Auntie’s Twilight

Television ’ s transforming before our eyes , as both what we watch and how we watch it changes .
An ever-greater number of programmes shown through increasing mediums .
But that doesn ’ t equate to balanced political coverage being provided , quality product displayed , or distinct countries reflected .
The United States , despite the wealth and talent available to it in Hollywood and elsewhere , is the worse for the absence of a properly funded and high quality public broadcasting service .
Its society is the poorer and its democracy badly distorted by its absence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ properly funded public broadcaster .
It ’ s even more important in smaller nations where otherwise language and culture can be lost , never mind the world required to be seen through someone else ’ s lens .
What masquerades as Scottish public broadcasting at the moment is a pale imitation of what exists elsewhere , and fails to deliver on almost every requirement .
Even devolved , not independent , nations do better .
Quebec and Catalonia both have considerably greater broadcasting rights , never mind a far wider public broadcasting service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available in Scotland .
The issue ’ s longstanding , though it was brought to prominence by the referendum in 2014 .
The bias was clear , and was acknowledged and even celebrated by Unionist commentators .
Nothing though has changed since , despite Scottish politics diverging ever more from the rest of the UK , and despite hollow promises .
So it ’ s perhaps not a surprise that the BBC ’ s latest annual report shows a startling drop in licence fee revenue from Scotland .
In just two years the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scottish viewers – almost 10 % of its 2018 income and almost 40 % of the total £80m it spends on Scotland – even as the Scottish population has grown .
In political coverage Brexit – an issue of low priority to most voters – was boosted to prominence , and Farage endlessly platformed with no basis in electoral support north of the border .
Conversely , third party status for the SNP in Westminster has never been accorded reciprocal political exposure on UK screens .
Other viewing genres fare likewise .
Culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what appears from historians is of a decidedly British hue .
On sport Scottish successes in minority sports are routinely ignored , yet even major events like the national football teams ’ critical fixtures are absent from our screens .
All that was bad enough , but the situation now appears to be worsening and not simply in terms of BBC Scotland coverage but for the BBC as an entity across the UK .
It was once an institution and even a flagship of the Britain that some idolized and dreamed of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that was mythological but there was still a great deal of respect for it both in Scotland and abroad .
But all that is being undermined by the Tory government – some on the free-market wing actively seeking its demise , others just seeking control and a neutering of the organization .
The halcyon days of Lord Reith and supposed political neutrality are long gone .
Instead a former Tory candidate is appointed Director General , and the names being bandied about for Chair show a clear intention to take control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I wrote to Tim Davie , the Director General , and to Oliver Dowden , the UK Secretary for Digital Culture Media and Sport , seeking to have powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the right to raise revenue to support it .
Change in Scotland is needed and as changes in the UK are contemplated now ’ s the time to strike .
Until and especially when Scotland becomes independent , public service broadcasting is vital .
Ensuring it ’ s either impartial or at least muted in its hostility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the population is important for reasons which should be obvious and uncontroversial .
Also , upon independence it ’ ll be easier to build a new broadcaster from an established service rather than start from scratch in creating one .
Sadly , the response we ’ ve received from Tim Davie [ appended below this post – Ed ] is to echo his Tory political masters – a denial of the problems and just a pledge to deliver more of the same .
Many Yessers have already refused to pay a licence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coverage in 2014 .
Others , perhaps even some former No voters , will be disgusted at the decline in service but the increase in open partisanship .
Proposed changes to decriminalize the licence fee – if implemented , as seems likely – will further increase willingness to participate in boycotts .
But there ’ s strength in numbers and much more effect when coordinated .
It ’ s why the Yes movement needs to discuss and prepare .
Serious consideration needs given to a non-payment campaign , and if agreed then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from within the movement , not from one party or elected members .
The strength of the anti-poll-tax movement wasn ’ t just its grassroots structure but its community activity .
Much political campaigning is on hold with coronavirus , but discussion can commence , and much can still be done .
There ’ s frustration at political activity being moribund and political leadership far too conformist , if not even supine .
Well , here ’ s an that issue the grassroots can direct and where people can participate from sitting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without representation ” is a cry that first rang out centuries ago .
Maybe its time for the Yes movement to argue likewise for Scottish public broadcasting .
Kenny MacAskill is the SNP MP for East Lothian .
“ Dear Angus , Douglas , Kenny and Neale , Thank you for your letter and attached document .
Firstly , let me assure you that I am highly committed to the delivery of the BBC ’ s public service obligations in Scotland and in all of the UK ’ s nations .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Director-General last month was spent in Glasgow , working with BBC Scotland colleagues .
In my first speech as DG , later that same week , I said that if we are going to get closer to our audience we need an organisation that is based more across the UK , helping to stimulate the creative economy around the country ; and we will look to make the BBC less rather than more London-based .
As the leader of the BBC , I know that every house in Scotland has to feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excellent value .
I take that challenge .
That is what we are about .
The BBC recently enhanced this commitment by introducing the largest investment in a generation into content-making in Scotland , resulting in the launch of the BBC Scotland channel and a new agreement with Screen Scotland .
This agreement included a commitment by the BBC to deliver to network channels each year from Scotland a minimum of three drama series , three comedy titles and three high-impact factual series , ensuring a strong number of TV productions made in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services too .
The BBC Scotland channel , although only 18 months old , is already the most-watched digital channel in Scotland , and in the most recent figures , 75 % of adults rated it as effective at delivering the BBC ’ s public purposes in Scotland .
It of course sits alongside a range of other Scottish content on BBC One Scotland , BBC ALBA , BBC Radio Scotland , BBC Radio nan Gaidheal , BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds .
Turning now to some of the further key aspects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BBC ’ s coverage of the Scottish Government ’ s coronavirus briefings .
As with the equivalent briefings in England and Wales , the BBC has to date shown all of the Scottish Government ’ s briefings , so they weren ’ t “ reinstated ” – they had always been there .
As I know you will recognise , the BBC must ensure that all of our coverage is not only accurate and informative but also duly impartial , fully in line with the demands of our Editorial Guidelines and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the early stages of the pandemic , there was broad cross-party support for the measures introduced in Scotland and for their implementation , but there is undoubtedly increasing divergence of thought in Scotland on how policy decisions could be made .
The BBC has specific regulatory requirements placed upon it , both by its own Editorial Guidelines and by the Ofcom Broadcasting Code , around ensuring due impartiality when policy judgements are being aired .
Impartiality , across the BBC , is a key priority for me , as I made very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In your paper to me , you also note that you are calling for the devolution of broadcasting , an alternative method of funding public broadcasting and a consultation on the future of public service broadcasting .
The matter of where legislative powers over broadcasting policy rest in the devolved settlement is clearly not a matter for the BBC .
However , on funding , the Licence Fee is the model agreed for the BBC until 2027 , and when viewers are asked , it remains the most popular model for funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in the responses to the Charter Review consultation .
Meanwhile , the Scottish Parliament already has a role in shaping the future of the BBC .
The BBC , the Scottish Government , the Scottish Parliament and the DCMS signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2015 , itself approved by the Scottish Parliament that year , to ensure that the Parliament in Edinburgh was an important part of the process when the BBC ’ s charter was reviewed and renewed most recently , and on all subsequent occasions .
That renewal process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of the questions you discuss , including around the remit of public service broadcasting and how it is funded .
The BBC ’ s Charter and Agreement , running to 2027 , was approved unanimously by the Scottish Parliament in October 2016 , following scrutiny both in Committee and in the parliamentary chamber .
The new BBC Scotland channel was also welcomed cross-party at Holyrood in a debate the following Spring .
The BBC ’ s Annual Report & Accounts are now laid every year at the Scottish Parliament and BBC witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s committee sessions .
I should also add that the process for the appointment of the Non-Executive Director for Scotland on the BBC Board already provides for a joint appointment by the Scottish Government and the DCMS .
Thank you again for taking the time to make contact with me , and I know my colleagues at BBC Scotland would be pleased to discuss with you further , in due course , your thoughts on the BBC ’ s delivery of its public services in the nation .

Television’s transforming before our eyes, as both what we watch and how we watch it changes. An ever-greater number of programmes shown through increasing mediums. But that doesn’t equate to balanced political coverage being provided, quality product displayed, or distinct countries reflected.
The United States, despite the great wealth and talent available to it in Hollywood and elsewhere, is the worse for the absence of a properly funded and high quality public broadcasting service. Its society is the poorer and its democracy badly distorted by its absence. It’s why Scotland needs a properly funded public broadcaster.
It’s even more important in smaller nations where otherwise language and culture can be lost, never mind the world required to be seen through someone else’s lens. What masquerades as Scottish public broadcasting at the moment is a pale imitation of what exists elsewhere, and fails to deliver on almost every requirement.
Even devolved, not independent, nations do better. Quebec and Catalonia both have considerably greater broadcasting rights, never mind a far wider public broadcasting service on screen, than what’s available in Scotland.
The issue’s longstanding, though it was brought to prominence by the referendum in 2014. The bias was clear, and was acknowledged and even celebrated by Unionist commentators. Nothing though has changed since, despite Scottish politics diverging ever more from the rest of the UK, and despite hollow promises.
So it’s perhaps not a surprise that the BBC’s latest annual report shows a startling drop in licence fee revenue from Scotland. In just two years the Corporation has seen £30 million lost from Scottish viewers – almost 10% of its 2018 income and almost 40% of the total £80m it spends on Scotland – even as the Scottish population has grown.
BBC LICENCE FEE REVENUE (SCOTLAND)
2017: £321m
2018: £324m
2019: £311m
2020: £294m
In political coverage Brexit – an issue of low priority to most voters – was boosted to prominence, and Farage endlessly platformed with no basis in electoral support north of the border. Conversely, third party status for the SNP in Westminster has never been accorded reciprocal political exposure on UK screens.
Other viewing genres fare likewise. Culture and society are marginalized and much of what appears from historians is of a decidedly British hue. On sport Scottish successes in minority sports are routinely ignored, yet even major events like the national football teams’ critical fixtures are absent from our screens.
All that was bad enough, but the situation now appears to be worsening and not simply in terms of BBC Scotland coverage but for the BBC as an entity across the UK. It was once an institution and even a flagship of the Britain that some idolized and dreamed of a resurgence with a No vote. Some of that was mythological but there was still a great deal of respect for it both in Scotland and abroad.
But all that is being undermined by the Tory government – some on the free-market wing actively seeking its demise, others just seeking control and a neutering of the organization. The halcyon days of Lord Reith and supposed political neutrality are long gone. Instead a former Tory candidate is appointed Director General, and the names being bandied about for Chair show a clear intention to take control.
It was for that reason that colleagues and I wrote to Tim Davie, the Director General, and to Oliver Dowden, the UK Secretary for Digital Culture Media and Sport, seeking to have powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the right to raise revenue to support it. Change in Scotland is needed and as changes in the UK are contemplated now’s the time to strike.
Until and especially when Scotland becomes independent, public service broadcasting is vital. Ensuring it’s either impartial or at least muted in its hostility to the view of more than half of the population is important for reasons which should be obvious and uncontroversial. Also, upon independence it’ll be easier to build a new broadcaster from an established service rather than start from scratch in creating one.
Sadly, the response we’ve received from Tim Davie [appended below this post – Ed] is to echo his Tory political masters – a denial of the problems and just a pledge to deliver more of the same.
Many Yessers have already refused to pay a licence fee, so incensed were they by the coverage in 2014. Others, perhaps even some former No voters, will be disgusted at the decline in service but the increase in open partisanship. Proposed changes to decriminalize the licence fee – if implemented, as seems likely – will further increase willingness to participate in boycotts.
But there’s strength in numbers and much more effect when coordinated. It’s why the Yes movement needs to discuss and prepare. Serious consideration needs given to a non-payment campaign, and if agreed then it needs organized. That must come from within the movement, not from one party or elected members.
The strength of the anti-poll-tax movement wasn’t just its grassroots structure but its community activity. Much political campaigning is on hold with coronavirus, but discussion can commence, and much can still be done. There’s frustration at political activity being moribund and political leadership far too conformist, if not even supine. Well, here’s an that issue the grassroots can direct and where people can participate from sitting in their own home.
“No taxation without representation” is a cry that first rang out centuries ago. Maybe its time for the Yes movement to argue likewise for Scottish public broadcasting.
.
Kenny MacAskill is the SNP MP for East Lothian.
.
———————————————————————————–


Only Connect

We ’ re not wholly convinced by prospective SNP candidate Toni Giugliano ’ s credentials as an impartial voice on the trans-vs-women ’ s-rights issue , given that he previously referred to Joan McAlpine as a “ bigot ” .
But the statement below – it ’ s good to speak to people on both sides of a debate – is surely the very definition of sense and reason .
Yet that simple and wildly uncontroversial position – that the view shared by the vast majority of the population should at the minimum be heard and considered – caused a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s woke faction , who directly equated a belief in biology and women ’ s rights with bigotry , racism and Nazism .
We attach a representative selection below .
Can any alert readers spot the common link between all these people who are beside themselves with outrage that the subject of women ’ s rights should even be discussed or debated ?
If you ’ re still struggling , we ’ ll give you a clue .
FOOTNOTE : If you want to see what actual bigotry looks like , look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below is an “ intersectional feminist ” who hates all non-trans white straight men , and the second a deeply troubled young man prone to disturbing fantasies who hates more than 99 % of the world ’ s population based on their gender identities .

We’re not wholly convinced by prospective SNP candidate Toni Giugliano’s credentials as an impartial voice on the trans-vs-women’s-rights issue, given that he previously referred to Joan McAlpine as a “bigot”. But the statement below – it’s good to speak to people on both sides of a debate – is surely the very definition of sense and reason.
(The person in question, incidentally, is Caroline McAllister, who the SNP NEC blocked from contesting the Dumbarton seat Giugliano wants to stand for.)
Yet that simple and wildly uncontroversial position – that the view shared by the vast majority of the population should at the minimum be heard and considered – caused a predictable storm of fury from the SNP’s woke faction, who directly equated a belief in biology and women’s rights with bigotry, racism and Nazism.
We attach a representative selection below. Can any alert readers spot the common link between all these people who are beside themselves with outrage that the subject of women’s rights should even be discussed or debated?
If you’re still struggling, we’ll give you a clue.
.
FOOTNOTE: If you want to see what actual bigotry looks like, look to the woke youth. The first below is an “intersectional feminist” who hates all non-trans white straight men, and the second a deeply troubled young man prone to disturbing fantasies who hates more than 99% of the world’s population based on their gender identities.


You’ve Got Males

On Sunday we told you about Mridul Wadhwa , a man who deceived his way into a job at a rape crisis centre and now wants to be an SNP MSP , in a seat where the party supposedly has an all-woman shortlist .
The story was picked up today by the Times .
But Wadhwa isn ’ t the only man trying to muscle in on a woman-only shortlist .
The extremist transactivist “ Out For Indy ” group yesterday highlighted the candidacy of Sarah Fanet in Argyll and Bute , a constituency already plagued by the abominable horror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Argyll and Bute ( like Stirling , the seat Wadhwa is trying for ) is also supposed to be an all-women shortlist , but Fanet too is a man , and lived as one until 2016 .
These are two very different cases .
Fanet has undergone sex reassignment surgery and hasn ’ t obtained access to vulnerable rape victims by deception .
But all-women shortlists are meant to be for people who have the issues and life experiences of being women , and women aren ’ t simply men with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things no man ever has to , no matter how much men delude themselves otherwise .
Wings doesn ’ t even agree with all-women shortlists .
In a democracy where women are the majority and have the vote , there ’ s no justification for arbitrarily excluding half of the population from seeking election .
Women are perfectly capable of joining political parties and standing as , or voting for , female candidates fair and square , just like men are .
You don ’ t fix perceived discrimination by imposing actual discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cases like this serve to highlight the ridiculous , deranged position the current SNP has somehow managed to paint itself into .
The voters of Argyll and Bute have , of their own free and democratic will , chosen male MSPs at every election since the Scottish Parliament was created , but now the only way a pro-independence male can have any hope of representing it is to put a dress on and have his genitalia surgically removed .
The party ’ s current stance combines sexual discrimination with the denial of scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black-mirror image of the way that Screaming Lord Sutch used to cavort around London with naked models in the service of the Monster Raving Loony Party , singing gleefully about Jack The Ripper .
The only difference is that the MRLP didn ’ t try to pretend they were sane , and nobody ever put them into power .
Because not even Screaming Lord Sutch was so screaming mad that he thought men could turn into women .

On Sunday we told you about Mridul Wadhwa, a man who deceived his way into a job at a rape crisis centre and now wants to be an SNP MSP, in a seat where the party supposedly has an all-woman shortlist. The story was picked up today by the Times.
But Wadhwa isn’t the only man trying to muscle in on a woman-only shortlist.
The extremist transactivist “Out For Indy” group yesterday highlighted the candidacy of Sarah Fanet in Argyll and Bute, a constituency already plagued by the abominable horror of Rhiannon Spear trying to get selected.
(We’re still trying to work out why a privileged white cisgender straight person standing against a transwoman seemingly isn’t “transphobic”, since everything else is.)
Argyll and Bute (like Stirling, the seat Wadhwa is trying for) is also supposed to be an all-women shortlist, but Fanet too is a man, and lived as one until 2016.
These are two very different cases. Fanet has undergone sex reassignment surgery and hasn’t obtained access to vulnerable rape victims by deception. But all-women shortlists are meant to be for people who have the issues and life experiences of being women, and women aren’t simply men with their penises chopped off. They deal with things no man ever has to, no matter how much men delude themselves otherwise.
Wings doesn’t even agree with all-women shortlists. In a democracy where women are the majority and have the vote, there’s no justification for arbitrarily excluding half of the population from seeking election. Women are perfectly capable of joining political parties and standing as, or voting for, female candidates fair and square, just like men are. You don’t fix perceived discrimination by imposing actual discrimination against tens of thousands of people.
(There are around 25,000 adult men in the constituency, who have effectively been banished from democracy, like women who can play in golf clubs as resented guests but can never be members themselves. But if Fanet gets the nomination, women will have been excluded too. Everyone’s a loser.)
But cases like this serve to highlight the ridiculous, deranged position the current SNP has somehow managed to paint itself into. The voters of Argyll and Bute have, of their own free and democratic will, chosen male MSPs at every election since the Scottish Parliament was created, but now the only way a pro-independence male can have any hope of representing it is to put a dress on and have his genitalia surgically removed.
The party’s current stance combines sexual discrimination with the denial of scientific reality, like some sort of ridiculous black-mirror image of the way that Screaming Lord Sutch used to cavort around London with naked models in the service of the Monster Raving Loony Party, singing gleefully about Jack The Ripper.
The only difference is that the MRLP didn’t try to pretend they were sane, and nobody ever put them into power. Because not even Screaming Lord Sutch was so screaming mad that he thought men could turn into women.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-24--To the faraway towns

To the faraway towns

Voting is now open in the selection contests to determine who the SNP ’ s candidates at next year ’ s election will be .
Given the extremely dodgy secret-Survey-Monkey-ballot shenanigans recently adopted by the party NEC , we ’ re uncomfortably reminded of a famous quote attributed to Joseph Stalin : “ it ’ s not the people who vote that count , it ’ s the people who count the votes ” .
An excellent blog by the former SNP Trade & Industry spokesman Iain Lawson today highlights the near-impossibility of effecting change from within the SNP now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership to eliminate the influence of ordinary members .
Indeed , so secure do the party ’ s controlling faction consider themselves that they now feel able to openly call their own supporters “ bitches ” .
But not quite SO secure that they still don ’ t want to cheat .
A startling number of people sent us this yesterday : It ’ s an email sent by Stirling MP Alyn Smith to all branch members using the party ’ s internal mailing system .
While phrased innocuously it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cynically influence the outcome of the Stirling selection by presenting a very thinly-veiled preference list of candidates to the electorate .
Smith ’ s “ offer ” of a shared MP/MSP office is intended to put pressure on gender-critical feminist candidates – primarily the only one excluded from his list , Sameeha Rehman , a young woman who ’ s had the endorsement of the SNP Women ’ s Pledge group .
How so ?
Because “ Daddy Bear ” staffs his office almost entirely with the aggressive and misogynist young men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing , so he knows it would be a deeply hostile and unwelcoming environment for someone like Rehman .
Dressed up as a money-saving convenience , Smith ’ s “ offer ” is in fact an underhanded and sneaky attempt to intimidate Rehman and to morally blackmail anyone thinking of supporting her , via the same financial figleaf as was used to block Joanna Cherry .
People could of course try filing complaints about such behaviour , but we already know that the Executive has selectively deaf ears and simply ignores any letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with , even if they ’ re from senior elected representatives .
By way of example , we ’ ve recently come into possession of an exchange – if it can properly be called that – between East Lothian MP and former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill and the party ’ s business convener Kirsten Oswald .
I am writing regarding the above What ’ s App message that was sent to me anonymously and which I have forwarded to the Parliamentary Clerks in the Holyrood Inquiry .
I have also sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Crown .
The document is I believe accurate and that raises huge concerns .
Both the Justice Secretary and the Westminster Spokesperson on Justice have been talking about the rule of law .
I have copied both in as this message raises concerns over the actions of the Chief Executive and the Chief Operating Officer of the SNP .
Peter Murrell is both the CEO of the Party of Government and the spouse of the First Minister .
For him to be even seeking to put pressure on or interfere in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I therefore look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency on action you are taking to protect the integrity of our party .
I ’ m writing regarding the above .
I note that the Party are now paying for Shepherd and Wedderburn to provide advice to the Party CEO .
I also understand that similar arrangements have been made for the Party COO with another firm .
My understanding of the position of both the Party and the Scottish Government with regard to not just the Holyrood Inquiry but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible and provide as much information as can be released .
I now have an interview with police .
They are acting on the instructions of the Crown for my having made available to the committee and the public an item I received anonymously but which is highly relevant to the inquiry .
Given recent actions of the latter organisation therefore notwithstanding my huge admiration for the former , I will be taking and acting under legal guidance .
I ’ m sure you ’ d accept that it would be perverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are apparently seeking to restrict the availability of information and not support an elected member seeking to make information available in support of it .
Can you therefore confirm that you ’ ll meet my lawyers ’ fees as is being done with Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick ?
I ’ ve copied in the Group Convener and Westminster Leader as I along with every other member pays a party levy and it seems appropriate that Group members be accorded the same rights as staff , especially when policy is being adhered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other .
Finally , I know you have simply refused to reply to previous correspondence which I find discourteous .
But again , for the Leader and Convener if that is to be your way then I reserve the right to go public on this .
These issues are causing concern within the wider party and they are entitled to know what is going on .
Hence , I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency .
Mennie , incidentally , is an Aberdeen councillor and the sister of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hyper-intolerant “ Out For Indy ” grouping , a man who proudly proclaims his fondness for using women ’ s toilets regardless of women ’ s objections .
She was office manager to Mark McDonald , and is thought to have been instrumental in the undermining of his position on deeply suspect allegations of sexual harassment based on a joke about an autocorrect error in a single text message .
She now works for party HQ in a new job which was not advertised and for which nobody else was interviewed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her part in his destruction .
MacAskill has received no further replies from Kirsten Oswald regarding the issues raised in the letters above , despite also CCing in his Westminster group convener and leader , Deidre Brock and Ian Blackford – just as he hasn ’ t done over his inquiries concerning the SNP ’ s accounts .
The party executive ’ s approach to anything awkward is to simply stick its fingers in its ears , close its eyes and hope it somehow goes away .
The current candidate selection will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evil ” policy , though it ’ s far from the only test the leadership faces in the near future .
Supporters of the Women ’ s Pledge group have issued a list of candidates backed by their members , whether as full endorsements or “ least worst ” options : Tellingly , the recommendation list has already come under furious attack from the Yes movement ’ s woman-hating wokebeard faction : As well as deliberately misrepresenting the list as “ official endorsements ” when the WP group had specifically said that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint about it comprising mostly men is deeply disingenuous .
10 of the 21 recommendations on the list – 48 % – are women , which is a notably higher proportion than the number of current women at either Holyrood ( 35 % ) or Westminster ( 34 % ) .
For now , all members can do is vote in good faith and see what happens .
The outcome will tell us a lot about whether the SNP is a party of Scottish independence any more .
Those of us not who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only cross our fingers .

Voting is now open in the selection contests to determine who the SNP’s candidates at next year’s election will be. Given the extremely dodgy secret-Survey-Monkey-ballot shenanigans recently adopted by the party NEC, we’re uncomfortably reminded of a famous quote attributed to Joseph Stalin: “it’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes”.
An excellent blog by the former SNP Trade & Industry spokesman Iain Lawson today highlights the near-impossibility of effecting change from within the SNP now, due to changes made by the leadership to eliminate the influence of ordinary members.
Indeed, so secure do the party’s controlling faction consider themselves that they now feel able to openly call their own supporters “bitches”.
But not quite SO secure that they still don’t want to cheat.
A startling number of people sent us this yesterday:
It’s an email sent by Stirling MP Alyn Smith to all branch members using the party’s internal mailing system. While phrased innocuously it’s a direct attempt, against SNP rules, to cynically influence the outcome of the Stirling selection by presenting a very thinly-veiled preference list of candidates to the electorate.
(SNP elections are conducted by Single Transferable Vote, so voters can rank every candidate in order of preference.)
Smith’s “offer” of a shared MP/MSP office is intended to put pressure on gender-critical feminist candidates – primarily the only one excluded from his list, Sameeha Rehman, a young woman who’s had the endorsement of the SNP Women’s Pledge group.
(Whose convener was this week, as alert readers will recall, blocked by the NEC from seeking the Dumbarton seat despite being the deputy leader of the SNP council group in the constituency. The person mentioned last by Smith, Susan McGill, is along with Rehman the only other Stirling candidate who signed the Women’s Pledge, which is an extremely innocuous list of statements nobody could reasonably object to.)
How so? Because “Daddy Bear” staffs his office almost entirely with the aggressive and misogynist young men of the party’s hardline transactivist wing, so he knows it would be a deeply hostile and unwelcoming environment for someone like Rehman. Dressed up as a money-saving convenience, Smith’s “offer” is in fact an underhanded and sneaky attempt to intimidate Rehman and to morally blackmail anyone thinking of supporting her, via the same financial figleaf as was used to block Joanna Cherry.
People could of course try filing complaints about such behaviour, but we already know that the Executive has selectively deaf ears and simply ignores any letters about things it doesn’t want to deal with, even if they’re from senior elected representatives.
By way of example, we’ve recently come into possession of an exchange – if it can properly be called that – between East Lothian MP and former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill and the party’s business convener Kirsten Oswald.
17 SEPTEMBER 2020
“Dear Kirsten I am writing regarding the above What’s App message that was sent to me anonymously and which I have forwarded to the Parliamentary Clerks in the Holyrood Inquiry. I have also sent it as a courtesy to Alex Salmond and the Crown. The document is I believe accurate and that raises huge concerns. Both the Justice Secretary and the Westminster Spokesperson on Justice have been talking about the rule of law. I have copied both in as this message raises concerns over the actions of the Chief Executive and the Chief Operating Officer of the SNP. Peter Murrell is both the CEO of the Party of Government and the spouse of the First Minister. For him to be even seeking to put pressure on or interfere in a police enquiry is simply unacceptable. I therefore look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency on action you are taking to protect the integrity of our party. Yours for Scotland
Kenny MacAskill”
5 OCTOBER 2020
“Dear Kirsten I’m writing regarding the above. I note that the Party are now paying for Shepherd and Wedderburn to provide advice to the Party CEO. I also understand that similar arrangements have been made for the Party COO with another firm. My understanding of the position of both the Party and the Scottish Government with regard to not just the Holyrood Inquiry but more widely is to be as open as possible and provide as much information as can be released. I now have an interview with police. They are acting on the instructions of the Crown for my having made available to the committee and the public an item I received anonymously but which is highly relevant to the inquiry. Given recent actions of the latter organisation therefore notwithstanding my huge admiration for the former, I will be taking and acting under legal guidance. I’m sure you’d accept that it would be perverse for the Party to be funding officers who are apparently seeking to restrict the availability of information and not support an elected member seeking to make information available in support of it. Can you therefore confirm that you’ll meet my lawyers’ fees as is being done with Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick? I’ve copied in the Group Convener and Westminster Leader as I along with every other member pays a party levy and it seems appropriate that Group members be accorded the same rights as staff, especially when policy is being adhered to by one and not by the other. Finally, I know you have simply refused to reply to previous correspondence which I find discourteous. But again, for the Leader and Convener if that is to be your way then I reserve the right to go public on this. These issues are causing concern within the wider party and they are entitled to know what is going on. Hence, I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency. Yours for Scotland
Kenny MacAskill “
9 OCTOBER 2020
“Hello Kenny Many thanks for your email. I am just seeing this now, so I will come back to you. Best wishes
Kirsten”
12 OCTOBER 2020
“Dear Kirsten I look forward to hearing further from you. On another issue though relating to party expenditure that I and others fund, can I raise the following? 1 On what date and in what capacity did Cllr Jessica Mennie first come onto the Party HQ payroll?
2 Was the current post she holds advertised internally or externally and if so, can I receive details?
3 Who appointed her and when was it approved by NEC? Kind regards
Kenny”
Mennie, incidentally, is an Aberdeen councillor and the sister of SNP transactivist Josh Mennie, convener of the hyper-intolerant “Out For Indy” grouping, a man who proudly proclaims his fondness for using women’s toilets regardless of women’s objections.
She was office manager to Mark McDonald, and is thought to have been instrumental in the undermining of his position on deeply suspect allegations of sexual harassment based on a joke about an autocorrect error in a single text message. She now works for party HQ in a new job which was not advertised and for which nobody else was interviewed, widely believed to be her reward for her part in his destruction.
MacAskill has received no further replies from Kirsten Oswald regarding the issues raised in the letters above, despite also CCing in his Westminster group convener and leader, Deidre Brock and Ian Blackford – just as he hasn’t done over his inquiries concerning the SNP’s accounts. The party executive’s approach to anything awkward is to simply stick its fingers in its ears, close its eyes and hope it somehow goes away.
(The Electoral Commission, incidentally, this week assured this site once again that it intends to publish the accounts next month. It has, however, already promised it would do so in August, September – twice – and October, and missed all those deadlines.)
The current candidate selection will be a test of that “hear no evil” policy, though it’s far from the only test the leadership faces in the near future. Supporters of the Women’s Pledge group have issued a list of candidates backed by their members, whether as full endorsements or “least worst” options:
Tellingly, the recommendation list has already come under furious attack from the Yes movement’s woman-hating wokebeard faction:
As well as deliberately misrepresenting the list as “official endorsements” when the WP group had specifically said that they weren’t, Beaton’s complaint about it comprising mostly men is deeply disingenuous. 10 of the 21 recommendations on the list – 48% – are women, which is a notably higher proportion than the number of current women at either Holyrood (35%) or Westminster (34%).
(And it’d be almost 55% – 12 out of 22 – if the NEC hadn’t blocked people like Caroline McAllister and Joanna Cherry from contesting nominations. The objection is of course doubly ironic as the woke faction enthusiastically backs the unlawful presence of men on all-women shortlists.)
For now, all members can do is vote in good faith and see what happens. The outcome will tell us a lot about whether the SNP is a party of Scottish independence any more. Those of us not who are not members and have no vote can only cross our fingers.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-25--Soapbox: The invisible woman

Soapbox: The invisible woman

The dead hand running the show at SNP HQ is no better illustrated than by the career path of Shirley-Anne Somerville .
For despite her failure to succeed in role after role , election after election , her star continues to ascend through the patronage of the SNP ’ s inner sanctum and to the bemusement of ordinary members and parliamentarians .
Ms Somerville was famously ‘ elected ’ to the Scottish Parliament in 2007 by accident , after Stefan Tymkewycz – the last SNP member elected from the Lothian regional list – resigned his seat to concentrate on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was as surprising as it was undeserved .
Although on paper Edinburgh Central was the most likely Edinburgh seat to fall to the SNP , with a Labour majority of less than 2700 , in the election Ms Somerville had disappointingly trailed in third behind Labour and the Lib Dems ( curiously in an all-female contest ) .
Luckily for the party , victories in Edinburgh East and , more unexpectedly , in Livingston diverted attention away from this failure .
As the parliament progressed towards the 2011 election , it became apparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP list MSP contesting an Edinburgh seat ; Fiona Hyslop would be contesting her home constituency in West Lothian and Ian McKee was retiring .
Consequently , Ms Somerville had her pick of the Edinburgh seats outside Edinburgh East , where Kenny MacAskill was the sitting member .
To the surprise of many , she abandoned her old constituency of Edinburgh Central and plumped for Edinburgh North and Leith .
Perhaps persistent rumours that the long-time parliamentarian and Labour incumbent Malcolm Chisholm was standing down made the seat look a shoo-in for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not use her time in parliament to good effect .
It is believed that she didn ’ t hold a single constituency surgery in all her time at Holyrood and therefore missed a golden opportunity to build a personal vote through directly assisting constituents in her chosen seat .
A deserved reputation for laziness and poor political judgement was already growing amongst her colleagues .
On election night in 2011 , Ms Somerville suffered the humiliation of being the only SNP candidate in the Lothians to fail to win their seat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand down but increased both his vote and his vote share on the night of an SNP landslide .
If only she ’ d been prepared to put in the hard miles working for her constituents , that Labour majority of 500 would probably have been overcome .
But having been rescued by the mysterious resignation of Mr Tymkewycz in 2007 , the same trick could not be applied in 2011 as the scale of the SNP ’ s victory meant they had no list seats in the Lothians to play with .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP safety net was rolled out .
Firstly , Bruce Crawford touted her name round ministerial colleagues as a potential special advisor , but there were no takers .
So the party invented a new HQ job and appointed her Campaigns Director .
Nobody remembers the role being advertised to the membership .
Somerville ’ s seven-year occupancy of the post existed without a trace .
Such was the total lack of impact on Scottish political life of whatever she did that in that time if you Google for “ shirley-anne somerville campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the cabinet reshuffle of 2018 where she was replaced in the role by Keith Brown .
In 2012 , once Yes Scotland had been set up and the wheels of the referendum put in motion , Somerville was appointed as its Director of Communities .
( To be fair , there was at least an appearance of due process around the appointment of the directors , although many suspected most of the names were in the frame from the outset . )
The year that followed was nothing short of calamitous and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autumn 2012 and autumn 2013 was probably one of the major contributors to the Yes campaign ’ s eventual failure .
It was duly decided that the failing directors would have to be removed , but of course they had to go one by one and in such a way as to not scare the horses .
For Somerville , the solution was the Dunfermline by-election , caused by the jailing of SNP incumbent Bill Walker .
The only problem was that leaving a well-paid post to contest a by-election in these circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A deal was therefore done that would see Ms Somerville land a plum job with the SNP should she , as expected , lose the seat to Labour .
History shows that she did lose the seat , and she did get the job .
Again , without any advertisement of the role , she was quietly appointed SNP Deputy Chief Executive , a post which has never existed before or since .
The only Deputy Chief Executive the SNP has ever had in its 86-year history is Shirley-Anne Somerville .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 months previously to the exalted heights of Deputy Chief Executive for her failure to perform at Yes Scotland and her failure to win yet another election .
Many SNP members remain incandescent at what they saw as an outrageous abuse of executive power , which seems to have been exercised to reward to a member of mediocre capability with nothing but serial failure under her belt .
From her position of being on the party payroll , Ms Somerville proceeded to put herself forward for selection as a candidate for Dunfermline at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination were believed to think it gravely unfair that the Deputy Chief Executive of the party was allowed to contest it .
The implicit patronage is immediately obvious .
How could it possibly be fair for a party executive with access to membership lists , and who works side by side with colleagues overseeing the selection process , to be allowed to contest these positions ?
How much of her time campaigning to become the candidate , competing against other members , was actually paid for by the party ?
There were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party seemingly considered it appropriate .
Having had the luxury of being paid by the party while securing the nomination and throughout her candidature , Ms Somerville was finally elected to Holyrood at the fourth time of asking on a modest 6 % swing , thanks largely to Labour ’ s catastophic implosion across the central belt which saw it lose second place to the Tories for the first time in history .
Within hours of her election , journalists were touting her as a certainty for ministerial appointment in Nicola Sturgeon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any relevant experience in her previous outing as an MSP , the appointment as junior education minister duly came to pass .
Two years on , following a largely unremarkable ( but gaffe-free ) tenure , Ms Somerville found herself elevated to Cabinet to preside over Social Security – a portfolio that had , up until that point , been deemed to be only a junior ministerial brief and for which , arguably , all the heavy lifting had already been done .
The main news story concerning Somerville ’ s department since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take over welfare responsibilites from the UK Department of Work and Pensions on schedule ( originally due to be next year ) .
The other part of her brief has been as Cabinet Secretary for Older People .
While in charge Somerville oversaw the disastrous policy of shunting elderly hospital patients into care homes en masse without conducting adequate levels of COVID-19 testing on either patients or staff , leading to a large proportion of Scotland ’ s deaths .
Dozens were even transferred despite having already tested positive for the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first instance the responsibility of the health secretary , it was Somerville ’ s job to speak up for them .
Her legacy as the inept cabinet voice of Scotland ’ s old folk will be the premature and avoidable deaths of thousands of them .
Finally , Somerville has been one of the driving forces behind the massively unpopular proposals to introduce gender self-ID , promising to implement the legislation even as a consultation supposedly canvassed public opinion on whether it should go ahead .
While this policy too has ostensibly been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to self-ID ( ie the huge majority of Scottish voters ) believe that it won ’ t be an SNP priority if they should secure a majority in 2021 .
Perhaps the only/most encouraging prospect of it NOT becoming law is that Somerville is in charge of it .
With a proven history of laziness in terms of constituency work and of being rewarded for ( to express it charitably ) achieving little , it ’ s not very surprising that Somerville finds herself facing opposition for the SNP candidature for Dunfermline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persists .
On 20 October – a full two months before the package will come onstream – she was suddenly allowed to share the stage for the daily televised coronavirus briefing with the FM to announce the school meal programme for the remainder of the 2020/21 session holidays .
Despite a majority of more than 4500 and with Scottish Labour scrabbling desperately to even find candidates to run in Fife , Somerville now has a credible challenger for the nomination in the shape of her own former election agent , Rob Thompson .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ capable of pulling off difficult tasks , as he managed to get her elected . )
Perhaps SNP members in Dunfermline have looked at her track record and decided that if anyone can lose a safe-looking seat against all the odds , it ’ s Shirley-Anne Somerville .
If they should decline to reselect her , it ’ ll be interesting to see what new job gets created this time to keep her in the lifestyle to which she ’ s become accustomed .
Fails to be elected from the SNP ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacement MSP when Stefan Tymkewycz resigns from parliament , supposedly to concentrate on being a councillor .
The real reason for this resignation is still a mystery .
Tymkewycz served one more term and stepped down at the 2017 council election .
Selected to contest Edinburgh North and Leith , abandoning the constituency she contested in 2007 .
Becomes the only SNP candidate not to win their seat in Lothian .
Fails to be elected from SNP ’ s Lothian list .
Employed by Yes Scotland as Director of Communities .
After a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under cover of contesting Dunfermline by-election .
While employed by the SNP , contests and secures the nomination as SNP candidate for Dunfermline .
Elected at the fourth time of asking for the Dunfermline constituency on the back of Labour collapse across central Scotland .
Promoted to Cabinet with a portfolio previously considered a junior ministerial brief , and after the bulk of the work setting up the new social security system had been completed .
Nevertheless , plans to devolve most welfare benefits promptly collapse and are postponed until at least 2024 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Cabinet Secretary for Older People , fails to intervene to prevent large numbers of the elderly being transferred from hospital to care homes without adequate COVID-19 testing , leading to thousands of deaths .
Soapbox is a weekend column designed to provoke debate on ( usually ) non-party-political issues .
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Wings Over Scotland , except when we write them ourselves , obviously .
And this time .
If you ’ d like to contribute a Soapbox piece ( ideally 800-1500 words ) , send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , INCLUDING THE WORD ‘ SOAPBOX ’ IN THE SUBJECT LINE .

The dead hand running the show at SNP HQ is no better illustrated than by the career path of Shirley-Anne Somerville.
For despite her failure to succeed in role after role, election after election, her star continues to ascend through the patronage of the SNP’s inner sanctum and to the bemusement of ordinary members and parliamentarians.
Ms Somerville was famously ‘elected’ to the Scottish Parliament in 2007 by accident, after Stefan Tymkewycz – the last SNP member elected from the Lothian regional list – resigned his seat to concentrate on his role at Edinburgh City Council.
It was as surprising as it was undeserved. Although on paper Edinburgh Central was the most likely Edinburgh seat to fall to the SNP, with a Labour majority of less than 2700, in the election Ms Somerville had disappointingly trailed in third behind Labour and the Lib Dems (curiously in an all-female contest).
Luckily for the party, victories in Edinburgh East and, more unexpectedly, in Livingston diverted attention away from this failure.
As the parliament progressed towards the 2011 election, it became apparent that Ms Somerville would be the only SNP list MSP contesting an Edinburgh seat; Fiona Hyslop would be contesting her home constituency in West Lothian and Ian McKee was retiring. Consequently, Ms Somerville had her pick of the Edinburgh seats outside Edinburgh East, where Kenny MacAskill was the sitting member.
To the surprise of many, she abandoned her old constituency of Edinburgh Central and plumped for Edinburgh North and Leith. Perhaps persistent rumours that the long-time parliamentarian and Labour incumbent Malcolm Chisholm was standing down made the seat look a shoo-in for an SNP candidate.
Unfortunately, Ms Somerville did not use her time in parliament to good effect. It is believed that she didn’t hold a single constituency surgery in all her time at Holyrood and therefore missed a golden opportunity to build a personal vote through directly assisting constituents in her chosen seat. A deserved reputation for laziness and poor political judgement was already growing amongst her colleagues.
On election night in 2011, Ms Somerville suffered the humiliation of being the only SNP candidate in the Lothians to fail to win their seat, as Chisholm not only didn’t stand down but increased both his vote and his vote share on the night of an SNP landslide.
(The ultimate irony being that a young SNP parliamentary staffer, Marco Biagi, did win the Edinburgh Central constituency she had abandoned, the seat he’s now competing against Angus Robertson in after the SNP NEC changed the rules to prevent Joanna Cherry contesting it.)
If only she’d been prepared to put in the hard miles working for her constituents, that Labour majority of 500 would probably have been overcome. But having been rescued by the mysterious resignation of Mr Tymkewycz in 2007, the same trick could not be applied in 2011 as the scale of the SNP’s victory meant they had no list seats in the Lothians to play with.
So with Somerville now unemployed, the SNP safety net was rolled out.
Firstly, Bruce Crawford touted her name round ministerial colleagues as a potential special advisor, but got no takers. So the party invented a new HQ job – Campaigns Director. Nobody remembers the role being advertised to the membership.
Somerville’s seven-year occupancy of the post existed without a trace. Such was the total lack of impact on Scottish political life of whatever she did that in that time that if you Google for “shirley-anne somerville campaigns director”, the only results are for the cabinet reshuffle of 2018 where she was replaced in the role by Keith Brown.
In 2012, once Yes Scotland had been set up and the wheels of the referendum put in motion, Somerville was appointed as its Director of Communities. (To be fair, there was at least an appearance of due process around the appointment of the directors, although many suspected most of the names were in the frame from the outset.)
The year that followed was nothing short of calamitous and the lack of any momentum generated between autumn 2012 and autumn 2013 was probably one of the major contributors to the Yes campaign’s eventual failure. It was duly decided that the failing directors would have to be removed, but of course they had to go one by one and in such a way as to not scare the horses.
For Somerville, the solution was the Dunfermline by-election, caused by the jailing of SNP incumbent Bill Walker. The only problem was that leaving a well-paid post to contest a by-election in these circumstances was not an attractive option to her. A deal was therefore done that would see Ms Somerville land a plum job with the SNP should she, as expected, lose the seat to Labour.
[EDIT 9.26pm: A reader has been in touch to tell us that the above isn’t quite correct, or at least is incomplete. We’ll just give you their account as it came to us.
“It was at the Stirling SNP Woman’s group meeting on a Saturday morning at the Stirling Tolbooth event in early September that unbeknown to other staff at Yes Scotland, Shirley-Anne Somerville’s nomination was announced for the forthcoming by-election. Later that day she sent an email to all staff at Yes Scotland stating that whilst she was taking a break from Yes Scotland the Director of Marketing Ian Dommet was to act in her stead as Director of Communities (ignoring the fact that Stan Blackley, the Deputy Director of Communities, was still employed at Yes Scotland at the time and in good standing) This action taken by Ms Somerville to seek the nomination without consultation or advance notice to Yes Scotland, and the subsequent email informing the team that the Deputy Director of Communities was to be overlooked in responsibility of that area, led to emergency talks being held by senior stakeholders that Monday morning. Due to her actions it was decided that her position would be terminated immediately on the grounds of unauthorised annual leave, which constituted a disciplinary offence and in breach of contract.”]
History shows that she did lose the seat, and she did get the job. Again, without any advertisement of the role, she was quietly appointed SNP Deputy Chief Executive, a post which has never existed before or since. The only Deputy Chief Executive the SNP has ever had in its 86-year history is Shirley-Anne Somerville.
She had effectively been promoted from Campaigns Director 18 months previously to the exalted heights of Deputy Chief Executive for her failure to perform at Yes Scotland and her failure to win yet another election.
Many SNP members remain incandescent at what they saw as an outrageous abuse of executive power, which seems to have been exercised to reward to a member of mediocre capability with nothing but serial failure under her belt.
From her position of being on the party payroll, Ms Somerville proceeded to put herself forward for selection as a candidate for Dunfermline at the 2016 Holyrood election. Others seeking the nomination were believed to think it gravely unfair that the Deputy Chief Executive of the party was allowed to contest it.
The implicit patronage is immediately obvious. How could it possibly be fair for a party executive with access to membership lists, and who works side by side with colleagues overseeing the selection process, to be allowed to contest these positions? How much of her time campaigning to become the candidate, competing against other members, was actually paid for by the party? There were conflicts of interest everywhere, yet the party seemingly considered it appropriate.
Having had the luxury of being paid by the party while securing the nomination and throughout her candidature, Ms Somerville was finally elected to Holyrood at the fourth time of asking on a modest 6% swing, due largely to Labour’s catastrophic implosion across the central belt which saw it finish behind Tories for the first time in history.
Within hours of her election, journalists were touting her as a certainty for ministerial appointment in Nicola Sturgeon’s new government. And despite lacking any relevant experience in her previous outing as an MSP, the appointment as junior education minister duly came to pass.
Two years on, following a largely unremarkable (but gaffe-free) tenure, Ms Somerville found herself elevated to Cabinet to preside over Social Security – a portfolio that had, up until that point, been deemed to be only a junior ministerial brief and for which, arguably, all the heavy lifting had already been done.
The main news story concerning Somerville’s department since her appointment has been its repeated failure to take over welfare responsibilites from the UK Department of Work and Pensions on schedule (originally due to be next year).
The other part of her brief has been as Cabinet Secretary for Older People. While in charge Somerville oversaw the disastrous policy of shunting elderly hospital patients into care homes en masse without conducting adequate levels of COVID-19 testing on either patients or staff, leading to a large proportion of Scotland’s deaths. Dozens were even transferred despite having already tested positive for the virus.
While that decision was in the first instance the responsibility of the health secretary, it was Somerville’s job to speak up for them. Her legacy as the inept cabinet voice of Scotland’s old folk will be the premature and avoidable deaths of thousands of them.
(None of the other UK nations have had such a large share of their deaths from care homes. Figures to the end of August showed 47% of deaths in Scotland were from the sector, compared to 42% in Northern Ireland, 30% in England and just 28% in Wales.)
Finally, Somerville has been one of the driving forces behind the massively unpopular proposals to introduce gender self-ID, promising to implement the legislation even as a consultation supposedly canvassed public opinion on whether it should go ahead.
While this policy too has ostensibly been delayed, very few of the people opposed to self-ID (ie the huge majority of Scottish voters) believe that it won’t be an SNP priority if they should secure a majority in 2021. Perhaps the only/most encouraging prospect of it NOT becoming law is that Somerville is in charge of it.
With a proven history of laziness in terms of constituency work and of being rewarded for (to express it charitably) achieving little, it’s not very surprising that Somerville finds herself facing opposition for the SNP candidature for Dunfermline in 2021.
But still the favouritism persists. On 20 October – a full two months before the package will come onstream – she was suddenly allowed to share the stage for the daily televised coronavirus briefing with the FM to announce the school meal programme for the remainder of the 2020/21 session holidays.
Despite a majority of more than 4500 and with Scottish Labour scrabbling desperately to even find candidates to run in Fife, Somerville now has a credible challenger for the nomination in the shape of her own former election agent, Rob Thompson. (A man who’s clearly capable of pulling off difficult tasks, as he managed to get her elected.)
Perhaps SNP members in Dunfermline have looked at her track record and decided that if anyone can lose a safe-looking seat against all the odds, it’s Shirley-Anne Somerville. If they should decline to reselect her, it’ll be interesting to see what new job gets created this time to keep her in the lifestyle to which she’s become accustomed.
———————————————————————————————-
TIMELINE
2007
Fails to win Edinburgh Central, coming a disappointing 3rd.
Fails to be elected from the SNP’s Lothian list.
Sworn in as a replacement MSP when Stefan Tymkewycz resigns from parliament, supposedly to concentrate on being a councillor. The real reason for this resignation is still a mystery. Tymkewycz served one more term and stepped down at the 2017 council election.
2010
Selected to contest Edinburgh North and Leith, abandoning the constituency she contested in 2007.
2011
Becomes the only SNP candidate not to win their seat in Lothian.
Fails to be elected from SNP’s Lothian list.
Employed by SNP HQ as Campaigns Director.
2012
Employed by Yes Scotland as Director of Communities.
2013
After a disastrous tenure, removed from Yes Scotland under cover of contesting Dunfermline by-election.
Loses Dunfermline by-election to Labour, suffering a 7% swing against.
Immediately appointed Deputy Chief Executive of the SNP.
2015
While employed by the SNP, contests and secures the nomination as SNP candidate for Dunfermline.
2016
Elected at the fourth time of asking for the Dunfermline constituency on the back of Labour collapse across central Scotland.
Immediately appointed junior minister by Nicola Sturgeon.
2018
Promoted to Cabinet with a portfolio previously considered a junior ministerial brief, and after the bulk of the work setting up the new social security system had been completed. Nevertheless, plans to devolve most welfare benefits promptly collapse and are postponed until at least 2024, and in some cases indefinitely.
2020
As Cabinet Secretary for Older People, fails to intervene to prevent large numbers of the elderly being transferred from hospital to care homes without adequate COVID-19 testing, leading to thousands of deaths.
.
Soapbox is a weekend column designed to provoke debate on (usually) non-party-political issues. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Wings Over Scotland, except when we write them ourselves, obviously. And this time.
If you’d like to contribute a Soapbox piece (ideally 800-1500 words), send it to us via our Contact page, INCLUDING THE WORD ‘SOAPBOX’ IN THE SUBJECT LINE.


Stuffing the ballots

At the weekend we made a half-joke about who ’ d be counting the votes in the SNP ’ s candidate elections to determine who ’ d be standing for Holyrood next year .
The joke just got a bit less funny .
That ’ s because we received an email from an alert reader about an internal SNP election last year .
The reader had two friends who ’ d recently joined the party but hadn ’ t received any communication enabling them to take part in the online ballot , which was being conducted by a company called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reader – we ’ ll call them Malcolm – got in touch with the party ( in the shape of its governance officer Ian McCann ) and Mi-Voice to see whether anything could be done , but received no reply until after voting had closed , when Ian McCann responded and put them in touch with Mi-Voice .
What happened then was disturbing .
We ’ ve heavily redacted the emails below to prevent identification of any of the people concerned , particularly Malcolm and the Mi-Voice employee who was just doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be helpful .
Malcolm was then told that their two friends ’ votes had been added to the ballot , nine hours after it had supposedly closed .
The results of the election were published later the same evening .
Malcolm notes that these events raise all sorts of questions .
He hadn ’ t been asked for their friends ’ membership numbers , or for any sort of verification that they wanted to vote for who Malcolm said they did .
Malcolm has no way of knowing if the votes really were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being fobbed off .
But the fact that a senior SNP officer was happy to , at a minimum , give the impression that votes could be added after the ballot was closed , with no sort of security checks , is extremely disturbing .
Because plainly it suggests that SNP HQ could simply instruct Mi-Voice to add any numbers of votes for any candidate at any internal ballot – after voting was closed , SNP HQ knew how many votes each candidate had received , and whether their preferred candidates had triumphed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altering the outcome .
In normal circumstances that might seem like paranoia .
But given the vast amount of deeply sinister dodgy dealing that ’ s been going on in the NEC recently , and given that we have Ian McCann ’ s apparent open admission that votes could be added after the ballots closed , it doesn ’ t seem at all unreasonable or excessive to question the integrity of the entire process .
We ’ re not sure what safeguards could be implemented against this eventuality , except perhaps a categorical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or whoever is conducting the vote this time ) that no post-deadline ballots will be accepted under any circumstances and that all votes will be cast directly from members to the balloting company with no sort of intervention from the SNP .
We hope those assurances will be forthcoming .

At the weekend we made a half-joke about who’d be counting the votes in the SNP’s candidate elections to determine who’d be standing for Holyrood next year.
The joke just got a bit less funny.
That’s because we received an email from an alert reader about an internal SNP election last year. The reader had two friends who’d recently joined the party but hadn’t received any communication enabling them to take part in the online-only ballot, which was being conducted by a company called Mi-Voice.
While voting was still open the reader – we’ll call them Malcolm – got in touch with the party (in the shape of its governance officer Ian McCann) and Mi-Voice to see whether anything could be done, but received no reply until after voting had closed, when Ian McCann responded and put them in touch with Mi-Voice.
What happened then was disturbing. We’ve heavily redacted the emails below to prevent identification of any of the people concerned, particularly Malcolm and the Mi-Voice employee who was just doing what they were told and trying to be helpful.
Malcolm was then told that their two friends’ votes had been added to the ballot, nine hours after it had supposedly closed. The results of the election were published later the same evening.
Malcolm notes that these events raise all sorts of questions. He hadn’t been asked for their friends’ membership numbers, or for any sort of verification that they wanted to vote for who Malcolm said they did. Malcolm has no way of knowing if the votes really were added, or if he was just being fobbed off.
(The NEC was contacted with these concerns, but nothing came of it.)
But the fact that a senior SNP officer was happy to, at a minimum, give the impression that votes could be added after the ballot was closed, with no sort of security checks, is extremely disturbing.
Because plainly it suggests that SNP HQ could simply instruct Mi-Voice to add any numbers of votes for any candidate at any internal ballot – after voting was closed, SNP HQ knew how many votes each candidate had received, and whether their preferred candidates had triumphed – and Mi-Voice would comply, potentially altering the outcome.
In normal circumstances that might seem like paranoia. But given the vast amount of deeply sinister dodgy dealing that’s been going on in the NEC recently, and given that we have Ian McCann’s apparent open admission that votes could be added after the ballots closed, it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable or excessive to question the integrity of the entire process.
We’re not sure what safeguards could be implemented against this eventuality, except perhaps a categorical assurance from both the SNP and Mi-Voice (or whoever may be conducting the vote this time) that no post-deadline ballots will be accepted under any circumstances and that all votes will be cast directly from members to the balloting company with no sort of intervention from the SNP.
We hope those assurances will be forthcoming.


The telescope’s eye

Unlike the Hulk , this site very much prefers Andrew Tickell ( previously Lallands Peat Worrier ) when he ’ @ @ @ @ @ to his rather more customary appearance these days as a hearty and affable chronicler of @ @ @ @ @ of someone embarking on a lifelong career in Scotland ’ s well-fed academic/media/legal elite .
@ @ @ @ @ fettle as the former in The National today : The paragraph above is unfailingly true @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even care about being seen to starve hungry children – just about the @ @ @ @ @ imaginable , as Tickell notes in eloquent fury – it completely escapes our understanding why @ @ @ @ @ still appear to believe they ’ ll give Scotland a second referendum out of some @ @ @ @ @ , just because they ’ ll have lost yet another election in a country that @ @ @ @ @ in the best part of 70 years .
We ’ re running out of time @ @ @ @ @ plan .

Unlike the Hulk, this site very much prefers Andrew Tickell (previously Lallands Peat Worrier) when he’s angry, as opposed to his rather more customary appearance these days as a hearty and affable chronicler of life from the cosy perspective of someone embarking on a lifelong career in Scotland’s well-fed academic/media/legal elite.
He’s on fine fettle as the former in The National today:
The paragraph above is unfailingly true. But if Tories don’t even care about being seen to starve hungry children – just about the most monstrous, inhuman thing imaginable, as Tickell notes in cold, eloquent fury – it completely escapes our understanding why a substantial proportion of people still appear to believe they’ll give Scotland a second referendum out of some sense of morality and decency, just because they’ll have lost yet another election in a country that hasn’t voted Tory in the best part of 70 years.
We’re running out of time. We need a better plan.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-27--Return Of The Phantoms

Return Of The Phantoms

The Scottish Parliament ’ s inquiry into the disastrously botched investigation of false allegations against Alex Salmond , which has been paused for several weeks due to the Scottish Government ’ s repeated refusal to provide it with material it ’ s requested , resumes today and enters its final and critical phase .
In the next two months all the key players in the shambolic affair , including the current First Minister , her predecessor and both of their chiefs of staff , will give evidence .
But today perhaps the most central figure of all will appear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Judith Mackinnon , the civil servant whose prior involvement with the complainers in the case was central to the investigation collapsing on the grounds of illegality and bias , will speak to the committee remotely and in audio only , robbing them of the ability to see her face and body language – things highly critical to any interrogation .
The apparent reason for this , according to a recent report in the Times , is Mackinnon ’ s being “ targeted on social media ” .
No further details of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s one rather big problem with that claim .
Because as far as this site has been able to ascertain since reading that story , Judith Mackinnon has no social media presence whatsoever .
She has no Twitter account that we or anyone else has been able to find .
There is no identifiable public Facebook account in her name .
We haven ’ t been able to locate a trace of her on LinkedIn .
Nor have searches , by ourselves and others , discovered any more-general abuse from people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TO her .
The ire of those angry about the fiasco has largely been directed at Nicola Sturgeon and the Permanent Secretary , Leslie Evans .
Mackinnon has barely appeared on the radar , despite having a previous track record of being involved in incompetence and scandal .
In any event , we ’ re not sure why being “ targeted on social media ” – even if it HAD happened , which there ’ s not the slightest scrap of evidence for – would be an excuse for such an unacceptable arrangement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most pivotal witness .
Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond are both targeted and abused endlessly on social media , but they ’ ll still be appearing in person for the committee to assess their non-verbal signals as well as their words .
The non-appearing appearance also means that the committee won ’ t be able to tell whether Mackinnon is alone in the room , or whether someone is there directing her answers , or whether she ’ s just reading from prepared statements .
The whole situation is utterly unsatisfactory , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For what it ’ s worth , this site is submitting a Freedom Of Information request about the reasons for this decision , which we expect will be fobbed off like all the others about the investigation from ourselves and others have been .
But it ’ s becoming harder and harder to disagree with the growing calls , from all sides of the political spectrum , for an inquiry the Scottish Government has undermined and sabotaged from the word go – and in which the First Minister looks more and more complicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a proper judge-led one with the power to legally compel both the production of evidence and the appearance of witnesses .
Millions of pounds of public money have been wasted , an innocent man has been put through years of hell and almost bankrupted , in the most obviously suspicious of circumstances , and nobody has been held answerable for any of it .
If we ’ re to build a new Scotland worth the candle , justice must be done , though the heavens fall .
[ EDIT 10.25am : Hilariously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact lasted less than ONE minute .
Ms Mackinnon swore to tell “ the truth , the whole truth and- “ , at which point the audio cut out .
As we write this the inquiry is broadcasting static .
What a farce . ]
[ EDIT 11.41am : Mackinnon , readers will be astounded to hear , remembered almost nothing and barely gave a single direct answer .
The most remarkable part came near the end , when Alex Cole-Hamilton asked her whether the Scottish Government and civil service were now clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having prior contact with a complainer .
Almost two years after the investigation collapsed mainly because of a “ misinterpretation ” of those rules , and despite a Court Of Session ruling , Mackinnon incredibly said that no , the correct interpretation of them was still not clear . ]

The Scottish Parliament’s inquiry into the disastrously botched investigation of false allegations against Alex Salmond, which has been paused for several weeks due to the Scottish Government’s repeated refusal to provide it with material it’s requested, resumes today and enters its final and critical phase.
In the next two months all the key players in the shambolic affair, including the current First Minister, her predecessor and both of their chiefs of staff, will give evidence. But today perhaps the most central figure of all will appear. Or rather, she won’t.
Judith Mackinnon, the civil servant whose prior involvement with the complainers in the case was central to the investigation collapsing on the grounds of illegality and bias, will speak to the committee remotely and in audio only, robbing them of the ability to see her face and body language – things highly critical to any interrogation.
The apparent reason for this, according to a recent report in the Times, is Mackinnon’s being “targeted on social media”. No further details of this “targeting” are given.
And there’s one rather big problem with that claim.
Because as far as this site has been able to ascertain since reading that story, Judith Mackinnon has no social media presence whatsoever.
She has no Twitter account that we or anyone else has been able to find. There is no identifiable public Facebook account in her name. We haven’t been able to locate a trace of her on LinkedIn.
Nor have searches, by ourselves and others, discovered any more-general abuse from people simply talking ABOUT her, rather than TO her. The ire of those angry about the fiasco has largely been directed at Nicola Sturgeon and the Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans. Mackinnon has barely appeared on the radar, despite having a previous track record of being involved in incompetence and scandal.
In any event, we’re not sure why being “targeted on social media” – even if it HAD happened, which there’s not the slightest scrap of evidence for – would be an excuse for such an unacceptable arrangement for the inquiry to question arguably its most pivotal witness. Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond are both targeted and abused endlessly on social media, but they’ll still be appearing in person for the committee to assess their non-verbal signals as well as their words.
The non-appearing appearance also means that the committee won’t be able to tell whether Mackinnon is alone in the room, or whether someone is there directing her answers, or whether she’s just reading from prepared statements. The whole situation is utterly unsatisfactory, and the explanation for it woefully inadequate.
For what it’s worth, this site is submitting a Freedom Of Information request about the reasons for this decision, which we expect will be fobbed off like all the others about the investigation from ourselves and others have been.
But it’s becoming harder and harder to disagree with the growing calls, from all sides of the political spectrum, for an inquiry the Scottish Government has undermined and sabotaged from the word go – and in which the First Minister looks more and more complicit – to be replaced or followed by a proper judge-led one with the power to legally compel both the production of evidence and the appearance of witnesses.
Millions of pounds of public money have been wasted, an innocent man has been put through years of hell and almost bankrupted, in the most obviously suspicious of circumstances, and nobody has been held answerable for any of it. If we’re to build a new Scotland worth the candle, justice must be done, though the heavens fall.
.
[EDIT 10.25am: Hilariously, the audio feed to the inquiry in fact lasted less than ONE minute. Ms Mackinnon swore to tell “the truth, the whole truth and-“, at which point the audio cut out. As we write this the inquiry is broadcasting static. What a farce.]
[EDIT 11.41am: Mackinnon, readers will be astounded to hear, remembered almost nothing and barely gave a single direct answer. The most remarkable part came near the end, when Alex Cole-Hamilton asked her whether the Scottish Government and civil service were now clear on the rules about an Investigating Officer having prior contact with a complainer. Almost two years after the investigation collapsed mainly because of a “misinterpretation” of those rules, and despite a Court Of Session ruling, Mackinnon incredibly said that no, the correct interpretation of them was still not clear.]


You’ve been robbed

The Electoral Commission has finally published the SNP ’ s 2019 accounts .
As Wings has been warning for most of this year , something in the region of £700,000 in supposedly “ ring-fenced ” money raised by two crowdfunding campaigns has indeed vanished into the maw of the party machine , leaving just under £97,000 in the bank .
( More than £300,000 down on last year , despite a £600,000 increase in “ donations ” , the bulk of which in fact came from the UK government ) .
This has happened despite the party angrily and categorically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent until there was a new independence referendum .
What all that means is that if the UK government were to unexpectedly turn round tomorrow and grant a Section 30 order for a second indyref , Wings Over Scotland would have considerably more money in the bank to fight it than the SNP does .
The SNP also has a Holyrood election to fight in six months ’ time , which normally costs it somewhere in the region of £1.5m – far more than its current total net assets of £272,000 .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party is simply in no financial position to fight a new referendum campaign , which is very likely part of the reason it ’ s been in no rush to secure one for the last few years and has no remotely credible plan to do so .
It ’ s a matter of debate whether obtaining such sums of money under false pretences is a criminal offence or not .
We invite anyone concerned about this state of affairs to ask the SNP what happened to their donation .
We wish you @ @ @ @ @ @

The Electoral Commission has finally published the SNP’s 2019 accounts.
As Wings has been warning for most of this year, something in the region of £700,000 in supposedly “ring-fenced” money raised by two crowdfunding campaigns has indeed vanished into the maw of the party machine, leaving just under £97,000 in the bank.
(More than £300,000 down on last year, despite a £600,000 increase in “donations”, the bulk of which in fact came from the UK government).
This has happened despite the party angrily and categorically insisting that the money would NOT be spent until there was a new independence referendum.
What all that means is that if the UK government were to unexpectedly turn round tomorrow and grant a Section 30 order for a second indyref, Wings Over Scotland would have considerably more money in the bank to fight it than the SNP does.
The SNP also has a Holyrood election to fight in six months’ time, which normally costs it somewhere in the region of £1.5m – far more than its current total net assets of £272,000. As we told you back in January, the party is simply in no financial position to fight a new referendum campaign, which is very likely part of the reason it’s been in no rush to secure one for the last few years and has no remotely credible plan to do so.
It’s a matter of debate whether obtaining such sums of money under false pretences is a criminal offence or not. We invite anyone concerned about this state of affairs to ask the SNP what happened to their donation. We wish you good luck getting an answer.