we must immodestly note is pretty damn good, we may never have written anything more prescient.
(Although we could make a decent argument for this June 2011 piece, written before Wings even existed in its current format, in which we warned Scottish Labour that they were heading down a disastrous road and that that wasn’t only bad news for them.)
We’re not sure if it’s a coincidence that so many of the statistical indicators of good governance in Scotland, from education to health and crime and most other areas, all of which had been improving since the SNP took power in 2007, started moving in the wrong direction when Nicola Sturgeon took over and began allocating ministerial jobs according to people’s genitalia rather than their competence.
But we don’t think sex is the reason. Correlation is not causation, and plenty of males in the Scottish Government have also ballsed things up over the period in question.
The problem is that positions of power in the Scottish Government are seemingly now handed out according to how well you toe the current line of ideological orthodoxy, which is the only rational explanation for why the party has created such an unholy and embarrassing mess in its contorted and corrupt attempts to exclude the supremely able Joanna Cherry from Holyrood.
Lionel Messi’s job is to play football. If you want to win at football you put him in your team, you don’t spend all your time looking for non-football-related reasons to kick him out of it so that you can lose but in a way you get to feel morally superior about.
(It’d probably have been better to use the widely-detested Cristiano Ronaldo for this analogy, but we couldn’t find a good YouTube compilation. Or if we’d wanted to stay closer to home we might have noted that Rangers chose Graeme Souness to end their decade in the doldrums in the 1980s, rather than someone cuddlier.)
Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are some of the most (quite rightly) mocked and despised humans ever to walk the face of the planet, but their respective parties knew that normal voters don’t vote according to what either mainstream media satirists or a tiny, over-amplified handful of shrieking nutters on Twitter say, so they chose them to lead anyway because they wanted to win.
(When you point out that fact, of course, the shrieking nutters immediately leap on you and say “Ah, so you want to be an evil racist Nazi like Farage and Trump!”, because – and we simply can’t emphasise this enough – these people are really, really, REALLY stupid and most of them have also demonstrated repeatedly that they couldn’t win any sort of vote if they were up against Jimmy Savile, Harold Shipman and Myra Hindley.)
If you want to win a fight, you pick the people to fight for you that your opponents hate the most, because those are the people they fear. Leavers and Trumpists aren’t the brightest of people – look what happened when they got what they wanted – but they were smart enough to at least know that. It’s a shame that our First Minister and what appears to be a steadily increasing percentage of the Yes movement don’t, just when we’re told it’s about to matter again.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-05--Let’s just kill ourselves

Let’s just kill ourselves

Bad news , readers .
We ’ ve done some research , and it ’ s our grave duty to report to you that according to the evidence we ’ ve discovered , there ’ s a high statistical probability that everyone reading this website will one day die .
Luckily there ’ s a solution : we can all just commit suicide right now .
But it ’ s not as stupid as what we ’ re currently being asked to swallow by the SNP .
Because there are only two possible ways to interpret the absolute drivel penned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National : ( 1 ) “ The Tories will choose to definitely lose a Scottish referendum now rather than possibly lose one at a later date in the future , as they ’ d rather lose earlier for some reason I can ’ t even be bothered to make up.
” ( 2 ) “ The Tories will grant a referendum now because they believe they ’ d win it , whereas they ’ d definitely lose a future one.
” If ( 2 ) is true , then the last thing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is agitating for a vote any time soon , because everyone seems to agree that a second defeat in quick succession would kill off independence for decades .
Why would you take that risk when you could just wait a little bit longer for guaranteed victory ?
Yet in fact they ’ re insisting that they want one as quickly as possible , so ( 2 ) can ’ t possibly be true unless the SNP are idiots and/or don ’ t actually want to win .
But that only leaves us with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really obviously nonsense .
If the Tories think they ’ re going to lose , then it makes sense for them to do everything in their power to stop a referendum from happening for as long as possible .
Any other response to that situation would be demented , unless of course they actually WANT Scotland to leave and the UK to break up , in which case what the hell have they been doing opposing it implacably for most of the last century ?
Bluffing ?
The scenario we ’ re essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretly want Scottish independence but the SNP are too clever to fall into their trap by letting it happen .
It is such an extraordinary insult to Yes supporters to peddle this absolute keech that Wings can barely contain its fury .
But it ’ s all the SNP can do , because neither it nor its most diehard cheerleaders can actually name a single consequence that is worse for Boris Johnson of refusing indyref2 rather than allowing it .
Painfully , Tom Gordon of the Herald is speaking infinitely more sense on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve entrusted with securing independence : Which of those two descriptions sounds most like Boris Johnson to you , readers ?
Yet as mad as it sounds , Angus Robertson and the leadership of the SNP are trying to sell you the first one , because it appears that they think you ’ re a bunch of absolute morons who ’ ll gobble up literally any half-arsed bucket of reheated old garbage they feed you no matter how plainly ludicrous it is .
And the prospect of enduring that for several more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scream abuse at anyone who points it out ) is , quite frankly , making suicide start to seem like a relatively attractive option after all .

Bad news, readers. We’ve done some research, and it’s our grave duty to report to you that according to the evidence we’ve discovered, there’s a high statistical probability that everyone reading this website will one day die.
Luckily there’s a solution: we can all just commit suicide right now.
Wait – that’s a stupid idea, right?
But it’s not as stupid as what we’re currently being asked to swallow by the SNP.
Because there are only two possible ways to interpret the absolute drivel penned by Angus Robertson in today’s National:
(1) “The Tories will choose to definitely lose a Scottish referendum now rather than possibly lose one at a later date in the future, as they’d rather lose earlier for some reason I can’t even be bothered to make up.”
(2) “The Tories will grant a referendum now because they believe they’d win it, whereas they’d definitely lose a future one.”
If (2) is true, then the last thing in the world the SNP should be doing is agitating for a vote any time soon, because everyone seems to agree that a second defeat in quick succession would kill off independence for decades.
Why would you take that risk when you could just wait a little bit longer for guaranteed victory? Yet in fact they’re insisting that they want one as quickly as possible, so (2) can’t possibly be true unless the SNP are idiots and/or don’t actually want to win.
But that only leaves us with (1), which is really really obviously nonsense. If the Tories think they’re going to lose, then it makes sense for them to do everything in their power to stop a referendum from happening for as long as possible.
Any other response to that situation would be demented, unless of course they actually WANT Scotland to leave and the UK to break up, in which case what the hell have they been doing opposing it implacably for most of the last century? Bluffing?
The scenario we’re essentially being fed there is that the Tories secretly want Scottish independence but the SNP are too clever to fall into their trap by letting it happen.
It is such an extraordinary insult to Yes supporters to peddle this absolute keech that Wings can barely contain its fury. But it’s all the SNP can do, because neither it nor its most diehard cheerleaders can actually name a single consequence that is worse for Boris Johnson of refusing indyref2 rather than allowing it.
(Please, prove us wrong, because we want so badly to be wrong. If you think we’d win a referendum in 2021 or 2022, please tell us in the comments below exactly what you think it is that Boris Johnson has to lose by refusing to co-operate with one. We keep asking and nobody can answer. We’re also prepared to accept any wager of any size from anyone against the proposition “Boris Johnson will never grant Nicola Sturgeon a Section 30 order in the absence of some sort of court judgement legally compelling him to”. Name your bet and we’ll take it. This offer remains open until further notice.)
Painfully, Tom Gordon of the Herald is speaking infinitely more sense on the subject today than the people we’ve entrusted with securing independence:
Which of those two descriptions sounds most like Boris Johnson to you, readers? Yet as mad as it sounds, Angus Robertson and the leadership of the SNP are trying to sell you the first one, because it appears that they think you’re a bunch of absolute morons who’ll gobble up literally any half-arsed bucket of reheated old garbage they feed you no matter how plainly ludicrous it is.
And the prospect of enduring that for several more years (while having furious party loyalists scream abuse at anyone who points it out) is, quite frankly, making suicide start to seem like a relatively attractive option after all.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-05--Last nights of the proms

Last nights of the proms


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-06--Into our own hands

Into our own hands

The Scottish political focus has been on Holyrood in recent days , with the Programme For Government announced and Westminster returning from recess .
But parliaments can only do so much .
Extra-parliamentary action is required for many reasons , not least because activists are increasingly frustrated at delays and uncertainty .
Giving direction and something constructive to do is therefore important ; and that will have to come from within the grassroots movement .
Time ’ s short and the work to be done is great .
Some preparations are being laid by the Scottish Government and SNP centrally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t .
And done it must be , not just to prepare for but to ensure that we win the referendum when it comes .
Any assumption that it ’ s all over bar the declaration is naïve .
Unionists aren ’ t going to give up without a fight and they ’ ve learned lessons from the last campaign .
Added to that their substantial warchest means that we ’ ve a titanic battle on our hands .
They ’ ll know key buttons to press and they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So rather than congratulating ourselves on recent polls , work should be getting done .
It ’ s what you reap in good times that sustains you through the bad .
More importantly this time , much more than in 2014 , it ’ ll be the wider independence movement that ’ ll lead the campaign .
The Scottish Government can not be the issue in a debate on the future governance of Scotland .
Similarly , this is not about any political party , but about the Scottish people .
Firstly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous Yes groups and independence campaigners together .
Steps should be taken to establish a steering group that can co-ordinate and plan .
The groups are and will remain autonomous , but a central team is important .
Moreover , the leadership of a mass movement should come from within , not be appointed from on high .
Obviously , work will be constrained by social distancing requirements and other measures to tackle COVID-19 .
Some activities will have to wait for approval by authorities but there ’ s still plenty that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups are still active and meeting online .
With others it wouldn ’ t take much to shake the cobwebs off and get going again .
But more than activities this is about coordination and planning .
Preparing the platform to be laid out , the issues to highlight and the rebuttals to make when the campaign proper begins .
It ’ s also about the exchange of information on what works and what doesn ’ t ; as well as pooling resources to ensure that limited funds are maximised .
The ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White Paper or the activist ’ s preference The Wee Blue Book are up to date .
Excellent work has been ongoing by individuals on issues such as currency and debt .
Likewise , Common Weal have provided a vision of what can be achieved with the power of independence .
But much more needs done , the clock is running down and what ’ s been offered to date from such as the Growth Commission exposed as entirely inadequate .
Secondly , a Constitutional Convention needs called , which would bring together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as trade union and civic groups .
It should have been called immediately after the December 2019 election when the Tories were returned with a majority in the UK but comprehensively rejected in Scotland .
However , it remains essential .
Some parties will decline to attend but individuals from them may well choose to do so .
Furthermore , civic groups and in particular trade unions are important and , in that regard , the STUC should be asked to lead .
The trade union movement has moved on since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less hostile , recognizing that much of the rank and file now support independence .
It ’ s also notable that many shop stewards are firmly Yes , and coming Tory attacks on employment will only increase that .
Such a Convention allows for support to be galvanized for constitutional change as well as defence of social and economic interests .
Finally , steps must be taken to engage with the Scottish diaspora .
There ’ s a great deal of sympathy for independence amongst many of our emigrant community .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Tories have shamefully blocked the ability for overseas fundraising , whilst bankrolling themselves though Russian or other foreign funds .
However , our absent sons and daughters still have much to contribute through their talents and networks , and besides where there ’ s a will there ’ s a way .
Reaching out and mobilizing them is essential .
Grassroots actvists must take the lead – no one else is doing so – and preparations must begin .
The time for extra-parliamentary action has arrived .

The Scottish political focus has been on Holyrood in recent days, with the Programme For Government announced and Westminster returning from recess. But parliaments can only do so much. Extra-parliamentary action is required for many reasons, not least because activists are increasingly frustrated at delays and uncertainty.
Giving direction and something constructive to do is therefore important; and that will have to come from within the grassroots movement.
Time’s short and the work to be done is great. Some preparations are being laid by the Scottish Government and SNP centrally, but a great deal more sadly isn’t. And done it must be, not just to prepare for but to ensure that we win the referendum when it comes. Any assumption that it’s all over bar the declaration is naïve.
Unionists aren’t going to give up without a fight and they’ve learned lessons from the last campaign. Added to that their substantial warchest means that we’ve a titanic battle on our hands. They’ll know key buttons to press and they’ll be hard and ruthless when doing so. So rather than congratulating ourselves on recent polls, work should be getting done. It’s what you reap in good times that sustains you through the bad.
More importantly this time, much more than in 2014, it’ll be the wider independence movement that’ll lead the campaign. The Scottish Government cannot be the issue in a debate on the future governance of Scotland. Similarly, this is not about any political party, but about the Scottish people.
Firstly, steps must be taken bring the numerous Yes groups and independence campaigners together. Steps should be taken to establish a steering group that can co-ordinate and plan. The groups are and will remain autonomous, but a central team is important. Moreover, the leadership of a mass movement should come from within, not be appointed from on high.
Obviously, work will be constrained by social distancing requirements and other measures to tackle COVID-19. Some activities will have to wait for approval by authorities but there’s still plenty that can be commenced long before then. Many groups are still active and meeting online. With others it wouldn’t take much to shake the cobwebs off and get going again.
But more than activities this is about coordination and planning. Preparing the platform to be laid out, the issues to highlight and the rebuttals to make when the campaign proper begins. It’s also about the exchange of information on what works and what doesn’t; as well as pooling resources to ensure that limited funds are maximised.
The ground has changed since 2014 and neither the White Paper or the activist’s preference The Wee Blue Book are up to date. Excellent work has been ongoing by individuals on issues such as currency and debt. Likewise, Common Weal have provided a vision of what can be achieved with the power of independence. But much more needs done, the clock is running down and what’s been offered to date from such as the Growth Commission exposed as entirely inadequate.
Secondly, a Constitutional Convention needs called, which would bring together elected representatives from all tiers of government as well as trade union and civic groups. It should have been called immediately after the December 2019 election when the Tories were returned with a majority in the UK but comprehensively rejected in Scotland. However, it remains essential.
Some parties will decline to attend but individuals from them may well choose to do so. Furthermore, civic groups and in particular trade unions are important and, in that regard, the STUC should be asked to lead.
The trade union movement has moved on since 2014. Many of the leadership are less hostile, recognizing that much of the rank and file now support independence. Many shop stewards are firmly Yes, and the coming Tory attacks on employment will only increase that. Such a Convention allows for support to be galvanized for constitutional change as well as defence of social and economic interests.
Finally, steps must be taken to engage with the Scottish diaspora. There’s a great deal of sympathy for independence amongst many of our emigrant community. They’re a resource that should be utilised. The Tories have shamefully blocked the ability for overseas fundraising, whilst bankrolling themselves though Russian or other foreign funds. However, our absent sons and daughters still have much to contribute through their talents and networks, and besides where there’s a will there’s a way. Reaching out and mobilizing them is essential.
Grassroots actvists must take the lead – no one else is doing so – and preparations must begin. The time for extra-parliamentary action has arrived.


Contempt of justice

We ’ ve had another letter from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service .
And slowly , painfully , we ’ re starting to get at least some answers .
The reply maintains the snippy , condescending tone of the previous one , and you can read it in full here : So let ’ s strip out the waffle and see what we ’ ve been told .
“ However , contrary to what you assert , that safeguard does not in any way prevent or prohibit the Law Officers from being accountable to the Scottish Government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider section 48 of the Scotland Act 1995 in its entirety rather than just the subsection you were referred to .
In particular I would specifically draw your attention to section 48 ( 1 ) which states : “ It is for the First Minister to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment or removal of a person as Lord Advocate or Solicitor General for Scotland ; but he shall not do so without the agreement of the Parliament.
” An interesting use of “ he ” there , by the way .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable to the Scottish Government ” .
The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are not the same thing , and being able to recommend someone be removed is not the same thing as having the power to do so .
For example , the First Minister could recommend to the Queen that her government conduct a second independence referendum , but that ’ s not the same as being able to make it happen .
“ Further , and perhaps more importantly in this regard , section 48 ( 2 ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland may at any time resign and shall do so if the parliament resolves that the Scottish Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament.
” Finally in this regard I would also suggest that you refer to section 44 of the Scotland Act 1995 which makes it clear that both Law Officers are members of the Scottish Government , and as such Scottish Ministers.
“ What that says is that if the Scottish Government loses a vote of confidence , the Lord Advocate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
That , staggeringly obviously , is not even remotely the same thing as being able to sack just those two people if they fail to do their jobs properly .
And of course it does absolutely no such thing .
The Lord Advocate is either a normal minister – and as such answerable to and sackable by the First Minister – or he isn ’ t , and we ’ ve just been told that he isn ’ t , because the FM can ’ t even recommend his resignation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole of Parliament .
So we ’ re no further forward there .
The next passage was a little more fruitful , though .
Since all of my letters have been sent to the COPFS complaints address , I ’ m not sure what else Ms Miller thinks our correspondence represents , but she continues : “ If you look at the procedure you will see that it makes it clear that if after receiving our final decision on your complaint you remain dissatisfied with our decision or the way we have handled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scottish Public Services Ombudsman ( SPSO ) to consider it .
It is by no means uncommon for public services to have a complaints procedure which will look to resolve complaints in the first instance as is the case in COPFS .
Indeed it is my understanding that SPSO will ordinarily expect a complainer to have exhausted the public service ’ s own complaints procedure before they will consider it , but you may wish to check that position with SPSO.
“ No definition is given of “ final ” or “ exhausted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already know that the SPSO is a purely advisory body with no actual power to do anything .
In my letter of 11 August I ’ d asked this question : So now we do appear to have a definitive if reluctant answer to that , and the answer is “ Yes it is ” .
If nobody has the power to “ change or overturn ” your decisions , then you are answerable and accountable to no-one .
This may explain the otherwise scarcely-believable situation that the head of COPFS , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still in his post at the time of writing despite recently admitting to personal responsibility for several “ malicious ” prosecutions in the wake of the collapse and death of Rangers FC in 2012 .
The story has been covered in the press , but with remarkably little prominence given that astoundingly , in addition to the injustices suffered by several individuals , the fiasco stands to cost the Scottish taxpayer up to £40 million in damages alone .
Wolffe is also ultimately responsible for the failed prosecution of Alex Salmond , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the High Court and will undoubtedly have wasted untold millions more .
Yet as the head of COPFS he feels no apparent need to offer his resignation for such extraordinary catastrophes – for Scotland ’ s prosecution service not to merely have gotten things wrong , but do have done so out of malice .
The rest of the letter is yet another blunt evasion of COPFS ’ responsibility to protect the anonymity of complainers : What that says is that if you ask COPFS for guidance on whether something you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a court order , their answer is that they don ’ t care .
They simply won ’ t tell you if they ’ d refer you to the judge for it ( and therefore for prosecution ) or not , and they have no interest in protecting the witness by preventing it , only with punishing anyone who does it after the event – and only then if they hold certain kinds of political views .
The above makes for a horrifying and frightening case in any supposed democracy .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to ruin people ’ s lives but is literally beyond the law and doesn ’ t care that you know it .
It speaks of public servants who don ’ t consider the confessedly malicious wasting of tens of millions of pounds of public money to be a resigning matter , because they know that there ’ s nobody who can MAKE them resign unless they can also take down the entire government to do it .
That , of course , is also the reason Leslie Evans is still in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fortune of public money on a biased and illegal persecution of Mr Salmond .
And the common thread linking the continued employment of Ms Evans and Mr Wolffe is that their highly-paid positions are at least notionally in the gift of the First Minister .
We can only invite readers to speculate as to why , at such astronomical cost to both the public purse and to the reputation of some of Scotland ’ s most distinguished and important institutions , Nicola Sturgeon is so desperate to keep them both in place .

We’ve had another letter from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
And slowly, painfully, we’re starting to get at least some answers.
The reply maintains the snippy, condescending tone of the previous one, and you can read it in full here:
So let’s strip out the waffle and see what we’ve been told.
“However, contrary to what you assert, that safeguard does not in any way prevent or prohibit the Law Officers from being accountable to the Scottish Government. In that regard you may wish to consider section 48 of the Scotland Act 1995 in its entirety rather than just the subsection you were referred to. In particular I would specifically draw your attention to section 48(1) which states: “It is for the First Minister to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment or removal of a person as Lord Advocate or Solicitor General for Scotland; but he shall not do so without the agreement of the Parliament.”
An interesting use of “he” there, by the way. But none of the above constitutes “being accountable to the Scottish Government”. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are not the same thing, and being able to recommend someone be removed is not the same thing as having the power to do so.
For example, the First Minister could recommend to the Queen that her government conduct a second independence referendum, but that’s not the same as being able to make it happen.
“Further, and perhaps more importantly in this regard, section 48(2) is in the following terms: “The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland may at any time resign and shall do so if the parliament resolves that the Scottish Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament.” Finally in this regard I would also suggest that you refer to section 44 of the Scotland Act 1995 which makes it clear that both Law Officers are members of the Scottish Government, and as such Scottish Ministers.“
What that says is that if the Scottish Government loses a vote of confidence, the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General would be booted out with them. That, staggeringly obviously, is not even remotely the same thing as being able to sack just those two people if they fail to do their jobs properly.
“I trust that this will assist to clear up the apparent confusion.”
And of course it does absolutely no such thing. The Lord Advocate is either a normal minister – and as such answerable to and sackable by the First Minister – or he isn’t, and we’ve just been told that he isn’t, because the FM can’t even recommend his resignation to the Queen without the approval of the whole of Parliament.
So we’re no further forward there. The next passage was a little more fruitful, though.
“The next issue you raise is to question why COPFS deals with complaints about the service it provides. In my previous letter I referred you to the COPFS complaints procedure on the COPFS website, and I would respectfully do so again.”
Since all of my letters have been sent to the COPFS complaints address, I’m not sure what else Ms Miller thinks our correspondence represents, but she continues:
“If you look at the procedure you will see that it makes it clear that if after receiving our final decision on your complaint you remain dissatisfied with our decision or the way we have handled your complaint, you can ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) to consider it. It is by no means uncommon for public services to have a complaints procedure which will look to resolve complaints in the first instance as is the case in COPFS. Indeed it is my understanding that SPSO will ordinarily expect a complainer to have exhausted the public service’s own complaints procedure before they will consider it, but you may wish to check that position with SPSO.“
No definition is given of “final” or “exhausted”. But in any event we already know that the SPSO is a purely advisory body with no actual power to do anything.
In my letter of 11 August I’d asked this question:
“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?”
So now we do appear to have a definitive if reluctant answer to that, and the answer is “Yes it is”. If nobody has the power to “change or overturn” your decisions, then you are answerable and accountable to no-one.
This may explain the otherwise scarcely-believable situation that the head of COPFS, the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, is still in his post at the time of writing despite recently admitting to personal responsibility for several “malicious” prosecutions in the wake of the collapse and death of Rangers FC in 2012.
The story has been covered in the press, but with remarkably little prominence given that astoundingly, in addition to the injustices suffered by several individuals, the fiasco stands to cost the Scottish taxpayer up to £40 million in damages alone.
Wolffe is also ultimately responsible for the failed prosecution of Alex Salmond, a huge operation which got as far as the High Court and will undoubtedly have wasted untold millions more. Yet as the head of COPFS he feels no apparent inclination to offer his resignation for such extraordinary catastrophes – for Scotland’s prosecution service not to merely have gotten things wrong, but to have done so out of malice – and the government shows no sign of having sought it.
(We are, of course, yet to officially discover whether the prosecution of Mr Salmond was also a malicious one as well as a fiasco, and who else may have been driving it, but in any event the buck stops at Mr Wolffe’s desk.)
The rest of the letter is yet another blunt evasion of COPFS’ responsibility to protect the anonymity of complainers:
“Specifically in relation to contempt of court it is not accurate for you to say that COPFS is the sole authority which makes decision. It is the court who makes all decisions on such matters. Whilst COPFS can refer allegations of contempt of court to the Court for it to consider, the Court can initiate such proceedings of its own volition or indeed on the application of any interested party.”
What that says is that if you ask COPFS for guidance on whether something you’re about to write might identify anyone protected by a court order, their answer is that they don’t care. They simply won’t tell you if they’d refer you to the judge for it (and therefore for prosecution) or not, and they have no interest in protecting the witness by preventing it, only with punishing anyone who does it after the event – and only then if they hold certain kinds of political views.
(They note that the court can act without their recommendation, but there’s no official way to contact individual judges and alert them to possible breaches. It apparently relies on every judge in Scotland being a regular reader of Wings Over Scotland.)
The above makes for a horrifying and frightening case in any supposed democracy. It speaks of an arrogant organisation that has the power to ruin people’s lives but is literally beyond the law and doesn’t care that you know it.
It speaks of public servants who don’t consider the confessedly malicious wasting of tens of millions of pounds of public money to be a resigning matter, because they know that there’s nobody who can MAKE them resign unless they can also take down the entire government to do it.
That, of course, is also the reason Leslie Evans is still in a job, having also wasted a fortune of public money on a biased and illegal persecution of Mr Salmond. And the common thread linking the continued employment of Ms Evans and Mr Wolffe is that their highly-paid positions are at least notionally in the gift of the First Minister.
We can only invite readers to speculate as to why, at such astronomical cost to both the public purse and to the reputation of some of Scotland’s most distinguished and important institutions, Nicola Sturgeon is so desperate to keep them both in place.