Prisoners of time

So we ’ ve got a couple of weeks to wait to find out what the SNP ’ s grand plan that they should have had ready yesterday was , and in the absence of anything better to do we suppose we might as well speculate on the possibilities .
WARNING : if you ’ re one of the decreasing rump of ultra-faithful still clinging to the idea of a new indyref in 2020 , don ’ t build your hopes up .
This is a bit of a non-starter because we have no legal grounds to bring a complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no obligation to grant a Section 30 order , so the case would fall at the first hurdle .
This is the idea recently proposed by Kenny Macaskill .
Doubtless there ’ d be some jolly spirited intellectual debate and everyone would feel very important and have a super time , but whatever it produced wouldn ’ t be in any way binding on the UK government , and in any event it would definitely take many months to be set up and run its course .
Remember the last time the SNP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sunny months ?
It amounted to going out knocking doors like they do all the time anyway , and had no discernible effect on anything .
Any scheme of this nature would be a simple admission of defeat and push any hope of a referendum beyond the 2021 election .
But hey , maybe there ’ ll be another petition .
That ’ ll sort it .
We already know there isn ’ t really time for this .
An article in yesterday ’ s National speculated that even if the referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an idea even a blind-drunk Baldrick would dismiss as far too idiotic to contemplate – it ’ d still need to have been signed off by April .
But the last non-insane possibility for a date in 2020 is mid-October , which shifts the deadline up to February .
And that was based on the assumption of the UK government agreeing and co-operating at every step .
Since they ’ re clearly not going to do that , the opposition parties would hold the bill up at every possible juncture , and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it being passed in time .
Even if there were , the UK government could simply pass legislation changing the Scotland Act and stomping on it , as they did with the EU Continuity Bill last year .
The only actual plan the SNP seem to have is to continue appealing to Boris Johnson ’ s better nature and sense of moral probity ( stop sniggering at the back ) , and demanding something he quite obviously isn ’ t going to give them .
This is the favoured strategy of Craig Murray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compelling realpolitik case , noting in particular that the EU would suddenly be disinclined to protect the interests of the UK , which will shortly be a non-member state .
The main problem with it is that it ’ s very hard to justify a unilateral declaration of independence to the international community without a shred of measurable evidence that it ’ s the will of a majority of the Scottish people .
He suggests that a possible solution would be to make the declaration first and then hold a confirmatory vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backfire , and the mechanics of it appear fanciful – how would Unionist councils , who would be enraged at the declaration , be made to co-operate with the retrospective referendum , for example ?
Would the UK government intervene with military force ?
As far as we can see a UDI strategy could only work with either a referendum result or sustained polling above 50 % as justification , and an acceptably lengthy period of majority polling would require more than a few months .
Even a bare-minimum six months definitely takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vote this year .
There doesn ’ t initially seem to be much point in this , since there ’ s one due in little over a year anyway .
But if keeping the 2020 promise was deemed important enough , the Scottish Government could stand down , block the formation of an alternative government ( they have enough votes , assuming Green support ) , and trigger a new election at which they could campaign on the sole policy of declaring independence .
This would be a highly risky strategy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still below 50 % .
And the timing would be tricky with the Alex Salmond trial looming on the horizon in March .
However , you only need a couple of months for an election and if we were doing away with the need for a referendum it does seem to at least theoretically offer a possible route to victory before the year ’ s end .
Again , however , the Scottish Parliament exists at the whim of the UK one , and it could simply be suspended , on the excuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Northern Irish Assembly has been for the past three years .
So it ’ s a pretty gloomy picture , in large part because so much time has been wasted since the Brexit vote on trying to deny England and Wales what they voted for , rather than establishing some legal facts .
2020 , certainly , is an absolutely dead duck , as all intelligent people have known for a long time .
But it ’ s not hopeless .
In this site ’ s view the best strategy is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notionally legislating for a referendum ( with no intention of actually carrying it out ) and contesting the UK government ’ s inevitable challenge in the Supreme Court .
If that challenge was won , all well and good .
The Scottish Parliament would have the right to hold referendums whenever it chose .
If the case was either lost , or wrecked by the UK government moving the goalposts ( as detailed above ) to outlaw it , that would strengthen Scotland ’ s case in the eyes of the international community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied any democratic route to self-determination , a protected right under the UN Charter .
The scheduled 2021 Holyrood election could then be held – which the UK government would this time have no grounds to cancel or obstruct , because it would be due as the normal course of events – on the basis of being a de facto referendum .
Were more than 50 % of the vote to be achieved , Craig Murray ’ s plan would become viable .
This strategy is not foolproof .
There ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the election is due next May , for example .
The opposition parties could refuse to conduct the election as a plebiscite , at least partly undermining its credibility .
And the UK government could cancel the Holyrood election even without having any legitimate basis for doing so .
But again , such draconian and unjustifiable action would strengthen the case for UDI and the prospects of independence being recognised by the international community .
It ’ s not an easy road .
But a legal challenge followed by either a legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one we can see that doesn ’ t lead down a dead end .
Whether the SNP has either the wit or the stomach to take it is something we ’ re only going to have to wait a little while longer to find out .

So we’ve got a couple of weeks to wait to find out what the SNP’s grand plan that they should have had ready yesterday was, and in the absence of anything better to do we suppose we might as well speculate on the possibilities.
WARNING: if you’re one of the decreasing rump of ultra-faithful still clinging to the idea of a new indyref in 2020, don’t build your hopes up.
———————————————————————————————–
OPTION 1: GO STRAIGHT TO COURT
This is a bit of a non-starter because we have no legal grounds to bring a complaint about anything. The UK government has no obligation to grant a Section 30 order, so the case would fall at the first hurdle.
Result: NO INDYREF IN 2020.
———————————————————————————————–
OPTION 2: CALL SOME SORT OF CONVENTION
This is the idea recently proposed by Kenny Macaskill. Doubtless there’d be some jolly spirited intellectual debate and everyone would feel very important and have a super time, but whatever it produced wouldn’t be in any way binding on the UK government, and in any event it would definitely take many months to be set up and run its course.
Result: NO INDYREF IN 2020.
———————————————————————————————–
OPTION 3: ANNOUNCE YET ANOTHER “SUMMER OFFENSIVE”
Remember the last time the SNP tried to keep its activists busy over the sunny months? It amounted to going out knocking doors like they do all the time anyway, and had no discernible effect on anything. Any scheme of this nature would be a simple admission of defeat and push any hope of a referendum beyond the 2021 election.
But hey, maybe there’ll be another petition. That’ll sort it.
Result: NO INDYREF IN 2020.
———————————————————————————————–
OPTION 4 – BRING FORWARD A REFERENDUM BILL
We already know there isn’t really time for this. An article in yesterday’s National speculated that even if the referendum was scheduled for 17 December 2020 – an idea even a blind-drunk Baldrick would dismiss as far too idiotic to contemplate – it’d still need to have been signed off by April.
But the last non-insane possibility for a date in 2020 is mid-October, which shifts the deadline up to February. And that was based on the assumption of the UK government agreeing and co-operating at every step.
Since they’re clearly not going to do that, the opposition parties would hold the bill up at every possible juncture, and there isn’t the slightest chance of it being passed in time. Even if there were, the UK government could simply pass legislation changing the Scotland Act and stomping on it, as they did with the EU Continuity Bill last year.
Result: NO INDYREF IN 2020.
———————————————————————————————–
OPTION 5: JUST KEEP BEGGING
The only actual plan the SNP seem to have is to continue appealing to Boris Johnson’s better nature and sense of moral probity (stop sniggering at the back), and demanding something he quite obviously isn’t going to give them.
Result: NO INDYREF IN 2020.
———————————————————————————————–
OPTION 6: DECLARE INDEPENDENCE IMMEDIATELY
This is the favoured strategy of Craig Murray, for which he makes a broadly compelling realpolitik case, noting in particular that the EU would suddenly be disinclined to protect the interests of the UK, which will shortly be a non-member state.
The main problem with it is that it’s very hard to justify a unilateral declaration of independence to the international community without a shred of measurable evidence that it’s the will of a majority of the Scottish people.
He suggests that a possible solution would be to make the declaration first and then hold a confirmatory vote, but that would seem highly likely to backfire, and the mechanics of it appear fanciful – how would Unionist councils, who would be enraged at the declaration, be made to co-operate with the retrospective referendum, for example? Would the UK government intervene with military force?
(And lordy, HOW embarrassing would it be if we somehow managed to hold it, lost and had to un-declare independence and meekly shuffle back to the UK?)
As far as we can see a UDI strategy could only work with either a referendum result or sustained polling above 50% as justification, and an acceptably lengthy period of majority polling would require more than a few months. Even a bare-minimum six months definitely takes us well beyond the deadline for holding a vote this year.
Result: NO INDYREF IN 2020.
———————————————————————————————–
OPTION 7: CALL AN EARLY HOLYROOD ELECTION
There doesn’t initially seem to be much point in this, since there’s one due in little over a year anyway. But if keeping the 2020 promise was deemed important enough, the Scottish Government could stand down, block the formation of an alternative government (they have enough votes, assuming Green support), and trigger a new election at which they could campaign on the sole policy of declaring independence.
(There’d be very little point in campaigning for another referendum, because that’d just get us back to where we are now – Holyrood has already voted for one and been rebuffed. So it’d have to be UDI.)
This would be a highly risky strategy, as polling suggests the Yes vote is still below 50%. And the timing would be tricky with the Alex Salmond trial looming on the horizon in March. However, you only need a couple of months for an election and if we were doing away with the need for a referendum it does seem to at least theoretically offer a possible route to victory before the year’s end.
Again, however, the Scottish Parliament exists at the whim of the UK one, and it could simply be suspended, on the excuse of having exceeded its powers, as the Northern Irish Assembly has been for the past three years.
Result: NO INDYREF IN 2020.
———————————————————————————————–
So it’s a pretty gloomy picture, in large part because so much time has been wasted since the Brexit vote on trying to deny England and Wales what they voted for, rather than establishing some legal facts or using the arithmetical leverage that we had in the House Of Commons until last December but which has now been lost.
2020, certainly, is an absolutely dead duck, as all intelligent people have known for a long time. But it’s not hopeless.
In this site’s view the best strategy is still to first pursue the legal route by notionally legislating for a referendum (with no intention of actually carrying it out) and contesting the UK government’s inevitable challenge in the Supreme Court.
If that challenge was won, all well and good. The Scottish Parliament would have the right to hold referendums whenever it chose.
If the case was either lost, or wrecked by the UK government moving the goalposts (as detailed above) to outlaw it, that would strengthen Scotland’s case in the eyes of the international community, because it would clearly be being denied any democratic route to self-determination, a protected right under the UN Charter.
The scheduled 2021 Holyrood election could then be held – which the UK government would this time have no grounds to cancel or obstruct, because it would be due as the normal course of events – on the basis of being a de facto referendum. Were more than 50% of the vote to be achieved, Craig Murray’s plan would become viable.
This strategy is not foolproof. There’s no guarantee any court case could be concluded before the election is due next May, for example. The opposition parties could refuse to conduct the election as a plebiscite, at least partly undermining its credibility. And the UK government could cancel the Holyrood election even without having any legitimate basis for doing so.
But again, such draconian and unjustifiable action would strengthen the case for UDI and the prospects of independence being recognised by the international community.
It’s not an easy road. But a legal challenge followed by either a legal referendum or a plebiscitary election is the only one we can see that doesn’t lead down a dead end. Whether the SNP has either the wit or the stomach to take it is something we’re only going to have to wait a little while longer to find out.


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-17--Hubris: A Warning From History

Hubris: A Warning From History

We had a brief but semi-enlightening debate on Twitter with some daft young idiot from Scottish Labour this morning , which culminated in his desperately clutching at votes for the Tories and Lib Dems last month as somehow representing a victory for Labour .
Readers can pass an idle moment by identifying all the obvious logical flaws in that tweet for themselves , but it did lead us to a striking realisation , which we instinctively knew was true but still had to double-check because it seems so ridiculous .
The realisation is that it ’ s still LESS THAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Scottish seats at Westminster .
Although it feels like about a hundred lifetimes ago , in fact not even a single full normal Parliamentary term has passed since the party had 41 of Scotland ’ s 59 MPs .
( The five-year point will arrive on 30 March this year . )
That tiny fragment of eternity has seen it plunge to FOURTH place in the Scottish MP count , with a lonely Ian Murray trailing in behind the SNP ( 47 ) , Tories ( 6 ) and Lib Dems ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a guy whose own party repeatedly urged people not to support him but who still managed to win as many seats all by himself as Scottish Labour .
The northern branch office is now a complete shambles , by its own admission , with a catastrophically unpopular leader who can ’ t even manage to get his policy initiatives discussed , but nobody else in the party who actually wants his thankless job .
Even the deputy ’ s position is such a poisoned chalice that people only want half of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed that there ’ s no real prospect whatever of Labour becoming relevant in either Scotland or the UK for the next 10 years at a minimum ( unless you can honestly imagine Rebecca Long-Bailey being Prime Minister ) .
Even its most dogged and faithful defender in the Scottish media said a few days ago that it “ faces the very real possibility of political extinction ” .
The party ’ s talent pool is now more of a scraping of sludgy mud off the gritty dregs at the bottom of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed to cobble together enough candidates to contest every Scottish seat last year .
And once again , we have to reiterate : all of this has happened LESS THAN A SINGLE PARLIAMENTARY TERM after the party occupied 41 of 59 Scottish seats and was still dizzy with somewhat premature post-indyref triumphalism about the next election .
And as we approach the five-year anniversary of Jim Murphy ’ s greatest ever headline , it might serve the SNP well to note the sheer dizzying speed with which life can come at a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very near horizon .
For the sake of the Yes movement , let ’ s hope its main vehicle is prepared for them .

We had a brief but semi-enlightening debate on Twitter with some daft young idiot from Scottish Labour this morning, which culminated in his desperately clutching at votes for the Tories and Lib Dems last month as somehow representing a victory for Labour.
Readers can pass an idle moment by identifying all the obvious logical flaws in that tweet for themselves, but it did lead us to a striking realisation, which we instinctively knew was true but still had to double-check because it seems so ridiculous.
The realisation is that it’s still LESS THAN FIVE YEARS since Labour held 70% of Scottish seats at Westminster. Although it feels like about a hundred lifetimes ago, in fact not even a single full normal Parliamentary term has passed since the party had 41 of Scotland’s 59 MPs. (The five-year point will arrive on 30 March this year.)
That tiny fragment of eternity has seen it plunge to FOURTH place in the Scottish MP count, with a lonely Ian Murray trailing in behind the SNP (47), Tories (6) and Lib Dems (4), and on a par with a guy whose own party repeatedly urged people not to support him but who still managed to win as many seats all by himself as Scottish Labour.
The northern branch office is now a complete shambles, by its own admission, with a catastrophically unpopular leader who can’t even manage to get his policy initiatives discussed, but nobody else in the party who actually wants his thankless job. Even the deputy’s position is such a poisoned chalice that people only want half of it.
It’s pretty much universally agreed that there’s no real prospect whatever of Labour becoming relevant in either Scotland or the UK for the next 10 years at a minimum (unless you can honestly imagine Rebecca Long-Bailey being Prime Minister). Even its most dogged and faithful defender in the Scottish media said a few days ago that it “faces the very real possibility of political extinction”.
(The only thing the Daily Record is wrong about there is that there’s been anything “slow” about the death of Scottish Labour. It’s happened at blitzkrieg pace.)
The party’s talent pool is now more of a scraping of sludgy mud off the gritty dregs at the bottom of the barrel, and it only just barely managed to cobble together enough candidates to contest every Scottish seat last year.
(We use “contest” in its loosest sense there. Labour lost more deposits in December than at any election since WW2 as its vote plunged to a record low, dropping below 20% in Scotland for the first time in more than 100 years.)
And once again, we have to reiterate: all of this has happened LESS THAN A SINGLE PARLIAMENTARY TERM after the party occupied 41 of 59 Scottish seats and was still dizzy with somewhat premature post-indyref triumphalism about the next election.
And as we approach the five-year anniversary of Jim Murphy’s greatest ever headline, it might serve the SNP well to note the sheer dizzying speed with which life can come at a political party. Some era-defining events lie on the very near horizon. For the sake of the Yes movement, let’s hope its main vehicle is prepared for them.


Winning back Scotland

`` 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--2020-01-25--Everything what goes with chips

Everything what goes with chips


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-27--No fire in the Reichstag

No fire in the Reichstag

Let ’ s just hear that again .
“ The key thing here in terms of whether someone should have @ @ @ @ @ just think back to David Cameron back in 2013 , he didn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ he bet the entire farm on an EU referendum and lost .
And therefore if @ @ @ @ @ , let ’ s not facilitate the means , when we ’ re principally against @ @ @ @ @ words “ we should not allow votes if we might lose them ” .
We @ @ @ @ @ Murray for an unusual burst of candour .
But we can not think of a @ @ @ @ @ of a democracy .
And with England having 80 % of the votes already , @ @ @ @ @ even need to bother passing an Enabling Act .

Less than 10 months ago:
Record scratch, jump cut to the present day:
Let’s just hear that again.
“The key thing here in terms of whether someone should have a referendum, if we just think back to David Cameron back in 2013, he didn’t really want an EU referendum but he bet the entire farm on an EU referendum and lost. And therefore if we disagree with the ends, let’s not facilitate the means, when we’re principally against it.”
Or in other words “we should not allow votes if we might lose them”.
We suppose we should commend Ian Murray for an unusual burst of candour. But we cannot think of a clearer illustration of the failure of a democracy.
And with England having 80% of the votes already, the UK didn’t even need to bother passing an Enabling Act.


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-28--A tale of two timestamps

A tale of two timestamps

Well , at least they gave it serious and respectful consideration first .
Be fair , that ’ s almost @ @ @ @ @ told to sod off and eat our cereal .
If that ’ s not one @ @ @ @ @ the other respect , we don ’ t know what is .

Well, at least they gave it serious and respectful consideration first.
Be fair, that’s almost two whole hours before being told to sod off and eat our cereal. If that’s not one partner in a union showing the other respect, we don’t know what is.


Feeling this

Just a matter of hours to go .
Want it to be like : But it ’ s more like @ @ @ @ @ like : But it ’ s more like : Want it to be like : @ @ @ @ @ like : Let ’ s find out .
Not long now .

Just a matter of hours to go. Want it to be like:
But it’s more like:
Want it to be like:
But it’s more like:
Want it to be like:
But it’s more like:
Let’s find out. Not long now.


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-30--Here we are again

Here we are again

But it ’ s weirder than that .
Because while a narrow majority of Scots now favour independence , as they have done from time to time since early September 2014 , they don ’ t want to be given a vote to make it happen .
Even five years down the line there ’ s only a marginal plurality , not reaching 50 % of voters .
A sixth of the population still isn ’ t sure whether 2025 would be too soon , more than a decade after the original vote .
And most are still against one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ninth mandate next May .
Which may be because they ’ re pretty sick of all politicians .
Not a single one gets a net positive trust rating .
Of eight Unionist options ( poor wee Patrick Harvie doesn ’ t even get onto the subs bench as a second Yes voice ) , the most popular are both essentially ex-politicians , and the likely leaders of the Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour at next year ’ s election both record trust ratings in single figures , which is utterly extraordinary .
Rudyard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people as trust him , and nearly 10 times as many simply have no clue who he is .
While a Yes majority is a clear positive , none of this is great news .
The fact that public opinion is still set against a referendum for years to come gives the UK government an easy excuse to reject one .
After all , if the voters REALLY wanted independence why wouldn ’ t they want a vote on it ?
It also tells the SNP that they ’ re secure in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boat .
Their opposition is a shambles with leaders nobody ’ s even heard of , let alone trust .
For all three of the likely Unionist party leaders at Holyrood next year , “ Don ’ t Know ” is the most common view Scottish voters have about them .
That category is also the biggest gainer in the poll generally , with “ Don ’ t Know ” picking up votes from across the spectrum and recording its largest figure since early 2017 .
Scotland is paralysed , and is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll end the paralysis .
We ’ d better all hope the First Minister has a pretty big dose of political Dulcolax ready for the nation tomorrow .

At 51-49.
But it’s weirder than that.
Because while a narrow majority of Scots now favour independence, as they have done from time to time since early September 2014, they don’t want to be given a vote to make it happen.
Even five years down the line there’s only a marginal plurality, not reaching 50% of voters. A sixth of the population still isn’t sure whether 2025 would be too soon, more than a decade after the original vote. And most are still against one even if the SNP racks up a ninth mandate next May.
Which may be because they’re pretty sick of all politicians.
Not a single one gets a net positive trust rating. Of eight Unionist options (poor wee Patrick Harvie doesn’t even get onto the subs bench as a second Yes voice), the most popular are both essentially ex-politicians, and the likely leaders of the Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour at next year’s election both record trust ratings in single figures, which is utterly extraordinary. Rudyard Lanyard is distrusted by SIX TIMES as many people as trust him, and nearly 10 times as many simply have no clue who he is.
While a Yes majority is a clear positive, none of this is great news. The fact that public opinion is still set against a referendum for years to come gives the UK government an easy excuse to reject one. After all, if the voters REALLY wanted independence why wouldn’t they want a vote on it?
It also tells the SNP that they’re secure in power unless they choose to rock the boat. Their opposition is a shambles with leaders nobody’s even heard of, let alone trust. For all three of the likely Unionist party leaders at Holyrood next year, “Don’t Know” is the most common view Scottish voters have about them.
That category is also the biggest gainer in the poll generally, with “Don’t Know” picking up votes from across the spectrum and recording its largest figure since early 2017.
Scotland is paralysed, and is also opposed to the only thing that’ll end the paralysis. We’d better all hope the First Minister has a pretty big dose of political Dulcolax ready for the nation tomorrow.


Baptism of fire


wingsoverscotland--2020-02-15--The vote of confidence

The vote of confidence


The silver lining


The fateful day

A few weeks ago when we said Wings was going to take a break for a bit , we also said “ There may be posts now and then if something particularly significant happens ” .
Well , this week something particularly significant happened .
It was a development that we ’ d been predicting ever since Boris Johnson became UK Prime Minister , but it ’ s no less important for that .
And it ’ s not an exaggeration to say that it could be the deciding factor in whether Scotland becomes independent .
Until now , advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismiss it as an irrelevance in terms of the independence issue on the grounds that the Tories were planning to introduce it in the rest of the UK anyway .
But that ’ s no longer the case .
Should there be an independence referendum any time soon – and we remain firmly of the belief that there ’ s no chance of that while Nicola Sturgeon leads the SNP , a belief she reaffirmed today on the Andrew Marr Show – there will now be a distinct choice facing all Scottish women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their sex-based rights to at least some degree by staying in the UK .
For many women ( particularly after an abysmally glib , dishonest , condescending and evasive defence of the proposals by Shirley-Anne Somerville on Scotland Tonight on Thursday ) , that ’ s going to be no decision at all .
We could post another 100 examples , But to assess how significant the effect might potentially be , it ’ s worth restating just HOW unpopular gender reform is among women ( and all other voters ) , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in favour of it .
Poll after poll after poll , using every imaginable variant on the question , has found broadly identical results , with very little difference between demographics – male or female , Yes or No , SNP , Labour or Tory , wealthy or poor , Remain or Leave .
In March 2019 , only 17 % of Scottish voters supported self-declaration of sex .
The same poll , only 14 % thought transwomen should be allowed to compete in sport against biological women .
In October 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be able to change the sex on their birth certificate at all , never mind doing it purely on their own say-so without a medical diagnosis .
In May 2018 , only 19 % of English voters thought self-ID was a good idea .
In December 2017 , only 18 % of Scottish voters thought self-ID was a good idea .
Let ’ s put those numbers on a chart just to visualise it .
But what if we focus only on the sort of people likely to vote for independence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we polled SNP voters specifically on the subject , and the number who described themselves as “ totally opposed ” to the gender reforms – 0 on a scale of 0 to 10 – was 18 % .
If we use the 2019 UK general election as a basis for the number of SNP voters , 18 % is 223,628 people .
The number of switched votes required to reverse the result of the 2014 independence referendum would have been 191,969 .
We saw earlier in this article that some people are indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote against independence to prevent it .
If only those SNP voters who describe themselves as “ totally opposed ” to the reforms switched their votes , a Yes vote would be effectively impossible .
If you add in those from other parties who might otherwise be persuadable , and those SNP voters whose support for gender reform is rated only fractionally higher than total implacable opposition , the size of the task becomes insurmountable by any rational assessment – particularly given the toxic , abusive attitudes and methods adopted by trans advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was still possible to cling to the hope , however optimistic , that there would be no clear dividing line between an independent Scotland and the Union over gender , and therefore the policy would do no harm in a referendum .
That hope has now been shattered .
The SNP ’ s dogged determination to alienate the vast majority of the electorate for the benefit of a microscopic minority of loud , aggressive entryist extremists may have sounded the death knell for independence in our lifetimes .

A few weeks ago when we said Wings was going to take a break for a bit, we also said “There may be posts now and then if something particularly significant happens”. Well, this week something particularly significant happened.
It was a development that we’d been predicting ever since Boris Johnson became UK Prime Minister, but it’s no less important for that. And it’s not an exaggeration to say that it could be the deciding factor in whether Scotland becomes independent.
Until now, advocates of “gender recognition reform” could dismiss it as an irrelevance in terms of the independence issue on the grounds that the Tories were planning to introduce it in the rest of the UK anyway. But that’s no longer the case.
Should there be an independence referendum any time soon – and we remain firmly of the belief that there’s no chance of that while Nicola Sturgeon leads the SNP, a belief she reaffirmed today on the Andrew Marr Show – there will now be a distinct choice facing all Scottish women: the choice between independence and protecting their sex-based rights to at least some degree by staying in the UK.
For many women (particularly after an abysmally glib, dishonest, condescending and evasive defence of the proposals by Shirley-Anne Somerville on Scotland Tonight on Thursday), that’s going to be no decision at all.
We could post another 100 examples. But to assess how significant the effect might potentially be, it’s worth restating just HOW unpopular gender reform is among women (and all other voters), even when the question is framed by those in favour of it.
(Interestingly, the Pink News story that Herald piece refers to has now been vanished from the Pink News website. The poll data can still be found on YouGov, showing that fewer than one in five women back letting people self-declare their legal sex.)
Poll after poll after poll, using every imaginable variant on the question, has found broadly identical results, with very little difference between demographics – male or female, Yes or No, SNP, Labour or Tory, wealthy or poor, Remain or Leave.
In October 2019, only 25% of Scots thought people should be able to change the sex on their birth certificate at all, never mind doing it purely on their own say-so without a medical diagnosis.
In March 2019, only 17% of Scottish voters supported self-declaration of sex.
In the same poll, only 14% thought transwomen should be allowed to compete in sport against biological women.
In October 2018, only 19% considered a person with male genitalia who identified as a woman to actually be one.
In the same poll, only 13% thought a biologically male person should be allowed to compete in women’s sport.
In the same poll, only 14% thought a person with male genitalia should be able to use women’s changing rooms.
In the same poll, only 12% thought a criminal with male genitalia should be able to serve their sentence in a women’s prison.
In the same poll, only 9% thought a genitally-male doctor/nurse identifying as a woman should be able to conduct gynaecological exams on a woman without her consent to that specific person carrying out the procedure.
In the same poll, only 13% of UK voters thought people should be allowed to legally redefine their gender without a supporting letter from a doctor.
In July 2018, as we’ve seen, only 18% agreed to that same proposition.
In May 2018, only 19% of English voters thought self-ID was a good idea.
In December 2017, only 18% of Scottish voters thought self-ID was a good idea.
Let’s put those numbers on a chart just to visualise it.
But what if we focus only on the sort of people likely to vote for independence in the first place? Late last year we polled SNP voters specifically on the subject, and the number who described themselves as “totally opposed” to the gender reforms – 0 on a scale of 0 to 10 – was 18%.
(Or 33% if you include anyone ranking their support between 0 and 3/10.)
If we use the 2019 UK general election as a basis for the number of SNP voters, 18% is 223,628 people. The number of switched votes required to reverse the result of the 2014 independence referendum would have been 191,969.
We saw earlier in this article that some people are indeed so opposed to self-ID that they would vote against independence to prevent it. If only those SNP voters who describe themselves as “totally opposed” to the reforms switched their votes, a Yes vote would be effectively impossible.
If you add in those from other parties who might otherwise be persuadable, and those SNP voters whose support for gender reform is rated only fractionally higher than total implacable opposition, the size of the task becomes insurmountable by any rational assessment – particularly given the toxic, abusive attitudes and methods adopted by trans advocates in the party.
(The same goes for those who oppose the reforms but tell women to hold their noses, vote SNP/Yes and wait to sort it all out after independence. We invite readers to share with us in the comments all their experiences of successfully telling women to shut up about things they care about and just do what they’re told by men.)
Until this week, it was still possible to cling to the hope, however optimistic, that there would be no clear dividing line between an independent Scotland and the Union over gender, and therefore the policy would do no harm in a referendum. That hope has now been shattered.
The SNP’s dogged determination to alienate the vast majority of the electorate for the benefit of a microscopic minority of loud, aggressive entryist extremists may have sounded the death knell for independence in our lifetimes.


wingsoverscotland--2020-03-03--Six questions for Nicola Sturgeon

Six questions for Nicola Sturgeon

There are now exactly two weeks remaining of the Scottish Government ’ s second fake “ consultation ” into its proposed reforms to gender law .
We say “ fake ” not out of cynicism or mad paranoia , but because the cabinet minister responsible for the reforms has already made it explicitly , publicly and repeatedly clear that she intends to press ahead with them regardless of the responses , and that the only purpose of the “ consultation ” is to try to persuade people to agree with them .
Shirley-Anne Somerville reiterated this position just days ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ absolutely determined ” to enact the bill and only interested in silencing opposition and removing any “ medicalisation ” of the process of gender transition .
While the Scottish Government has met literally hundreds of times with transactivist groups with regard to the reforms , it has refused to meet women ’ s groups critical of them , and frequently lied about that refusal .
The consultation document and the draft bill leave enormous logical and legislative gaps which are likely to cause untold chaos if the reforms are implemented .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shambolic fiascos around the Offensive Behaviour ( Football ) Act and Named Person legislation , both of which have collapsed despite widespread public support – something the proposed gender reforms emphatically do NOT enjoy .
At some point , we ’ re obliged for the sake of sanity to assume that the First Minister , the Cabinet Secretary or both will have to undertake a serious interview on the subject of these incredibly serious and potentially catastrophic proposals .
For the benefit of whoever may conduct these interviews , we submit below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people in Scotland – primarily but by no means exclusively women , and encompassing a majority of every political and social demographic – urgently want answered .
The big one .
It seems extraordinary that a bill entirely concerned with whether people are legally men or women makes no attempt whatsoever to define the meaning of those terms .
The existing dictionary definitions are both clear , and unambiguously exclude any possibility of people changing from one sex to the other .
No “ transwoman ” ever has produced or ever will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ever has produced or ever will produce sperm .
The definition of “ woman ” absolutely and categorically excludes any man from ever meeting it , and vice versa .
The Scottish Government proposes to destroy these universally-accepted terms which have been in use for as long as human language , but is wholly unable to state what definitions it proposes to replace them with .
This is a self-evidently ludicrous and unsustainable basis for any legislation .
You can not make law on the basis of undefined terms .
You may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25-year prison sentence for anyone caught froogsnorgling , even though nobody knows what that word means .
2 .
“ The proposals require any person who proposes to transition to live in their preferred gender for a period of at least three months .
How can this be verified ?
What does ‘ living in a gender ’ actually constitute ?
” The Queen and an immigrant cleaner in Hackney working three jobs to try to keep her head above water live in the same city but do not , by any discernible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further suspect that the life of the pop star Lady Gaga is not at all like that of the average Hindu or Aboriginal tribeswoman forced to cower in a “ menstrual hut ” for one week of every month , or that of an African teenager subjected to female genital mutilation , or a Chinese woman covertly aborting her baby because it ’ s a girl .
The only thing linking those women is their biology .
Which of them will the Scottish Government require men wishing to “ transition ” to emulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be acceptable evidence of “ femaleness ” ?
Wearing pretty flowery dresses ?
Sewing and cooking ?
Getting paid less ?
Giggling ?
How exactly do you “ live as a woman ” when all women are different ?
Once again , you can not make law which refuses to define its own basic terms , so how could this law possibly be upheld or enforced or safeguarded against abuse ?
3 .
“ The sole safeguard offered against abuse of this law is that people must make a solemn declaration to live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their lives , on pain of a two-year jail sentence .
What will happen if – as many people with gender dysphoria do – they subsequently change their mind and wish to revert to their birth sex ?
” The draft bill , astonishingly , makes no provision at all for detransitioning .
A person who alters their legal gender is expected to do so for their entire life .
Even if they decide within a year that they ’ ve made a mistake , the proposals allow for no escape – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now consider to be the wrong sex until death , on pain of actual imprisonment .
The implied reality , of course , is that in such an event the government would simply allow them to make another solemn lifelong declaration in the opposite direction .
And then , if need be , another and another and another , back and forth , ad infinitum , making a mockery of the whole idea .
This , we should note , is something that already happens elsewhere – half the people who get married @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But marriage is not a state that permits abusers special access to places normally reserved for vulnerable women .
As a safeguard against abuse , the requirement for a solemn declaration is quite obviously completely meaningless and ineffectual .
4 .
“ How could you ever prove a false declaration had been made ?
” Let ’ s imagine for a moment that a rapist obtains a Gender Recognition Certificate via self-ID deliberately in order to gain access to vulnerable women , and commits rapes .
He would then face conviction and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in theory be subject to an extra two years for the false declaration .
But if women can have penises – and under gender laws they can – then they can be rapists .
So how could a court possibly determine whether the perpetrator was a man pretending to be a woman in order to more easily rape them , or simply an actual penis-wielding female rapist ?
Plainly , short of a confession there is no possible way to make such a distinction .
The “ safeguard ” is once again a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our next problem .
5 .
“ You claim that convicted transgender criminals would be subject to risk assessment before being incarcerated in women ’ s prisons , and if judged a danger to women would instead be held in the male estate .
Does this also apply to biologically-female offenders ?
” The insistence of Shirley-Anne Somerville and Nicola Sturgeon that transwomen are actual literal women is plainly inconsistent with treating them differently in any way to biological women .
So if we ’ re to accept that dangerous male-bodied “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ male prison estate , there can be no justification for not doing the same with dangerous female-bodied women .
And yet everyone knows that will never happen .
There would quite rightly be an outcry if a biological woman , no matter how violent , was ever placed in a male prison .
On this alone , the entire premise of the reforms – and indeed the whole core fiction of the 2004 Gender Reform Act – collapses utterly .
Transwomen CAN NOT be women , because if they were you couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ d all have to be put in women ’ s jails no matter what they ’ d done .
6 .
“ Does your risk-assessment process for prisoners also apply to any other situations , such as biological males being placed in women ’ s hospital wards ?
” Safeguards which only apply retrospectively are not safeguards at all , merely retribution .
So women are entitled to know whether there will be any efforts made to determine the potential hazard represented by a male-bodied person being admitted to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack or fear of attack .
Both the Scottish and UK governments have publicly committed for many years to end mixed-sex hospital wards for this and other reasons , and the practice is publicly abhorred and castigated by all parties both in government and opposition , yet the draft bill proposes no way to prevent abuse of self-declaration in this field .
Indeed , as with all other aspects of the reforms , patients complaining about having someone of the opposite sex placed on their ward are likely to be accused of perpetrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the police .
Almost none of the exceptions that the Scottish Government says will protect women ’ s rights to safe single-sex spaces can in practice be exercised without breaking the law by challenging a person ’ s apparent sex .
This , it should be noted , is already a problem with the current law , but the massive expansion in the numbers of people able to legally declare themselves the opposite sex will render a difficult situation impossible .
These are just a few of the most obvious and concerning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now flatly refused to address regarding its proposals .
We ’ ve put them here because frankly we ’ re not at all sure how long they ’ ll survive on Twitter under transactivists ’ continual assault on gender-critical views on the platform .
We sincerely hope that at SOME point a representative of the Scottish Government will be asked to answer them , and that someone is on hand with a broom to sweep up all the wreckage after they do .

There are now exactly two weeks remaining of the Scottish Government’s second fake “consultation” into its proposed reforms to gender law.
We say “fake” not out of cynicism or mad paranoia, but because the cabinet minister responsible for the reforms has already made it explicitly, publicly and repeatedly clear that she intends to press ahead with them regardless of the responses, and that the only purpose of the “consultation” is to try to persuade people to agree with them.
Shirley-Anne Somerville reiterated this position just days ago, telling Scotland Tonight that she was “absolutely determined” to enact the bill and only interested in silencing opposition and removing any “medicalisation” of the process of gender transition.
While the Scottish Government has met literally hundreds of times with transactivist groups with regard to the reforms, it has refused to meet women’s groups critical of them, and frequently lied about that refusal.
(It also funds transactivist pressure groups with hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money to create a “feedback loop” supporting its position. Gender-critical women’s groups receive no such funding, largely because the conditions attached to Scottish Government funding specifically and deliberately exclude them.)
The consultation document and the draft bill leave enormous logical and legislative gaps which are likely to cause untold chaos if the reforms are implemented. The Scottish Government has apparently learned nothing from the shambolic fiascos around the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act and Named Person legislation, both of which have collapsed despite widespread public support – something the proposed gender reforms emphatically do NOT enjoy.
We’re obliged for the sake of sanity to assume that at some point the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary or both will have to undertake at least one proper interview on the subject of these extremely serious and potentially catastrophic proposals.
For the consideration of whoever may conduct these interviews, we submit below some questions which a very considerable number of people in Scotland – primarily but by no means exclusively women, and encompassing a majority of every political and social demographic – urgently want answered.
1. “What is a woman?”
The big one. It seems extraordinary that a bill entirely concerned with whether people are legally men or women makes no attempt whatsoever to define the meaning of those terms. The existing dictionary definitions are both clear, and unambiguously exclude any possibility of people changing from one sex to the other.
No “transwoman” ever has produced or ever will produce an egg. No “transman” ever has produced or ever will produce sperm. The definition of “woman” absolutely and categorically excludes any man from ever meeting it, and vice versa.
(This article applies to transition in both directions, but will chiefly focus on male-to-female both for readability and because it’s the main issue of contention. Very few men feel at risk of any kind from transmen.)
The Scottish Government proposes to destroy these universally-accepted terms which have been in use for as long as human language, but is wholly unable to state what definitions it proposes to replace them with.
This is a self-evidently ludicrous and unsustainable basis for any legislation. You cannot make law on the basis of undefined terms. You may as well pass an act mandating a 25-year prison sentence for anyone caught froogsnorgling, even though nobody knows what that word means.
(Almost as basic is the fact that nobody can actually say what the word “gender” means either. Birth certificates and passports record a person’s SEX, not their gender, and gender is not in fact recorded in any legal document, yet transactivists insist that the two words do not mean the same thing. Vague circular gibberish about “it’s about your sense of yourself as a person”, with at least 178 variations available and new ones invented every day, is not the stuff of lawmaking.)
2. “The proposals require any person who proposes to transition to live in their preferred gender for a period of at least three months. How can this be verified? What does ‘living in a gender’ actually constitute?”
The Queen and an immigrant cleaner in Hackney working three jobs to try to keep her head above water live in the same city but do not, by any discernible measure, lead similar lives. We further suspect that the life of the pop star Lady Gaga is not at all like that of the average Hindu or Aboriginal tribeswoman forced to cower in a “menstrual hut” for one week of every month, or that of an African teenager subjected to female genital mutilation, or a Chinese woman covertly aborting her baby because it’s a girl.
(But how can they even tell, when sex is only “assigned at birth”?)
The only thing linking those women is their biology. Which of them will the Scottish Government require men wishing to “transition” to emulate? Which stereotypes will be deemed to be acceptable evidence of their new “femaleness”? Wearing pretty flowery dresses? Sewing and cooking? Getting paid less? Giggling?
How exactly do you “live as a woman” when all women are different? Once again, you cannot make law which refuses to define its own basic terms, so how could this law possibly be upheld or enforced or safeguarded against abuse? Which reminds us:
3. “The sole safeguard offered against abuse of this law is that people must make a solemn declaration to live in their chosen gender for the rest of their lives, on pain of a two-year jail sentence. What will happen if – as many people with gender dysphoria do – they subsequently change their mind and wish to revert to their birth sex?”
The draft bill, astonishingly, makes no provision at all for detransitioning. A person who alters their legal gender is expected to do so for their entire life. Even if they decide within a year that they’ve made a mistake, the proposals allow for no escape – they MUST remain imprisoned in what they now consider to be the wrong sex until death, on pain of actual imprisonment.
The implied reality, of course, is that in such an event the government would simply allow them to make another solemn lifelong declaration in the opposite direction. And then, if need be, another and another and another, back and forth, ad infinitum, making a mockery of the whole idea.
(Alternatively, the First Minister or Cabinet Secretary will be obliged to specify a limit on the number of do-overs allowed. Perhaps interviewers could also ask them if they favour such a limit and where they would set it. Odd or even number?)
This, we should note, is something that already happens elsewhere – half the people who get married make notionally lifelong vows then break them. But marriage is not a state that permits abusers special access to places normally reserved for vulnerable women. A man who marries a woman isn’t suddenly entitled to enter women’s single-sex changing rooms or refuges.
As a safeguard against abuse, the requirement for a solemn declaration is quite obviously completely meaningless and ineffectual.
4. “How could you ever prove a false declaration had been made?”
Let’s imagine for a moment that a rapist obtains a Gender Recognition Certificate via self-ID deliberately in order to gain access to vulnerable women, and commits rapes. He would then face conviction and sentencing for the rapes, and would in theory be subject to an extra two years for the false declaration.
(Which we’re sure would be a huge comfort to the victims, but hey.)
But if women can have penises – and under gender laws they can – then they can be rapists. So how could a court possibly determine whether the perpetrator was a man pretending to be a woman in order to more easily rape them, or simply an actual penis-wielding female rapist?
Plainly, short of a confession there is no possible way to make such a distinction. The “safeguard” is once again a meaningless nonsense. Which brings us conveniently to our next problem.
5. “You claim that convicted transgender criminals would be subject to risk assessment before being incarcerated in women’s prisons, and if judged a danger to women would instead be held in the male estate. Does this also apply to biologically-female offenders?”
The insistence of Shirley-Anne Somerville and Nicola Sturgeon that transwomen are actual literal women is plainly inconsistent with treating them differently in any way to biological women. So if we’re to accept that dangerous male-bodied “women” may be held in the male prison estate, there can be no justification for not doing the same with dangerous female-bodied women.
And yet everyone knows that will never happen. There would quite rightly be an outcry if a biological woman, no matter how violent, was ever placed in a male prison. On this alone, the entire premise of the reforms – and indeed the whole core fiction of the 2004 Gender Reform Act – collapses utterly. Transwomen CANNOT be women, because if they were you couldn’t treat them differently for any reason and they’d all have to be put in women’s jails no matter what they’d done.
6. “Does your risk-assessment process for prisoners also apply to any other situations, such as biological males being placed in women’s hospital wards?”
Safeguards which only apply retrospectively are not safeguards at all, merely retribution. So women are entitled to know whether there will be any efforts made to determine the potential hazard represented by a male-bodied person being admitted to a place where women are especially vulnerable to attack or fear of attack.
Both the Scottish and UK governments have publicly committed for many years to end mixed-sex hospital wards for this and other reasons, and the practice is publicly abhorred and castigated by all parties both in government and opposition, yet the draft bill proposes no way to prevent abuse of self-declaration in this field.
Indeed, as with all other aspects of the reforms, patients complaining about having someone of the opposite sex placed on their ward are likely to be called a bigot by staff, accused of perpetrating a “hate incident” and questioned by the police.
(The law already makes it a crime to disclose, and in most cases to even ask, whether someone you suspect is not the sex they claim to be has a GRC or not.)
Almost none of the exceptions that the Scottish Government says will protect women’s rights to safe single-sex spaces can in practice be exercised without breaking the law by challenging a person’s apparent sex.
This, it should be noted, is already a problem with the current law, but the massive expansion in the numbers of people able to legally declare themselves the opposite sex will render a difficult situation impossible.
These are just a few of the most obvious and concerning questions that the Scottish Government has until now flatly refused to address regarding its proposals. We’ve put them here because frankly we’re not at all sure how long they’ll survive on Twitter under transactivists’ continual assault on gender-critical views on the platform.
We sincerely hope that at SOME point a representative of the Scottish Government will be asked to answer them, and that someone is on hand with a broom to sweep up all the wreckage after they do.


Gagging order


The delay phase


The greater good


The Stockholm Troopers

Anyone up for their taxes being used to bail out Scottish newspapers ?
No , we didn ’ t think so .
It ’ s always a bit weird when the very people who are ostensibly least well-served by Scotland and the UK ’ s media – in this case middle-class Trotskyist pro-independence “ anarchists ” – suddenly call for multibillionaire media barons to be bailed out by the taxpayer so they can keep spewing misinformation , hatred , celebrity gossip and yesterday ’ s Twitter spats into the public sphere .
Because the cold hard fact is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest service any virus has ever done to mankind .
The day of the printed press is past , and it ’ s long past time the zombie corpse accepted inevitable reality and shuffled off into the sunset .
It ’ s at this point in the debate that both the zombies themselves and those who wish to one day become those zombies pipe up about how much we actually need the press , and won ’ t someone please think of all the local-newspaper stalwarts dutifully reporting on local scandals and whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all , primarily the politics and bin-raking showbiz hacks we all despise , and is it fair that they get to soil all the honest grafters filling the other pages ?
No , it ’ s not .
But nature abhors a vacuum , and the gap left by the death of the printed press would be filled .
And it ’ s difficult to construct any plausible scenario in which the replacement wouldn ’ t be better .
Earlier this month , we noticed a couple of well-fattened old newspaper hacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bitterly bemoaning that sites like this one – well , specifically this one – had raised too much money to carry out journalism .
The horror !
Leask , a deranged obsessive McCarthyite lunatic recently deemed surplus to the badly-struggling Herald and tragically suffering under the misapprehension that he ’ s any sort of arbiter of “ credibility ” , wailed that the funds raised by Wings in the last six years hadn ’ t been wasted on pursuing the failed and broken business model that has seen thousands of UK journalists laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the rest subject to real-terms pay cuts and toxic working practices .
But that ’ s because Wings has used the money donated by its readers for the purpose it was donated for – to provide focused journalism in a specific field in order to provide its readers with some semblance of balance .
Not , we should note , by BEING balanced .
Unlike many Scottish newspapers , Wings Over Scotland makes no embarrassingly false pretence of impartiality .
We wear our editorial stance on our sleeve , but we link @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim so that readers can judge whether we ’ re presenting things fairly – something almost no Scottish newspaper ever does , even on their websites .
Readers seeking balance can then read a site or sites with opposing views and decide which one makes the most convincing case – it is , of course , not actually possible to do this regarding the constitution in Scotland with newspapers currently , since they all have the same view .
Honest partisanship is a far more credible and moral endeavour than fake impartiality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason why trust in the traditional media is so disastrously low while new media sites continue to thrive despite existing in an extraordinarily hostile environment , where politicians and media alike constantly seek to destroy them by any means possible for upsetting their cosy symbiotic relationship .
But how , wail the old hacks , will this new media be funded and sustained ?
How will the journalists pay the rent in order to provide these views ?
Yet we know the answer to that .
Trust is priceless but journalism is actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer has to pay for big shiny glass offices and printing presses and distribution networks ( and wildly overpaid columnists , of which Scottish media has more than you might imagine ) .
Wings not only pays for its journalistic output but also for a campaigning operation , off the back of donations averaging just £1 a week from roughly 1 % of its readers .
But that ’ s far from the only model .
YouTube vloggers – who are a type of journalist – make a range of incomes from modest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Others use paywalled subscription models .
Others still use the likes of Patreon .
Some avail themselves of various sorts of grants , or use combinations of the above .
But whatever the model , the free market has shown that it will support those who offer a high-quality online service to their readers , whether their work is serious or frivolous , whether they cover politics or sport or culture or fashion or any other subject .
The financial model of such sites is also remarkably resilient , specifically because non-print @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when set in the context of sizeable readerships .
And if Wings ( say ) upsets a percentage of its readers by criticising the SNP , or if Craig Murray ( say ) takes a somewhat challenging position on the Skripal case , the overwhelming statistical probability is that most of the readers storming off in a huff will be people who weren ’ t paying anyway .
Independent journalism is a meritocracy – so long as you can build a decent audience by doing good work , even a tiny fraction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is will pay the bills .
It ’ s the polar ideological opposite of government bailing out deservedly-failed commercial businesses with public money without the taxpayer being consulted , and anyone calling for the latter should be treated with the greatest suspicion .
This also seems like an appropriate time to bring up the fact that Wings does NOT currently intend to hold an annual fundraiser this year ( we ’ d be due one in June ) .
We ’ ve been on a frankly overdue and needed holiday for the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point we can see no realistic possibility of independence on the horizon under the current SNP leadership ( and also in the context of the ongoing coronavirus crisis which has all but obliterated normal politics ) , and as such no point in exhausting ourselves for nothing .
We ’ d rather recharge our batteries and be refreshed and ready for the fight should one unexpectedly arise .
The Wings Fighting Fund is in a healthy condition , and lies ready to spring into action should there be a change in circumstances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s operating costs – webhosting , cartoons , the odd opinion poll or two and perhaps a substantially reduced editor ’ s wage – for the next year while things hopefully become clearer .
This position may be reconsidered according to any of a number of possible events , but as of now ( and indeed for some time ) it ’ s the plan , so you may feel inclined to divert any money you may have had earmarked for Wings to other very worthy causes .

Anyone up for their taxes being used to bail out Scottish newspapers?
No, we didn’t think so.
It’s always a bit weird when the very people who are ostensibly least well-served by Scotland and the UK’s media – in this case middle-class Trotskyist pro-independence “anarchists” – suddenly call for multibillionaire media barons to be bailed out by the taxpayer so they can keep spewing misinformation, hatred, celebrity gossip and yesterday’s Twitter spats into the public sphere.
Because the cold hard fact is that the death of all newspapers would be the greatest service any virus has ever done to mankind. The day of the printed press is past, and it’s long past time the zombie corpse accepted inevitable reality and shuffled off into the sunset.
It’s at this point in the debate that both the zombies themselves and those who wish to one day become those zombies pipe up about how much we actually need the press, and won’t someone please think of all the local-newspaper stalwarts dutifully reporting on local scandals and whatever, etc etc.
It is, after all, primarily the politics and bin-raking showbiz hacks we all despise, and is it fair that they get to soil all the honest grafters filling the other pages? No, it’s not. But nature abhors a vacuum, and the gap left by the death of the printed press would be filled just as swiftly as any other. And it’s difficult to construct any plausible scenario in which the replacement wouldn’t be better.
Earlier this month, we noticed a couple of well-fattened old newspaper hacks (and a pompous young wannabe) bitterly bemoaning that sites like this one – well, specifically this one – had raised too much money to carry out journalism. The horror!
Leask, a deranged obsessive McCarthyite lunatic recently deemed surplus to the badly-struggling Herald and tragically suffering under the misapprehension that he’s any sort of arbiter of “credibility”, wailed that the funds raised by Wings in the last six years hadn’t been wasted on pursuing the failed and broken business model that has seen thousands of UK journalists laid off in the same period and most of the rest subject to real-terms pay cuts and toxic working practices.
But that’s because Wings has used the money donated by its readers for the purpose it was donated for – to provide focused journalism in a specific field in order to provide its readers with some semblance of balance.
Not, we should note, by BEING balanced. Unlike many Scottish newspapers, Wings Over Scotland makes no embarrassingly false pretence of impartiality. We wear our editorial stance on our sleeve, but we link to the source of every single factual claim so that readers can judge whether we’re presenting things fairly – something almost no Scottish newspaper ever does, even on their websites.
Readers seeking balance can then read a site or sites with opposing views and decide which one makes the most convincing case – it is, of course, not actually possible to do this regarding the constitution in Scotland with newspapers currently, since they all have the same view.
(We’ve always pointed out that human beings are intrinsically biased, so expecting “balance” within a single publication is a fantasy. Even when newspapers offer a token column to opposing views, it’s one page a week out of maybe 500, and the mere fact of it being an opinion page invites readers to disregard it. If this site lost its mind and gave 800 words to Euan McColm or Brian Wilson once a month amid our usual diet of non-stop vile cybernattery, it wouldn’t suddenly magically become “balanced”.)
Honest partisanship is a far more credible and moral endeavour than fake impartiality, which is a big part of the reason why trust in the traditional media is so disastrously low while new media sites continue to thrive even despite existing in an extraordinarily hostile environment, where politicians and media alike constantly seek to destroy them by any means possible for upsetting their cosy symbiotic relationship.
But how, wail the old hacks, will this new media be funded and sustained? Without a kindly and philanthropist billionaire benefactor like Rupert Murdoch or an avalanche of ad money, how will the poor journalists pay the rent in order to provide these views?
Yet we know the answer to that. Trust is priceless but journalism is actually very cheap to sustain when it no longer has to pay for big shiny glass offices and printing presses and distribution networks (and wildly overpaid columnists, of which Scottish media has more than you might imagine).
Wings not only pays for its journalistic output but also for a campaigning operation, off the back of donations averaging just £1 a week from roughly 1% of its readers. And for that modest contribution readers have had an average of over 50 articles a month for the 100 months the site has existed. (Less than 0.09p per article per reader.)
But that’s far from the only model. YouTube vloggers – who are a type of journalist – make a range of incomes from modest to colossal, mainly through ad revenue. Others use paywalled subscription models. Others still use the likes of Patreon. Some avail themselves of various sorts of grants, or use combinations of the above.
But whatever the model, the free market has shown that it will support those who offer a high-quality online service to their readers, whether their work is serious or frivolous, whether they cover politics or sport or culture or fashion or any other subject.
(It’s a little surprising that the right-wing press isn’t more admiring of such pioneering entrepreneurs, and equally odd that the left-wing press is so intolerant of such an exemplar of socialism in action, whereby wealthier readers fund the service for those unable to afford it. The 99% of Wings readers who don’t contribute financially still get to read the whole of the site for free, without having to endure a single advertisement, because of the generosity of the 1%. And all of that is entirely voluntary, organic and spontaneous, with no taxation or state coercion whatsoever.)
The financial model of such sites is also remarkably resilient, specifically because non-print journalism has such a low cost overhead when set in the context of sizeable readerships. And if Wings (say) upsets a percentage of its readers by criticising the SNP, or if Craig Murray (say) takes a somewhat challenging position on the Skripal case, the overwhelming statistical probability is that most of the readers storming off in a huff will be people who weren’t paying anyway.
(Because it follows that people prepared to pay to support honest journalism are more inclined to accept that an honest person won’t always agree with them on everything – indeed, that they almost certainly won’t.)
Independent journalism is a meritocracy – so long as you can build a decent audience by doing good work, even a tiny fraction of it putting its money where its mouth is will pay the bills. It’s the polar ideological opposite of government bailing out deservedly-failed commercial businesses with public money without the taxpayer being consulted, and anyone calling for the latter should be treated with the greatest suspicion.
It’s quite bad enough that the media is already beholden to advertisers and wealthy proprietors without adding politicians to the list of bosses they have to serve too.
This also seems like an appropriate time to bring up the fact that Wings does NOT currently intend to hold an annual fundraiser this year (we’d be due one in June).
We’ve been on a frankly overdue and much-needed holiday for the last three months. It was originally intended to be two until COVID-19 intervened and all but obliterated normal politics, but more pertinently we see no realistic possibility of independence on the horizon under the current SNP leadership, and therefore no point in exhausting ourselves for nothing. We’d rather recharge our batteries and be refreshed and ready for the fight should one unexpectedly arise.
The Wings Fighting Fund is in a healthy condition, and lies ready to spring into action should there be a change in circumstances. It can certainly bear the site’s operating costs – webhosting, cartoons, the odd opinion poll or two and perhaps a substantially reduced editor’s wage – for the next year while things hopefully become clearer.
(If they don’t, readers will be consulted on how to proceed.)
This position may be reconsidered according to any of a number of possible events, but as of now (and indeed for some time) it’s the plan, so you may feel inclined to divert any money you may have had earmarked for Wings to other very worthy causes.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-02--All quiet on the forgotten front

All quiet on the forgotten front


Neck and neck

We ’ re so underwhelmed and nonplussed by this information that to be honest it barely even occurred to us to write it up , but here we go anyway : A brand-new poll commissioned last week by Wings from Panelbase shows Yes and No in an absolute dead heat .
( Including don ’ t-knows it ’ s 46-46 . )
Normally you get a handful of votes in it but a tie when rounded off to whole percentages or one decimal place , but this was right down the middle – 457 votes each way out of 1086 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a good figure given that the Unionist press has spewed out a non-stop stream of stories for the past month asserting that the coronavirus kills the case for independence .
Alternatively , you could say it was a disappointing figure since the UK now officially has Europe ’ s worst death toll for COVID-19 , something that ’ s almost entirely down to the UK government ’ s abysmal handling of the crisis and the Scottish Government ’ s blend of constitutional inability to diverge from Westminster ’ s strategy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas where it can , lest it be criticised by the media .
But the bottom line is that these figures are pretty much business as usual .
Support for independence has fluctuated within a very narrow range since 2014 , and eeksy-peeksy has been the norm for some time .
As this site has been saying for the past couple of years , only a campaign centred on an actual referendum will shift the dial significantly , and there ’ s still absolutely no sign of the SNP leadership having any kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Wishart MP tweeted this a couple of days ago : But if a ( non-scientific ) poll currently running on our Twitter feed is anything to go by , indy supporters didn ’ t sail up the Clyde on a banana boat to swallow that old cobblers .
So we hope you ’ ll forgive our ennui about poll results that 18 months ago we ’ d have regarded as both important and encouraging .
Right now they just don ’ t feel like they matter a damn , and we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

We’re so underwhelmed and nonplussed by this information that to be honest it barely even occurred to us to write it up, but here we go anyway:
A brand-new poll commissioned last week by Wings from Panelbase shows Yes and No in an absolute dead heat. (Including don’t-knows it’s 46-46.) Normally you get a handful of votes in it but a tie when rounded off to whole percentages or one decimal place, but this was right down the middle – 457 votes each way out of 1086.
On the one hand it’s a good figure given that the Unionist press has spewed out a non-stop stream of stories for the past month asserting that the coronavirus kills the case for independence.
Alternatively, you could say it was a disappointing figure since the UK now officially has Europe’s worst death toll for COVID-19, something that’s almost entirely down to the UK government’s abysmal handling of the crisis and the Scottish Government’s blend of constitutional inability to diverge from Westminster’s strategy, and its reluctance to do so in the areas where it can, lest it be criticised by the media.
(We’ll have more poll data on the respective governments’ virus tactics during the rest of the week. Some of it is very odd.)
But the bottom line is that these figures are pretty much business as usual. Support for independence has fluctuated within a very narrow range since 2014, and eeksy-peeksy has been the norm for some time.
As this site has been saying for the past couple of years, only a campaign centred on an actual referendum will shift the dial significantly, and there’s still absolutely no sign of the SNP leadership having any kind of plan to make that happen. Pete Wishart MP tweeted this a couple of days ago:
But if a (non-scientific) poll currently running on our Twitter feed is anything to go by, indy supporters didn’t sail up the Clyde on a banana boat to swallow that old cobblers.
So we hope you’ll forgive our ennui about poll results that 18 months ago we’d have regarded as both important and encouraging. Right now they just don’t feel like they matter a damn, and we don’t mean because of the coronavirus.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-06--The arrival of the wolf

The arrival of the wolf

This site used to have a running joke about the number of times the Scottish media screamed “ SNP CIVIL WAR !
” whenever any two people in the party – one of whom would invariably be either Jim Sillars or Gordon Wilson – disagreed with each other about whether you should put the milk or the boiling water in a cup of tea first .
Well , here ’ s what a real one looks like .
Poll respondents generally don ’ t like answering “ Yes ” to questions about conspiracies – especially if you use the word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world uses “ conspiracy theorist ” as a synonym for “ tinfoil-hatted nutcase ” .
Yet even when the SNP are polling at more than 50 % and look set for another absolute majority at next year ’ s Holyrood election , barely over a quarter of the party ’ s own voters were prepared to reject the idea that its senior figures were involved in a major criminal conspiracy to jail its most famous former leader and the ex-First Minister .
Of the SNP voters who expressed an opinion either way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there HAD been a conspiracy to frame Alex Salmond on false charges which would have seen him imprisoned for quite possibly the rest of his life .
Let ’ s just take a moment to contemplate the magnitude of those findings .
More than 70 % of SNP voters either definitely believe that the party tried to fit up Alex Salmond or consider it a real possibility .
And yet they ’ re still planning to give the SNP another landslide election victory exactly one year from today .
If there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group of opposition parties anywhere in world politics , we ’ re struggling to bring it to mind .
It ’ s perhaps quite surprising that the numbers for the whole poll were lower .
You ’ d think Unionists would be infinitely keener to suggest major criminal wrongdoing by the SNP leadership , but it ’ s one of the more curious phenomena in Scottish politics that the opposition and media have bizarrely become almost protective of Nicola Sturgeon in recent months , almost as if they regarded her as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when Labour and the Tories are both far too shambolic to mount any sort of serious challenge for the residency of Bute House .
Nevertheless , a figure of 21 % still extrapolates to over a MILLION Scots who definitely think Alex Salmond was a victim of conspiracy , and another two million who think he might have been , despite the fact the the idea has been relentlessly and uniformly rubbished , derided , mocked and bitterly attacked by a whole string of columnists and commentators since the day of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to believe there ’ d been a conspiracy – and remember we ’ re talking specifically here about an SNP and Scottish Government conspiracy , not a UK government one – than No voters : And there was a large gap between Lib Dem voters and those of the other Unionist parties , with Labour and Tory supporters both more than twice as inclined to think there ’ d been a stitch-up .
Men were unsurprisingly more likely to believe in the conspiracy than women , but by a smaller margin than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to definitely rule it out were almost identical ( 39 % of men , 38 % of women ) , but women were less ready to convert uncertainty into a yes .
And strangely , while there was little difference among women by age , the youngest group was by a noticeable distance the least prepared to rule out the possibility of a conspiracy , with an outright majority declaring themselves unsure .
It ’ ll be very interesting to see what a Scottish media deeply committed to attacking Alex Salmond and rubbishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him makes of the fact that more than two-thirds of Scots think he either was , or might well have been , the victim of a failed fit-up from the very top of the SNP .
There ’ s normally nothing they love more than to cry wolf about an imaginary schism in Scotland ’ s party of government and the Yes movement in general .
Let ’ s see how many column inches they devote now there really is one running amok in the flock .

This site used to have a running joke about the number of times the Scottish media screamed “SNP CIVIL WAR!” whenever any two people in the party – one of whom would invariably be either Jim Sillars or Gordon Wilson – disagreed with each other about whether you should put the milk or the boiling water in a cup of tea first.
Well, here’s what a real one looks like.
Poll respondents generally don’t like answering “Yes” to questions about conspiracies – especially if you use the word directly – because the political and media world uses “conspiracy theorist” as a synonym for “tinfoil-hatted nutcase”.
(This, of course, is done to make it easier to get away with conspiracies. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist, as they say.)
Yet even when the SNP are polling at more than 50% and look set for another absolute majority at next year’s Holyrood election, barely over a quarter of the party’s own voters were prepared to reject the idea that its senior figures were involved in a major criminal conspiracy to jail its most famous former leader and the ex-First Minister.
Of the SNP voters who expressed an opinion either way, a narrow majority (51-49) believed there HAD been a conspiracy to frame Alex Salmond on false charges which would have seen him imprisoned for quite possibly the rest of his life.
Let’s just take a moment to contemplate the magnitude of those findings.
More than 70% of SNP voters either definitely believe that the party tried to fit up Alex Salmond or consider it a real possibility. And yet they’re still planning to give the SNP another landslide election victory exactly one year from today. If there’s ever been a more savage indictment of a group of opposition parties anywhere in world politics, we’re struggling to bring it to mind.
It’s perhaps quite surprising that the numbers for the whole poll were lower. You’d think Unionists would be infinitely keener to suggest major criminal wrongdoing by the SNP leadership, but it’s one of the more curious phenomena in Scottish politics that the opposition and media have bizarrely become almost protective of Nicola Sturgeon in recent months, almost as if they regarded her as the Union’s safest option at a time when Labour and the Tories are both far too shambolic to mount any sort of serious challenge for the residency of Bute House.
Nevertheless, a figure of 21% still extrapolates to over a MILLION Scots who definitely think Alex Salmond was a victim of conspiracy, and another two million who think he might have been, despite the fact that the idea has been relentlessly and uniformly rubbished, derided, mocked and bitterly attacked by a whole string of columnists and commentators since the day of the verdict.
Yes voters were more than twice as likely to believe there’d been a conspiracy – and remember that we’re talking specifically here about an SNP and Scottish Government conspiracy, not a UK government one – than No voters:
And there was a large gap between Lib Dem voters and those of the other Unionist parties, with Labour and Tory supporters both more than twice as inclined to think there’d been a stitch-up.
Men were unsurprisingly more likely to believe in the conspiracy than women, but by a smaller margin than you might expect – the numbers willing to definitely rule it out were almost identical (39% of men, 38% of women), but women were less ready to convert uncertainty into a yes.
And strangely, while there was little difference among women by age, the youngest group was by a noticeable distance the least prepared to rule out the possibility of a conspiracy, with an outright majority declaring themselves unsure.
It’ll be very interesting to see what a Scottish media deeply committed to attacking Alex Salmond and rubbishing the idea of a criminal collusion against him makes of the fact that more than two-thirds of Scots think he either was, or might well have been, the victim of a failed fit-up from the very top of the SNP.
There’s normally nothing they love more than to cry wolf about an imaginary schism in Scotland’s party of government and the Yes movement in general. Let’s see how many column inches they devote now there really is one running amok in the flock.


Suspicious activities

Alert readers may have noticed that this site is once more under attack from Twitter .
Following the suspension of the main Wings account last December , and one we set up for the prospective political party – suspensions which Twitter has never justified , because the Wings account did not break any of its rules – it has now suspended my personal account ( @ RevStu ) and the account of old spinoff site The Sealand Gazette , both supposedly for evading the ban on the @ WingsScotland account .
This allegation is clearly a nonsense , because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years and was in constant use from its creation up until this morning , and the Gazette account was only used briefly as an emergency backup for the RevStu one when it was temporarily locked at the weekend for unspecified “ suspicious activity ” , which is a technical security issue rather than a suspension for supposed wrongdoing .
The actual reason for the suspension of all four accounts is this site ’ s opposition to controversial and massively unpopular transgender ideology , which Twitter supports and which is currently the subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , these actions are direct censorship and deliberate interference in the political affairs of a country by an unaccountable and unelected foreign corporation serving the interests of a massive right-wing pharmacological lobby .
And even people who despise Wings Over Scotland should be alarmed by that .
By a remarkable coincidence , the new suspensions come in a week when it was known that Wings was about to reveal more polling data on the transgender issue .
And it ’ s data Twitter won ’ t like one bit .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next day or two .
For now , we apologise to readers that once again we ’ re unable to communicate with you by Twitter , through no fault of our own .
It appears again that concerted efforts by SNP activists have succeeded in silencing the world ’ s most-read pro-independence website on social media .
Meanwhile , we ’ re sure that the Scottish press which this week expressed its indignant outrage at supposed interference with the 2014 independence referendum by “ Iranian hackers ” will be just as vocal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to meddle in Scottish politics .
We ’ re holding our breath already .
Meghan Murphy ( Canadian feminist silenced by Twitter , also here ) 4th Wave Now ( US parents group silenced by Twitter ) Things that only happen to biological women Statistics on the advantages held by biological males in women ’ s sports The huge financial interests behind transgenderism Two collections of violent threats from TRAs to women

Alert readers may have noticed that this site is once more under attack from Twitter. Following the suspension of the main Wings account last December, and one we set up for the prospective political party – suspensions which Twitter has never justified, because the Wings account did not break any of its rules – it has now suspended my personal account (@RevStu) and the account of old spinoff site The Sealand Gazette, both supposedly for evading the ban on the @WingsScotland account.
This allegation is clearly a nonsense, because the RevStu account predated the Wings one by years and was in constant use from its creation up until this morning, and the Gazette account was only used briefly as an emergency backup for the RevStu one when it was temporarily locked at the weekend for unspecified “suspicious activity”, which is a technical security issue rather than a suspension for supposed wrongdoing.
The actual reason for the suspension of all four accounts is this site’s opposition to controversial and massively unpopular transgender ideology, which Twitter supports and which is currently the subject of some hotly-contested and important lawmaking.
(It’s the same reason why Twitter has banned scores, probably hundreds of feminists for the most absurdly innocuous of tweets perceived as challenging trans ideology.)
In other words, these actions are direct censorship and deliberate interference in the political affairs of a country by an unaccountable and unelected foreign corporation serving the interests of a massive right-wing pharmacological lobby.
And even people who despise Wings Over Scotland should be alarmed by that.
By a remarkable coincidence, the new suspensions come in a week when it was known that Wings was about to reveal more polling data on the transgender issue. And it’s data Twitter won’t like one bit.
But we’ll get to that in the next day or two. For now, we apologise to readers that once again we’re unable to communicate with you by Twitter, through no fault of our own. It appears again that concerted efforts by SNP activists have succeeded in silencing the world’s most-read pro-independence website on social media.
Meanwhile, we’re sure that the Scottish press which this week expressed its indignant outrage at supposed interference with the 2014 independence referendum by “Iranian hackers” will be just as vocal about this case of an external organisation attempting to meddle in Scottish politics. We’re holding our breath already.
.
OTHER RESOURCES
Peak Trans
ForWomen.scot
Women And Girls In Scotland
Claire Graham (intersex voice silenced by Twitter)
Miranda Yardley (dissenting transwoman silenced by Twitter)
Meghan Murphy (Canadian feminist silenced by Twitter, also here)
RadFem Rebecca (Feminist silenced by Twitter)
4th Wave Now (US parents group silenced by Twitter)
Trans Crime UK
The War On Women
Pronouns Are Rohypnol
List of gender-critical feminists suspended by Twitter
Things that only happen to biological women
Statistics on the advantages held by biological males in women’s sports
The huge financial interests behind transgenderism
Two collections of violent threats from TRAs to women