Abolishing women

It ’ s becoming quite remarkable how often the concerted attempts from within the Yes movement to silence the world ’ s biggest pro-independence website coincide with it being about to say things the cult of transgenderism doesn ’ t want people to hear .
And with that , on to our latest poll results .
Because no matter how many ways you frame the question of whether people should be allowed to declare that they ’ ve changed sex on a whim and demand unrestricted and unchallenged access to spaces reserved for people of the biologically-opposite sex , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming public opposition to the idea , which invariably runs at between 3:1 and 4:1 against .
And nothing changed this month .
In truth , even that resounding , thumping 44-point margin ( remember the indyref was won by just 10 points and Brexit by four ) is a bit smaller than we expected , and is explained by a remarkable divergence between young women and everyone else .
The 16-34 female demographic actually voted by a narrow six-point majority that a person ’ s sex has absolutely nothing to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young men ) was a staggering FORTY points adrift from that view ( net -34 ) , and middle-aged women were close behind them at a net -36 .
Among women over 55 the margin against self-ID was a crushing 62 points ( over 4:1 against ) , with older men at a breathtaking 10:1 .
Women we ’ ve spoken to attributed this to various things , but most commonly to a combination of cultural brainwashing and a radical change of outlook when women become mothers .
Which leads neatly to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman called Freddy McConnell , who gave birth to a child last year during a break from taking male hormones , lost an Appeal Court claim to be registered as the child ’ s father rather than its mother .
And Scottish voters backed the court ’ s decision strongly .
Excluding don ’ t-knows that ’ s an 82-18 split , but even with them it comes to well over 4:1 against falsifying the child ’ s documentation ( because a birth certificate is the property of the person who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth to them ) .
And this time even woke young women agreed , by more than 2:1 , with middle-aged women at 5:1 against and older ones at 10:1 against .
( This time , interestingly , the male and female groups mirrored each other much more closely . )
Finally , we ’ d asked some feminist women to suggest questions for the poll , and the most requested one was about changing rooms , perhaps because it ’ s a question that several of them have conspicuously asked scores of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever getting an answer .
Digging down into that 4:1 margin against , it ’ s perhaps revealing that even though a majority of younger women thought a woman was “ anyone who says they ’ re a woman , regardless of their biology ” , their opinion changed dramatically when it came to the thought of that “ woman ” swinging her biology around in their vicinity when they were getting undressed .
A six-point margin among 16-34 females for “ transwomen are women ” turned rapidly into a 24-point margin for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from me ” when they were presented with the stark reality of what trans ideology means in practice .
It ’ s unlikely that any of this will dissuade the Scottish Government from its dogged determination to force men into women ’ s spaces by hook or by crook in its obsessive pursuit of the misogynist/woke vote , even though SNP voters – like those of all parties – were consistently opposed to self-ID by huge margins ( 44 , 47 and 54 points ) on every one of the three questions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time until the Holyrood election , and if the amount of effort being expended to stop sites like this one getting the information out is anything to go by , they ’ ll be praying that the bulk of the Scottish electorate doesn ’ t find out before then .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collections of violent threats from TRAs to women

It’s becoming quite remarkable how often the concerted attempts from within the Yes movement to silence the world’s biggest pro-independence website coincide with it being about to say things the cult of transgenderism doesn’t want people to hear.
And with that, on to our latest Panelbase poll results.
Because no matter how many ways you frame the question of whether people should be allowed to declare that they’ve changed sex on a whim and demand unrestricted and unchallenged access to spaces reserved for people of the biologically-opposite sex, there’s an astonishing consistency in the overwhelming public opposition to the idea, which invariably runs at between 3:1 and 4:1 against.
And nothing changed this month.
In truth, even that resounding, thumping 44-point margin (remember the indyref was won by just 10 points and Brexit by four) is a bit smaller than we expected, and is explained by a remarkable divergence between young women and everyone else.
The 16-34 female demographic actually voted by a narrow six-point majority that a person’s sex has absolutely nothing to do with biology. Even the next-closest group (young men) was a staggering FORTY points adrift from that view (net -34), and middle-aged women were close behind them at a net -36. Among women over 55 the margin against self-ID was a crushing 62 points (over 4:1 against), with older men at a breathtaking 10:1.
Women we’ve spoken to attributed this to various things, but most commonly to a combination of cultural brainwashing of young women and a radical change of outlook when they grow up and become mothers. Which leads neatly to our second finding.
A few days ago a woman called Freddy McConnell, who gave birth to a child last year during a break from taking male hormones, lost an Appeal Court claim to be registered as the child’s father rather than its mother. And Scottish voters backed the court’s decision strongly.
Excluding don’t-knows that’s an 82-18 split, but even with them it comes to well over 4:1 against falsifying the child’s documentation (because a birth certificate is the property of the person who was born, not the one who gave birth to them).
And this time even woke young women agreed, by more than 2:1, with middle-aged women at 5:1 against and older ones at 10:1 against. (This time, interestingly, the male and female groups mirrored each other much more closely.)
Finally, we’d asked some feminist women to suggest questions for the poll, and the most requested one was about changing rooms, perhaps because it’s a question that several of them have conspicuously asked scores of male celebrity transactivists on social media without ever getting an answer.
Digging down into that 4:1 margin against, it’s perhaps revealing that even though a majority of younger women thought a woman was “anyone who says they’re a woman, regardless of their biology”, their opinion changed dramatically when it came to the thought of that “woman” swinging her biology around in their vicinity when they were getting undressed.
A six-point margin among 16-34 females for “transwomen are women” turned rapidly into a 24-point margin for “get that thing the hell away from me” when they were presented with the stark reality of what trans ideology means in practice.
It’s unlikely that any of this will dissuade the Scottish Government from its dogged determination to force men into women’s spaces by hook or by crook in its obsessive pursuit of the misogynist/woke vote, even though SNP voters – like those of all parties – were consistently opposed to self-ID by huge margins (44, 47 and 54 points) on every one of the three questions.
(In so far as voters are aware of the issue at all, despite a near-total media blackout in Scotland, they’re probably under the impression that it’s all been booted into the long grass. In fact they’re just trying to do it by stealth instead via a different act.)
But there’s still a long time until the Holyrood election, and if the amount of effort being expended to stop sites like this one getting the information out is anything to go by, they’ll be praying that the bulk of the Scottish electorate doesn’t find out before then.
.
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


In lockstep

`` 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--2020-05-09--The fifth column revealed

The fifth column revealed

Just an SNP activist tonight , saying that it doesn ’ t matter whether there ’ s a majority for @ @ @ @ @ or not , and that it ’ s undemocratic for a new pro-indy party to @ @ @ @ @ any other and take seats from Unionists ( as long as the SNP hold power @ @ @ @ @ of course ) .
Other SNP activists , meanwhile , are already openly trying to @ @ @ @ @ women leading the new party .
Does anyone still think the current SNP care about @ @ @ @ @ ?

Just an SNP activist tonight, saying that it doesn’t matter whether there’s a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament or not, and that it’s undemocratic for a new pro-indy party to stand democratically for election like any other and take seats from Unionists (as long as the SNP hold power in the devolved administration, of course).
Other SNP activists, meanwhile, are already openly trying to dig dirt and undermine the women leading the new party, which is only planning to contest list seats and therefore poses no threat to the SNP whatsoever. Does anyone still think the current SNP care about independence, rather than power?


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-10--The power of presentation

The power of presentation

It ’ s pretty interesting that today marks the first really tangible diversification between the Scottish and UK governments with regard to the coronavirus crisis : the Holyrood administration has rejected Westminster ’ s much-criticised new main slogan and will be sticking with the old “ STAY HOME ” message .
Because what our latest Panelbase poll showed is that there ’ s a huge gulf between perception and reality in Scotland when it comes to virus strategy .
The Scottish Government ’ s response scored an overall 67 % , compared to just 52 % for the UK government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5/4/1 , compared to roughly 1/1/1 for the UK government .
Yet when we put a poll on our now-banned Twitter feed on Friday which asked people if they could identify ANY significant policy differences between the two governments , nobody could name even a single one , even though around a quarter of people had answered that they thought the approaches had been substantially divergent .
The simple fact is that the Scottish Government has until this weekend done exactly the same as the UK government in terms of tackling the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have done much better , despite incidents like the shambolic handling of the Chief Medical Officer flouting the lockdown rules to visit her second home .
The best people could offer on the Twitter thread was that the First Minister had looked and sounded more authoritative on televised briefings – something not enormously difficult when the competition is the ever-changing parade of hapless dimwits speaking for the UK government .
Interestingly , though , by far the group most likely to think that the Scottish Government had stuck too closely to UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who expressed a view either way , there was a fairly tight 59-41 split in favour of the lockstep approach : While the other way round it was , unsurprisingly , mainly Tories who felt there ’ d been too much divergence by the devolved administration .
In terms of the actual strategy itself , opinions were mixed .
If anything , the Scottish public wants a stricter lockdown than the one currently in place : It also doesn ’ t as a whole think policing has been excessive , although a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : And a clear majority of Scots would be willing to carry a phone app that tracked their location and who they met in order to combat the virus , with just a third opposed to such a wholesale invasion of privacy : Although ironically there was an even split on this question : Most Scots ( 49-37 ) feel they can cope with an “ indefinite ” lockdown , but by 3:1 they still want it to be over by the end of summer : By a 2:1 margin Scots think Brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , yet only a quarter thought it was serious enough to postpone next year ’ s Scottish Parliament election for : And even though we ’ re less than halfway through May , only a quarter think life will be back to normal by 2021 ( seven and a half months away ) , which is intriguing in the context of the question about postponing the Holyrood election : Our last finding was also a striking one .
No fewer than 40 % of Scots claim that the virus has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence : We must of course look with some scepticism on SNP voters claiming to have become more pro-indy and Tory voters claiming to have become more Unionist , since it ’ s a reasonable assumption that most of both groups were already pretty implacably set in their positions .
But the fact that 38 % of Labour voters and 41 % of Lib Dems say they ’ ve shifted on the constitution because of the virus – in the opposite net directions respectively – is a fascinating result , especially when seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 50-50 dead heat on the indy question .
Overall , though , the poll suggests that the coronavirus has done little to alter the normal tribal nature of politics .
Even 50,000 deaths hasn ’ t impeded the seemingly unstoppable march of feelings over facts , and that ’ s something a fact-based website like Wings finds very uncomfortable indeed .

It’s pretty interesting that today marks the first really tangible diversification between the Scottish and UK governments with regard to the coronavirus crisis: the Holyrood administration has rejected Westminster’s much-criticised new main slogan and will be sticking with the old “STAY HOME” message.
(Here at Wings we’re mainly upset that the extremely misguided new campaign will undermine our years-old pro-alertness position.)
Because what our latest Panelbase poll showed is that there’s a huge gulf between perception and reality in Scotland when it comes to virus strategy.
The Scottish Government’s response scored an overall 67%, compared to just 52% for the UK government. Its good/neutral/bad ratio was almost exactly 5/4/1, compared to roughly 1/1/1 for the UK government.
Yet when we put a poll on our now-banned Twitter feed on Friday which asked people if they could identify ANY significant policy differences between the two governments, nobody could name even a single one, even though around a quarter of people had answered that they thought the approaches had been substantially divergent.
The simple fact is that the Scottish Government has until this weekend done exactly the same as the UK government in terms of tackling the virus, but has been perceived in Scotland to have done much better, despite incidents like the shambolic handling of the Chief Medical Officer flouting the lockdown rules to visit her second home.
The best people could offer on the Twitter thread was that the First Minister had looked and sounded more authoritative on televised briefings – something not enormously difficult when the competition is the ever-changing parade of hapless dimwits speaking for the UK government.
Interestingly, though, by far the group most likely to think that the Scottish Government had stuck too closely to UK policy were SNP voters – of those who expressed a view either way, there was a fairly tight 59-41 split in favour of the lockstep approach:
While the other way round it was, unsurprisingly, mainly Tories who felt there’d been too much divergence by the devolved administration.
In terms of the actual strategy itself, opinions were mixed. If anything, the Scottish public wants a stricter lockdown than the one currently in place:
It also doesn’t as a whole think policing has been excessive, although a third of people either do or are unsure:
And a clear majority of Scots would be willing to carry a phone app that tracked their location and who they met in order to combat the virus, with just a third opposed to such a wholesale invasion of privacy:
Although ironically there was an even split on this question:
Most Scots (49-37) feel they can cope with an “indefinite” lockdown, but by 3:1 they still want it to be over by the end of summer:
By a 2:1 margin Scots think Brexit should be delayed as a result of the virus, yet only a quarter thought it was serious enough to postpone next year’s Scottish Parliament election for:
(Perhaps unexpectedly, while there was a huge gulf between Tory voters and everyone else on the Brexit question there was a far smaller difference on the Holyrood one. SNP voters were predictably the least keen, with the party currently riding high in the polls, but other voters weren’t much more enthusiastic about putting it off.)
And even though we’re less than halfway through May, only a quarter think life will be back to normal by 2021 (seven and a half months away), which is intriguing in the context of the question about postponing the Holyrood election:
Our last finding was also a striking one. No fewer than 40% of Scots claim that the virus has made a difference to their view on Scottish independence:
We must of course look with some scepticism on SNP voters claiming to have become more pro-indy and Tory voters claiming to have become more Unionist, since it’s a reasonable assumption that most of both groups were already pretty implacably set in their positions.
But the fact that 38% of Labour voters and 41% of Lib Dems say they’ve shifted on the constitution because of the virus – in the opposite net directions respectively – is a fascinating result, especially when seen in the light of the poll’s 50-50 dead heat on the indy question.
Overall, though, the poll suggests that the coronavirus has done little to alter the normal tribal nature of politics. Even 50,000 deaths hasn’t impeded the seemingly unstoppable march of feelings over facts, and that’s something a fact-based website like Wings finds very uncomfortable indeed.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-11--The object of power

The object of power

We were a bit startled to be leaked this early draft from the 2021 SNP manifesto : We ’ re sure it ’ ll be softened up a bit in the editing process .
We jest , of course .
The passage above is from “ 1984 ” , but we were put alarmingly in mind of it as we watched the weekend ’ s reaction to the announcement that a new pro-indy list party , the Independence for Scotland Party , has just been registered with the Electoral Commission .
To be honest , readers , we ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mind-boggling hostility towards the idea of a Wings party from certain sections of the Yes movement was largely founded in personal animosity .
( One website has now published , we think , over 30 articles packed with increasing amounts of raging personal abuse about it , although none of them have ever attempted to address the arguments in Gavin Barrie ’ s calm , professional analysis from last September . )
And that would be fair enough , because Wings can be pretty abrasive on occasion and we do rub people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose .
We ’ re not for everyone , only fans of facts and reason .
But as it turns out , these people pounce like pissed-off piranha on anyone who dares to try to increase the amount of pro-indy seats in Parliament , even those who ’ ve never told a living soul to f-off in their lives .
We ’ ve already highlighted the extraordinary case of the SNP pressure group convener who openly said he ’ d rather lose the pro-indy majority than have a huge one that relied on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d never really expected any different from the party ’ s Twitler Youth faction of rapey-looking woman-haters and handmaidens centred on the “ Out For Indy ” and “ Young Scots for Independence ” groups .
Their members and supporters immediately started spewing abuse at the young women leading the new party ( all of whom are using their own names ) , trying to “ doxx ” their personal lives , questioning their funding ( of which there ’ s none yet as far as we know ) and , most delightfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a bunch of racist BNP meatheads demanding a brown person tell them what country they ’ re “ really ” from , because one of them had the temerity to be born outside Scotland and come and make her life there .
We could have posted literally hundreds of these .
Most impressive of all , though , was perhaps the enthusiasm of Stirling YSI activist Cameron Archibald , formerly known as “ MammothWhale ” , to join in with the witch-hunt .
But the pile-on was also joined by a sneering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one which had loudly advocated voting RISE in 2015 , all proclaiming that the new party could “ undermine ” a pro-indy majority .
Bizarrely , all did so by citing recent opinion polls which suggest that the SNP will secure a majority in 2021 on constituency seats alone , which would mean that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING any other party could do would “ undermine ” that majority .
Those same polls also suggest that the SNP would be very lucky to get more than ONE seat on the list even from over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ wasted ” votes than that we struggle to imagine .
A new list party getting even a tenth as many at that would almost certainly pick up seven or eight seats .
But the SNP react with such outrage to the thought of anyone but them representing independence in Parliament that they sent out their official attack dog Pete Wishart to pour more opprobrium on the new-born party , in a blog post that ’ s also been published by The National today .
The new party has of course been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for Wings or part of a “ Wings cabal ” , with all sorts of dark mutterings about the fact that we ’ ve conversed with its founders on Twitter .
But the truth is we don ’ t actually think it ’ s a particularly great idea , for all the reasons we ’ ve detailed at length when talking about the potential Wings party and why we said voting for RISE et al wouldn ’ t work in 2015 .
Our view is that the only chance a new list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a well-known brand or profile or leadership figures – RISE didn ’ t and nor does the IfSP .
And the more list parties there are the harder it is for any of them to succeed .
However , we haven ’ t reacted by screaming abuse at them or claiming that they ’ re traitors or that it ’ d be “ undemocratic ” for them to stand for election in a democracy .
We admire the fact that they ’ ve actually gone ahead and done something that we haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heartily endorse all of the policy positions they ’ ve announced so far : independence , women ’ s rights and disabled rights .
The idea of a new indy list party has revealed a truly grotesque aspect of the SNP ’ s character – a control freakery that borders on fascistic .
New parties which share the SNP ’ s supposed core aim aren ’ t welcomed into the Scottish political sphere as colleagues and allies or even as legitimate opponents , but attacked and demonised and derided and accused of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nobody should expect the SNP to tell voters to vote for another party , of course .
But their active paranoid obsession with collecting completely worthless list votes and letting dozens of extra Unionist MSPs into the Parliament is a pretty strange way to behave for people who ostensibly value securing independence above all else .
It ’ s almost certainly one of the main reasons we get a steady stream of emails like this one from earlier today : And the topic raised in that one brings us right back to where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the current SNP didn ’ t make us feel quite so much like Winston Smith .
But more and more , their means actually appear to be their end .
In Scotland as in Oceania , the object of power appears to be power .

We were a bit startled to be leaked this early draft from the 2021 SNP manifesto:
We’re sure it’ll be softened up a bit in the editing process.
We jest, of course. The passage above is from “1984”, but we were put alarmingly in mind of it as we watched the weekend’s reaction to the announcement that a new pro-indy list party, the Independence for Scotland Party, has just been registered with the Electoral Commission.
To be honest, readers, we’d always assumed that a large part of the mind-boggling hostility towards the idea of a Wings party from certain sections of the Yes movement was largely founded in personal animosity. (One website has now published, we think, over 30 articles packed with increasing amounts of raging personal abuse about it, although none of them have ever attempted to address the arguments in Gavin Barrie’s calm, professional analysis from last September.)
And that would be fair enough, because Wings can be pretty abrasive on occasion and we do rub people up the wrong way, sometimes on purpose. We’re not for everyone, only fans of facts and reason.
But as it turns out, these people pounce like pissed-off piranha on anyone who dares to try to increase the amount of pro-indy seats in Parliament, even those who’ve never told a living soul to f-off in their lives.
We’ve already highlighted the extraordinary case of the SNP pressure group convener who openly said he’d rather lose the pro-indy majority than have a huge one that relied on another party.
Now, we’d never really expected any different from the party’s Twitler Youth faction of rapey-looking woman-haters and brainless handmaidens mostly centred on the “Out For Indy” and “Young Scots for Independence” groups.
(World’s skeeviest boy-band ever, right? And those are just the ones brave enough to actually put their faces on their profiles. THEY chose those malevolent glares.)
Their members and supporters immediately started spewing abuse at the young women leading the new party (all of whom are using their own names), trying to “doxx” their personal lives, questioning their funding (of which there’s none yet as far as we know) and, most delightfully of all, challenging their ethnic purity like a bunch of racist BNP meatheads demanding a brown person tell them what country they’re “really” from, because one of them had the temerity to be born outside Scotland and come and make her life there.
We could have posted literally hundreds of these. Most impressive of all, though, was perhaps the enthusiasm of Stirling YSI activist Cameron Archibald, formerly known as “MammothWhale”, to join in with the witch-hunt.
It’s only a few days since Archibald was forced to grovellingly apologise to another young woman for abusing her publicly and vitriolically on a completely false premise, since which time he’s wiped his Twitter history – including, of course, the short-lived apologies – to cover up his history of abuse, and changed the account name to “The Stirling Wolf”.
(Young Cameron doesn’t want any ugly closet-skeletons getting in the way of his future SNP career. He can rest assured that we have a selection stored in the archive. After all, that’s how the party likes to go about things.)
But the pile-on was joined by a sneering gang of ostensibly pro-indy sites, including one which had loudly advocated voting for RISE in 2015 but is now apparently SNP hyper-loyalist, all proclaiming that the new party could “undermine” a pro-indy majority.
Bizarrely, all did so by citing recent opinion polls which suggest that the SNP will secure a majority in 2021 on constituency seats alone, which would mean that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING any other party could do would “undermine” that majority.
Those same polls also suggest that the SNP would be very lucky to get more than ONE seat on the list even from over a million votes, and a better definition of “wasted” votes than that we struggle to imagine. A new list party getting even a tenth as many would almost certainly pick up seven or eight seats rather than just one.
But the SNP react with such indignance and outrage to the thought of anyone but them representing independence in Parliament that they sent out their official attack dog (and would-be House Of Commons Speaker) Pete Wishart to pour more opprobrium on the new-born party, in a blog post that’s also been published by The National today.
(Wishart was last seen, incidentally, celebrating the removal of the world’s most read pro-indy website from Twitter.)
The new party has of course been accused of being a “sock puppet” for Wings or part of a “Wings cabal”, with all sorts of dark mutterings about the fact that we’ve conversed with its founders on Twitter.
But the truth is we don’t actually think it’s a particularly great idea, for all the reasons we’ve detailed at length when talking about the potential Wings party and why we’re thinking about it when we said voting for RISE et al wouldn’t work in 2015. Our view is that the only chance a new list party has of succeeding is if it has a well-known brand or profile or leadership figures – RISE didn’t and nor does the IfSP. And the more list parties there are the harder it is for any of them to succeed.
However, we haven’t reacted by screaming hysterical abuse at them or claiming that they “stole” our idea or that they’re foul traitors to independence or that it would be in some way “undemocratic” for them to stand for election in a democracy.
(One of the oddest things about the whole affair is how many self-identified supporters of independence are now professing their grave concern that the Tories might end up slightly under-represented in Holyrood.)
We admire the fact that they’ve actually gone ahead and done something that we haven’t done yet. And we heartily support all of the policy positions they’ve announced so far: independence, women’s rights and disabled rights, which are all evidence of “bigotry” according to the Twitler Youth. If the election came round with IfSP as the only new option for Yes voters, Wings would endorse them without hesitation.
The idea of a new indy list party has revealed a truly grotesque aspect of the SNP’s character – a control freakery that borders on fascistic. New parties which share the SNP’s supposed primary aim aren’t welcomed into the Scottish political sphere as colleagues and allies or even as legitimate opponents, but attacked and demonised and derided and accused of being saboteurs in the service of Unionism.
Nobody should expect the SNP to tell voters to vote for another party, of course. But their active paranoid obsession with collecting completely worthless list votes and letting dozens of extra Unionist MSPs into the Parliament is a pretty strange way to behave for people who ostensibly value securing independence above all else.
It’s almost certainly one of the main reasons we get a steady stream of emails like this one from earlier today, and why they never release membership figures any more:
And the reason given in that one brings us right back to where we came in.
We fervently wish that the current SNP didn’t make us feel quite so much like Winston Smith. But more and more, their means actually appear to be their end. In Scotland as in Oceania, the object of power appears to be power.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-12--The scorpion stings the frog

The scorpion stings the frog

The practical reason why it ’ s a bad idea to cave into bullies – as well as the morality of doing so – is that they see it as weakness and don ’ t respect you for it , and as such they won ’ t show you any gratitude should you need their support in future .
And so we return to the Scottish football authorities and “ Rangers ” .
The abject , craven cowardice of the SFA and SPFL ( along with the entire Scottish media ) in dealing with the seven-year-old football club based at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most shaming episodes in the history of modern Scottish life .
We won ’ t go over the whole story again .
But the extraordinary pretence that a bankrupt club which went into administration , failed to come out and is still undergoing a bizarrely prolonged liquidation as we speak was somehow resurrected as the same entity and impressively managed to win 54 league titles in less than a decade has finally come back to bite those most responsible for it on the backside .
The magnitude of the shambles currently involving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus crisis can barely be exaggerated .
We couldn ’ t begin to convey it to you adequately , but there ’ s a decent primer in the basic outline and the key motivation behind the argument here .
Three divisions have already had their seasons abruptly brought to an end , with some stinging injustices inflicted on teams who had every chance of winning titles or promotion or escaping relegation , but the Premiership limps on in limbo and amid bitter disputes and recriminations .
The game ’ s authorities are simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they invested everything they had in the resurrection myth and we have no sympathy for the abominable swamp they find themselves mired in .
But we did think it was worth finding out what the public – the paying spectators who are the game ’ s lifeblood , remember them ?
– wanted .
Since the supports of Celtic and “ Rangers ” are of more of less equal sizes , and make up around half the country ’ s total football fans between them , it perhaps isn ’ t surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation is fairly evenly split .
The largest proportion , 30 % , wanted the league to be curtailed and the title awarded to Celtic , in line with what ’ s happened in the other divisions , but a remarkably high 25 % wanted the whole season scrapped and struck from the record books with just eight games to go .
Another 25 % wanted to wait until the remaining games could be played , either behind closed doors or in front of crowds – something that ’ s likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-trivial 20 % just couldn ’ t decide .
It had been suggested – although recent developments appear to have kiboshed the idea – that the knife-edge vote ( if you can call 80-20 a knife-edge , although by the league ’ s rules it is ) could have some of the pain drawn from it by league reconstruction that would expand the top division and thereby avoid relegating Hearts while still allowing Dundee United to be promoted from the Championship .
The largest proportion of voters* – 42 % – backed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we were intrigued to notice that despite an endless clamour in the media to enlarge the top division permanently , a mere 11 % backed that proposal .
* ( The question was only put to those who ’ d answered that the league should be ended now and awarded to Celtic . )
A substantial 33 % of respondents , meanwhile , wanted the Premiership to be treated the same way as the other three divisions have been , which is perhaps still unexpectedly low .
Scots are fond of thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bairns ” egalitarians , yet only a third wanted the rich clubs subjected to the same rules as the wee ones in the lower divisions .
We rather suspect that the whole situation would be markedly less heated and potentially destructive if the new Rangers and its support didn ’ t feel that they had some vested interest in stopping Celtic securing a second nine-in-a-row and a potential record-breaking tenth .
But the SFA and SPFL have only their own cowardice to blame for the toxic sense of entitlement and misplaced resentment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has lost around £80 million in its seven years of existence and had little realistic prospect of balancing the books even before the virus wiped out much of its income stream and the likely value of its playing assets , whose contracts are ticking away .
The scorpion ’ s doppelganger looks set to drown like its predecessor did ( hence its furious thrashing ) .
In that event , not only did a promised cataclysm fail to materialise , things actually improved for almost every other club in the land and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won just 50 % of domestic trophies in the four years the new Rangers were absent from the top division , but have claimed 100 % of them in the four seasons since their city rivals joined the Premiership to provide “ proper competition ” .
This time , though , it remains to be seen whether the wounded frog can escape being dragged down along with its parasitic passenger .

The practical reason why it’s a bad idea to cave in to bullies – as well as the morality of doing so – is that they see it as weakness and don’t respect you for it, and as such they won’t show you any gratitude should you need their support in future.
And so we return to the Scottish football authorities and “Rangers”.
The abject, craven cowardice of both the SFA and SPFL (along with the entire Scottish media) in dealing with the seven-year-old football club based at Ibrox Stadium has been one of the most shaming episodes in the history of modern Scottish life.
We won’t go over the whole story again. But the extraordinary pretence that a bankrupt club which went into administration, failed to come out and is still going through a bizarrely prolonged liquidation as we speak was somehow resurrected as the same entity and impressively managed to win 54 league titles in less than a decade has finally come back to bite those most responsible for it on the backside.
The magnitude of the shambles currently involving the Scottish game in the wake of the coronavirus crisis can barely be exaggerated. We couldn’t begin to convey it to you adequately, but there’s a decent primer in the basic outline and the key motivation behind the argument here.
Three divisions have already had their seasons abruptly brought to an end, with some stinging injustices inflicted on teams who had every chance of winning titles or promotion or escaping relegation, but the Premiership limps on in limbo and amid bitter disputes and recriminations.
The game’s authorities are simply reaping the whirlwind they sowed in 2012 when they invested everything they had in the resurrection myth and we have no sympathy for the abominable swamp they find themselves mired in. But we did think it was worth finding out what the public – the paying spectators who are the game’s lifeblood, anyone remember them? – wanted.
Since the supports of Celtic and “Rangers” are of more of less equal sizes, and make up around half the country’s total football fans between them, it perhaps isn’t surprising that the public’s view of the situation is fairly evenly split.
The largest proportion, 30%, wanted the league to be curtailed and the title awarded to Celtic, in line with what’s happened in the other divisions, but a remarkably high 25% wanted the whole season scrapped and struck from the record books with just eight games to go. Another 25% wanted to wait until the remaining games could be played, either behind closed doors or in front of crowds – something that’s likely to be many months away. And a non-trivial 20% just couldn’t decide.
(There was very little variation between sexes, ages and party affiliation, but there was a 10-point gap between Yes and No voters on the question, with 36% of Yes voters picking the “give it to Celtic now” option but only 26% of No voters. Fans of irony and coincidence may have noted that that’s exactly the same size of gap as the one there’d be at the top of the league table if “Rangers” won their game in hand.)
It had been suggested – although recent developments appear to have kiboshed the idea – that the knife-edge vote (if you can call 80-20 a knife-edge, although by the league’s rules it is) could have some of the pain drawn from it by league reconstruction that would expand the top division and thereby avoid relegating Hearts while still allowing Dundee United to be promoted from the Championship.
(The playoffs would in fact – contrary to what we understood when compiling the poll questions – be abandoned entirely, at the expense of Inverness Caledonian Thistle, who surprisingly enough are at the heart of the latest shock development in the saga.)
The largest proportion of voters* – 42% – backed that option being deployed as a one-off, but we were intrigued to notice that despite an endless clamour in the media to enlarge the top division permanently, a mere 11% backed that proposal.
*(The question was only put to those who’d answered that the league should be ended now and awarded to Celtic.)
A substantial 33%, meanwhile, wanted the Premiership treated the same way as the other three divisions have been, which is perhaps still surprisingly low. Scots are fond of thinking themselves “Jock Tamson’s bairns” egalitarians, yet only a third wanted the rich clubs subjected to the same rules as the wee ones in the lower leagues.
We don’t think it’s overly controversial to posit that the whole situation would be markedly less heated and potentially destructive if the new Rangers and its support didn’t feel that they had some vested interest in stopping Celtic securing a second nine-in-a-row and a potential record-breaking tenth.
But the SFA and SPFL have only their own cowardice to blame for the toxic sense of entitlement and misplaced resentment infesting the financially-unviable Govan club, which has lost around £80 million in its seven years of existence and had little realistic prospect of balancing the books even before the virus wiped out much of its income stream and the likely value of its playing assets, whose contracts are ticking away.
The scorpion’s doppelganger looks set to drown like its predecessor did (hence its furious thrashing). In that event, not only did a promised cataclysm fail to materialise, things actually improved for almost every other club in the land and for the game as a whole – Celtic won just 50% of domestic trophies in the four years the new Rangers were absent from the top division, but have claimed 100% of them in the four seasons since their city rivals joined the Premiership to provide “proper competition”.
(Such an outcome was wholly predictable – with its vast debt-based resources the new club can damage all the smaller teams, but it also can’t get anywhere near Celtic’s huge reserves of real Champions League money, so the presence of “Rangers” in fact counter-intuitively makes it much easier for Celtic to win things.)
This time, though, it remains to be seen whether the wounded frog can escape being dragged down along with its parasitic passenger.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-12--The appearance of justice

The appearance of justice

It ’ s now more than a month since this site revealed the widespread breach by a number of Scottish journalists/newspapers of the legally-protected anonymity of one of the accusers in the Alex Salmond trial .
Until last week we ’ d had no response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) beyond an initial acknowledgement , and no action of any kind had apparently been taken against any of the perpetrators , even though the pro-Salmond blogger Craig Murray has been cited for prosecution for allegedly similar breaches .
Alarmingly , all of the information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time of writing this article is ) still publicly available in their articles , exposing her to possible danger .
So last week we got in touch with the COPFS to seek clarification .
We rang their office and were directed to the email address of the Media Relations department for a response .
We sent them the letter below on Monday 4 May , which we have redacted in certain areas to avoid identifying the accuser .
Hello .
I ’ m Stuart Campbell , a Scottish political journalist attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case without falling foul of contempt law .
There are a number of matters I would like a named official with authority to speak for COPFS to clarify for me on the record .
One month ago , on 5 April 2020 , I reported to COPFS and to Police Scotland a number of instances where Scottish newspapers and their websites had published a piece of information which very clearly enabled the jigsaw identification of one of the complainers in the above-named case , specifically [ REDACTED ] .
( 1 ) Firstly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been made on this report ?
Have any of the six journalists identified been investigated or petitions issued to prosecute them ?
Have any of them been spoken to officially ?
The case of Craig Murray demonstrates that the COPFS is still operating despite the restrictions of the COVID-19 crisis , so it seems extraordinary that such blatant breaches would have gone entirely unpursued .
( 2 ) I am at this stage assuming the answer to question ( 1 ) is no , for reasons outlined at ( 4 ) below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can the COPFS state for the record that it does NOT consider the information published by those journalists to amount to contempt via jigsaw identification ?
For clarity , I refer to , for example , the following paragraph published by both Tortoise Media ( online ) and Scotland On Sunday ( print and online ) , written by Dani Garavelli : This piece of information enables anyone to identify the complainer as [ REDACTED ] .
( 3 ) If the COPFS does not consider this information to amount to contempt by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth this can be the case ?
[ REDACTED ] This is a two-piece “ jigsaw ” a child could complete .
It was not possible to identify [ REDACTED ] before the articles by Garavelli and the five others , because the fact that she was a complainer in the Salmond case had not been revealed , only that she was [ REDACTED ] .
( 4 ) If the COPFS does consider the articles to contain identifying information – which they obviously do – then ( a ) why have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( b ) why at a bare minimum has COPFS not required the publications involved to edit the articles in question to remove this information ?
( 5 ) If the COPFS does not consider the information to amount to identification , can it clearly state for the record that it would be acceptable for me to reproduce the paragraph quoted above ( and the similar paragraphs in the other articles ) in coverage of the case , even though I consider it to enable jigsaw identification ?
I have not done so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stated position of COPFS that this information is suitable for the public domain I shall be happy to do so in clear conscience .
If that is NOT the position of COPFS , I refer you again to question ( 4 ) .
( 6 ) It appears to be the case that the COPFS has selectively limited its enforcement of contempt law to those people broadly supportive of Alex Salmond , such as Craig Murray and [ REDACTED ] , who have been pursued despite perpetrating – at the very worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who are broadly antagonistic towards Mr Salmond .
In addition to the six cases reported by myself on 5 April , the court reporter [ REDACTED ] actually tweeted the name of one of the complainers directly to tens of thousands of Twitter followers , but to the best of my knowledge he has not been cited for prosecution .
Can COPFS clarify whether it is official policy to only pursue supporters of Mr Salmond ?
Or if not that , is there an exemption for “ professional ” journalists employed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other members of the public ?
If neither of those , what ARE the criteria by which certain people have been allowed to identify witnesses , and to continue doing so without consequence while others are prosecuted ?
I believe that the complainers , and those who HAVE been subject to action , and the wider Scottish public , are all entitled to answers to these questions , and as such I look forward to your reply .
The email wasn ’ t acknowledged at all for two days , but last Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather snippy reply : Your enquiry relates to a personal communication you have sent to COPFS and the media relations department do not assist on such matters .
Information on providing comments and complaints about the work of COPFS is available on our website .
This is our media position in relation to contempt of court .
A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said : “ The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service takes seriously any potential contraventions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 .
“ If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media postings that may give rise to a potential contempt , careful consideration will be given to whether any further procedure is required.
” ?
Graham Shields Head of Strategic Communications and Engagement Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service This is clearly a completely unacceptable fob-off .
The COPFS is a department of the UK government and as such it is answerable both to taxpayers and to accredited journalists .
It is a fair and reasonable enquiry to ask why it is not taking action over a matter which the police apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to people , and we replied immediately , reiterating our questions and asking once again that they be directed to someone with the authority to answer them .
A week later there ’ s been no further response .
We are certain that the COPFS would not wish to create the impression that it was either totally incompetent and cavalier with the safety of witnesses , or complicit in an attempt to selectively silence alleged criminals on the basis of their political beliefs while allowing others to break the same laws without consequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attracted considerable suspicion of criminal conspiracy at the highest levels , including from a recent former Justice Secretary .
We make no such allegations , and we hope that to allay any such fears the COPFS will issue a proper response very soon .

It’s now more than a month since this site revealed the widespread breach by a number of Scottish journalists/newspapers – the most prominent being Dani Garavelli of Scotland On Sunday and Tortoise Media – of the legally-protected anonymity of one of the accusers in the Alex Salmond trial.
Until last week we’d had no response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) beyond an initial acknowledgement, and no action of any kind had apparently been taken against any of the perpetrators, even though the pro-Salmond blogger Craig Murray has been cited for prosecution for allegedly similar breaches.
Alarmingly, all of the information identifying the woman was (and at the time of writing this article is) still publicly available in their articles, exposing her to possible danger. So last week we got in touch with the COPFS to seek clarification.
We rang their office and were directed to the email address of the Media Relations department for a response. We sent them the letter below on Monday 4 May, which we have redacted in certain areas to avoid identifying the accuser.
Hello. I’m Stuart Campbell, a Scottish political journalist attempting to cover matters relating to the Alex Salmond case without falling foul of contempt law. There are a number of matters I would like a named official with authority to speak for COPFS to clarify for me on the record. (Naturally any information enabling identification of witnesses would not be published.) One month ago, on 5 April 2020, I reported to COPFS and to Police Scotland a number of instances where Scottish newspapers and their websites had published a piece of information which very clearly enabled the jigsaw identification of one of the complainers in the above-named case, specifically [REDACTED]. (1) Firstly, can you tell me what progress has been made on this report? Have any of the six journalists identified been investigated or petitions issued to prosecute them? Have any of them been spoken to officially? The case of Craig Murray demonstrates that the COPFS is still operating despite the restrictions of the COVID-19 crisis, so it seems extraordinary that such blatant breaches would have gone entirely unpursued. (2) I am at this stage assuming the answer to question (1) is no, for reasons outlined at (4) below. If that is the case, can the COPFS state for the record that it does NOT consider the information published by those journalists to amount to contempt via jigsaw identification? For clarity, I refer to, for example, the following paragraph published by both Tortoise Media (online) and Scotland On Sunday (print and online), written by Dani Garavelli: [PARAGRAPH REDACTED] This piece of information enables anyone to identify the complainer as [REDACTED]. (3) If the COPFS does not consider this information to amount to contempt by identification, can it explain how on Earth this can be the case? [REDACTED] This is a two-piece “jigsaw” a child could complete. It was not possible to identify [REDACTED] before the articles by Garavelli and the five others, because the fact that she was a complainer in the Salmond case had not been revealed, only that she was [REDACTED]. (4) If the COPFS does consider the articles to contain identifying information – which they obviously do – then (a) why have the authors not been acted against, and (b) why at a bare minimum has COPFS not required the publications involved to edit the articles in question to remove this information? (It is still included in all of them at the time of writing this email, and still enables even a casual observer to very easily identify [REDACTED]. Does the COPFS not care at all about protecting her anonymity as ordered by Lady Dorrian?) (5) If the COPFS does not consider the information to amount to identification, can it clearly state for the record that it would be acceptable for me to reproduce the paragraph quoted above (and the similar paragraphs in the other articles) in coverage of the case, even though I consider it to enable jigsaw identification? I have not done so until now, but if it is the stated position of COPFS that this information is suitable for the public domain I shall be happy to do so in clear conscience. If that is NOT the position of COPFS, I refer you again to question (4). (6) It appears to be the case that the COPFS has selectively limited its enforcement of contempt law to those people broadly supportive of Alex Salmond, such as Craig Murray and Mark Hirst, who have been pursued despite perpetrating – at the very worst – demonstrably lesser levels of identification than those who are broadly antagonistic towards Mr Salmond. In addition to the six cases reported by myself on 5 April, the court reporter [REDACTED] actually tweeted the name of one of the complainers directly to tens of thousands of Twitter followers, but to the best of my knowledge he has not been cited for prosecution. Can COPFS clarify whether it is official policy to only pursue supporters of Mr Salmond? Or if not that, is there an exemption for “professional” journalists employed on mainstream publications which is not available to other members of the public? If neither of those, what ARE the criteria by which certain people have been allowed to identify witnesses, and to continue doing so without consequence while others are prosecuted? I believe that the complainers, and those who HAVE been subject to action, and the wider Scottish public, are all entitled to answers to these questions, and as such I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Stuart Campbell
The email wasn’t acknowledged at all for two days, but last Wednesday night we received the following brief and rather snippy reply:
Dear Mr Campbell Your enquiry relates to a personal communication you have sent to COPFS and the media relations department do not assist on such matters. Information on providing comments and complaints about the work of COPFS is available on our website. This is our media position in relation to contempt of court. A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: “The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service takes seriously any potential contraventions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. “If the Crown becomes aware of press coverage or social media postings that may give rise to a potential contempt, careful consideration will be given to whether any further procedure is required.”? Regards Graham Shields
Head of Strategic Communications and Engagement
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
This is clearly a completely unacceptable fob-off. The COPFS is a department of the UK government and as such it is answerable both to taxpayers and to accredited journalists. It is a fair and reasonable enquiry to ask why it is not taking action over a matter which the police apparently consider as sufficiently grave to issue alarms to people, and we replied immediately, reiterating our questions and asking once again that they be directed to someone with the authority to answer them.
A week later there’s been no further response from Mr Shields, who as it happens is the same Graham Shields who used to be the editor of the Evening Times. It seems reasonable to imagine that in that capacity he’d have been close friends with the then-editor of its sister paper The Herald, one Graeme Smith. By a remarkable coincidence, Mr Smith is the husband of none other than… Dani Garavelli.
We are certain that the COPFS would not wish to create the impression that it was either totally incompetent and cavalier with the safety of witnesses, or complicit in an attempt to selectively silence alleged criminals on the basis of their political beliefs while allowing others to break the same laws without consequence, regarding a case which has already attracted considerable suspicion of criminal conspiracy at the highest levels, including from a recent former Justice Secretary.
We make no such allegations, and we hope that to allay any such fears the COPFS will issue a proper response very soon.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-14--Our enemies among us

Our enemies among us

There ’ s a great quote from one of the founders of the SNP that Yes types are fond of using in response to the endless onslaught of brainless Unionist accusations that the independence movement is “ anti-English ” .
But we had no suspicion of just how remarkably true it was until now .
Since the defining feature of Scottish politics since 2007 has been the utter hatred of the SNP from all three Unionist parties but especially Scottish Labour , we thought it ’ d be an interesting experiment to see how much of their opposition was actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SNP .
So we asked how voters would feel about the idea if independence could somehow guarantee the end of the SNP , providing the opposition parties with their only prospect of actually winning an election and taking power in the forseeable future , given that they currently trail in the polls by a staggering 30 points .
And the headline answer surprised us a bit .
From a 50/50 dead heat for the standard indy question , Yes actually slipped behind .
The number of Don ’ t Knows more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but of those with a firm opinion No took a 53-47 lead .
And that didn ’ t seem to make much sense .
Because the number of Tories who ’ d vote Yes in an SNP-less Scotland more than doubled , from 4 % to 9 % , and the number of Tory DKs – ie those now willing to at least seriously consider it – trebled .
Lib Dem support grew by a quarter ( from 12 % to 15 % ) , and DKs almost sextupled , from just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unexpectedly , among Labour voters – whose party hates the Nats the most – there was much less movement .
The Yes vote didn ’ t change at all , and DKs went up , but to less than double – 11 % to 20 % .
But that ’ s still a significant net Unionist shift to Yes , which starting from a 50/50 base ought to have put it well into the lead .
So how come the numbers went backwards ?
You might want to sit down for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP voters who ’ d be willing to sacrifice the party ’ s own power in the name of independence plummeted from 82 % to just 59 % .
Nothing in the question said that there wouldn ’ t or couldn ’ t be a new party or parties formed by ex-SNP people to contest the new general election that would follow the government stepping down , only that it wouldn ’ t be the SNP .
But the stunning finding of the poll is that if the SNP promised to disband after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be SNP voters , not Unionists , who would deliver a second No victory in the new indyref .
And if that ’ s how prevalent that attitude is among the SNP ’ s voters , who have no direct vested interest in the party being in power , we invite readers to contemplate how common it ’ s likely be among the party ’ s elected representatives and payroll , whose very livelihoods depend on it .
The startlingly antagonistic attitude towards possible new indy parties shown not only by the SNP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new media ” has always seemed to be fixated on keeping the SNP in power at all costs , even if the party showed no meaningful interest in achieving its supposed primary goal .
But the extent to which that blindly tribal loyalty has taken hold is exposed for the first time by these figures .
The electoral success of the SNP has , in a bizarre paradox , become the biggest obstacle to the party achieving the one thing it was created for .
It turns out that for voters as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and power is just too delicious and addictive to give up .
As ever , old Eric Blair called it :

There’s a great quote from one of the founders of the SNP that Yes types are fond of using in response to the endless onslaught of brainless Unionist accusations that the independence movement is “anti-English”.
But we had no suspicion of just how remarkably true it was until now.
Since the defining feature of Scottish politics since 2007 has been the utter hatred of the SNP from all three Unionist parties but especially Scottish Labour, we thought it’d be an interesting experiment to see how much of their opposition was actually hostility to independence rather than just to the SNP.
So we asked how voters would feel about the idea if independence could somehow guarantee the end of the SNP, providing the opposition parties with their only prospect of actually winning an election and taking power in the forseeable future, given that they currently trail in the polls by a staggering 30 points.
And the headline answer surprised us a bit.
From a 50/50 dead heat for the standard indy question, Yes actually slipped behind. The number of Don’t Knows more than trebled from 7% to 24%, but of those with a firm opinion No took a 53-47 lead.
And that didn’t seem to make much sense.
Because the number of Tories who’d vote Yes in an SNP-less Scotland more than doubled, from 4% to 9%, and the number of Tory DKs – ie those now willing to at least seriously consider it – trebled. Lib Dem support grew by a quarter (from 12% to 15%), and DKs almost sextupled, from just 4% to a whopping 23%.
Unexpectedly, among Labour voters – whose party hates the Nats the most – there was much less movement. The Yes vote didn’t change at all, and DKs went up, but to less than double – 11% to 20%.
But that’s still a significant net Unionist shift to Yes, which starting from a 50/50 base ought to have put it well into the lead. So how come the numbers went backwards?
You might want to sit down for this next bit.
Because the number of SNP voters who’d be willing to sacrifice the party’s own power in the name of independence plummeted from 82% to just 59%.
Nothing in the question said that there wouldn’t or couldn’t be a new party or parties formed by ex-SNP people to contest the new general election that would follow the government stepping down, only that it wouldn’t be the SNP.
But the stunning finding of the poll is that if the SNP promised to disband after winning and implementing independence, it would be SNP voters, not Unionists, who would deliver a second No victory in the new indyref.
And if that’s how prevalent that attitude is among the SNP’s voters, who have no direct vested interest in the party being in power, we invite readers to contemplate how common it’s likely be among the party’s elected representatives and payroll, whose very livelihoods depend on it.
The startlingly antagonistic attitude towards possible new indy parties shown not only by the SNP itself but by the supposedly pro-independence “new media” has always seemed to be fixated on keeping the SNP in power at all costs, even if the party showed no meaningful interest in achieving its supposed primary goal.
But the extent to which that blindly tribal loyalty has taken hold is exposed for the first time by these figures. The electoral success of the SNP has, in a bizarre paradox, become the biggest obstacle to the party achieving the one thing it was created for.
It turns out that for voters as well as politicians, the taste of victory and power is just too delicious and addictive to give up. As ever, old Eric Blair called it:
We’ve got a real problem here, folks.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-15--Always keep in touch with your friends

Always keep in touch with your friends

As overt direct interference by unelected , unaccountable foreign media corporations in national politics continues to intensify , readers of Wings will be aware that it ’ s now considerably more difficult for us to even let you know when we have a new post up .
So here are some things you can do .
Especially alert readers may already have spotted that our Twitter logo now redirects to another account .
It was set up by the people who maintain the “ Wings stall ” that appears at indy events and marches , specifically for this purpose , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of followers in just a few days .
We have no connection to the account ( if we did we probably wouldn ’ t have called it “ FO Wings ” : D ) or indeed to the stall , but we ’ re sure that the trans and SNP activists determined to remove all trace of Wings from social media* will still report it and try to have it banned anyway , so there are also other options .
We didn ’ t even know this was a thing until recently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it , but we ’ ve finally worked out what it is .
If you scroll to the bottom of any article on Wings , you ’ ll see the comments box , which should look something like this : Observe that highlighted section .
If you tick the box and then hit “ Submit Comment ” ( we don ’ t think there ’ s any way of getting alerts without posting at least one comment , one time ) , you ’ ll get a message like this at whichever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the details box .
Click the “ Confirm Follow ” button in that message and you should get this : Now any time there ’ s a new article posted , you ’ ll get an email link to it .
You can choose to receive the alerts immediately , daily or weekly .
Obviously the ideal solution is for Twitter to lift its completely unjustified bans on all our accounts .
To do that you can try contacting @ TwitterSupport , or ( and with slightly more hope of success ) raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of to exert pressure .
We ’ re already in touch with the Free Speech Union and the NUJ .
We ’ ve noticed quite a lot of people have also adopted our shield logo as their Twitter profile pic , which is a low-effort but actually quite powerful way of keeping a Wings presence in Scottish political social media discoure and highlighting the injustice .
Below are a few variants of the logo you can use if you ’ d like to do so .
Now more than ever , folks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

As overt direct interference by unelected, unaccountable foreign media corporations in national politics continues to intensify, readers of Wings will be aware that it’s now considerably more difficult for us to even let you know when we have a new post up.
(Obviously this isn’t quite so much of an issue when we’re on holiday – which despite the flurry of activity in the last week or so we still officially are, since the coronavirus has knackered everything up and unavoidably delayed the decision we’d planned to make last month – but the general principle remains alarming.)
So here are some things you can do.
1. FOLLOW “FRIENDS OF WINGS”
Especially alert readers may already have spotted that our Twitter logo now redirects to another account. It was set up by the people who maintain the “Wings stall” that appears at indy events and marches, specifically for this purpose, and has already gathered an impressive number of followers in just a few days.
We have no connection to the account (if we did we probably wouldn’t have called it “FO Wings” :D) or indeed to the stall, but we’re sure that the trans and SNP activists determined to remove all trace of Wings from social media* will still report it and try to have it banned anyway, so there are also other options.
(*They’re going nuts trying to spot which accounts might be me. None of the ones currently claiming to be Wings are, but setting up fake ones called “RevStu2784” or “WingsScottland” for them to chase endlessly might be funny.)
2. GET EMAIL ALERTS
We didn’t even know this was a thing until recently, and were always perplexed to get notifications about it, but we’ve finally worked out what it is.
If you scroll to the bottom of any article on Wings, you’ll see the comments box, which should look something like this:
Observe that highlighted section. If you tick the box and then hit “Submit Comment” (we don’t think there’s any way of getting alerts without posting at least one comment, one time), you’ll get a message like this at whichever email address you’ve entered in the details box.
Click the “Confirm Follow” button in that message and you should get this:
Now any time there’s a new article posted, you’ll get an email link to it. You can choose to receive the alerts immediately, daily or weekly.
3. SHOW SUPPORT
Obviously the ideal solution is for Twitter to lift its completely unjustified bans on all our accounts. To do that you can try contacting @TwitterSupport, or (and with slightly more hope of success) raising the issue anywhere else you can think of to exert pressure. We’re already in touch with the Free Speech Union and the NUJ.
We’ve noticed quite a lot of people have also adopted our shield logo as their Twitter profile pic, which is a low-effort but actually quite powerful way of keeping a Wings presence in Scottish political social media discoure and highlighting the injustice. Below are a few variants of the logo you can use if you’d like to do so.
Now more than ever, folks, it’s important to remain alert.


Image adjustment

We lost a few quid to Graham Linehan at poker this afternoon and we needed a wee bit of cheering up , so God bless the SNP Twitler Youth for coming to our rescue .
Alert readers will remember Mr Blench from the two articles named above .
And below is the picture in question – or as we must now refer to it with its full and proper artistic gravitas , “ the Work ” .
You wouldn ’ t like to see it coming towards you on a dark night , would you , ladies ?
We remarked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a Twitter avatar was making a certain kind of statement for the nasty little gang of trans activists we were discussing .
And it seems that young Mr Blench agreed with us , because he ’ s now replaced it with something a little less threatening and altogether more on-message for the colourfully-haired SNP “ Out For Indy ” group he ’ s the National Secretary of .
But in any event , we won ’ t be complying with his demands .
UK copyright law of course allows for “ fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of news reporting , which our articles were .
We consider the tone with which OFI and other elements of the party conducts itself to be highly ( and deliberately ) intimidatory , and commenting on the avatars chosen by Mr Blench and others is part of that observation .
He may also be unaware that damages with regard to copyright infringement only apply in so far as The Work would be expected to produce revenue , and unless we receive evidence of existing plans for a range of teatowels , posters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to regard the value of the work as , at best , zero .
So with that said , we keenly await communication from Mr Blench ’ s lawyers .
Unless , of course , his threat is empty , because by his own admission he ’ d certainly like to speak with a forked tongue .

We lost a few quid to Graham Linehan at poker this afternoon and we needed a wee bit of cheering up, so God bless the SNP Twitler Youth for coming to our rescue.
Okay, now we’re worried.
Alert readers will remember Mr Blench from the two articles named above. And below is the picture in question – or as we must now refer to it with its full and proper artistic gravitas, “the Work”.
You wouldn’t like to see it coming towards you on a dark night, would you, ladies? We remarked that the choice of such an image for a Twitter avatar was making a certain kind of statement for the nasty little gang of trans activists we were discussing.
(Specifically the statement “If you don’t shut up I might assault you”. Wings Over Scotland would like to make it clear that that comment, as well as the opinion that the image looks like it’s a police mugshot of a recently-convicted child rapist, are entirely aesthetic judgments, not allegations of any actual criminality.)
And it seems that young Mr Blench agreed with us, because he’s now replaced it with something a little less threatening and altogether more on-message for the colourfully-haired SNP “Out For Indy” group he’s the National Secretary of.
(It’s clearly quite an old shot that’s been hastily pressed into service for the purpose, because it’s only a couple of weeks since he tweeted this again rather more sinister one, and we’re pretty sure nobody’s fringe grows that fast.)
But in any event, we won’t be complying with his demands. UK copyright law of course allows for “fair dealing” with materials for the purposes of news reporting or criticism, which our articles were. We consider the tone with which OFI and other elements of the party conduct themselves to be highly (and deliberately) intimidatory, chiefly of women, and commenting on the avatars chosen by Mr Blench and others is part of that observation.
He may also be unaware that damages with regard to copyright infringement only apply in so far as The Work would be expected to produce revenue, and unless we receive evidence of existing plans for a range of teatowels, posters, mugs and the like, we shall continue to regard the value of The Work as, at best, zero.
So with that said, we keenly await communication from Mr Blench’s lawyers. Unless, of course, his threat is empty, because by his own admission he’d certainly like to speak with a forked tongue.
We’ll keep you posted.


Token offerings


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-18--A letter to Humza Yousaf

A letter to Humza Yousaf

As we still haven ’ t received any response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service , we sent this letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice today .
Some passages have been redacted in accordance with contempt-of-court law .
I wish to raise with you the gravest concerns regarding the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) , for which you are ultimately responsible .
It is my belief that COPFS is acting in a manner which risks bringing the entire justice system of Scotland into serious disrepute , by carrying out its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undisguised partisanship and nepotism .
In early April of this year , I reported to COPFS and to Police Scotland a number of instances where Scottish newspapers and their websites had published a piece of information which very clearly enabled the jigsaw identification of one of the complainers in the highly-publicised case of HM Advocate vs Alexander Salmond , specifically [ REDACTED ] .
The most prominent and widely-shared of the articles was published by both Tortoise Media ( online ) and Scotland On Sunday ( print and online ) .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contains the following paragraph : That piece of information enables anyone to very easily identify the complainer as [ REDACTED ] .
I have personally shown the paragraph to several friends in England with no knowledge whatsoever of Scottish politics , giving them no other clues , and asked them if they were able to find the name of the woman concerned .
Without fail , every one of them has been able to correctly do so within a matter of seconds , and is prepared to testify to that fact .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] before the articles by Garavelli and the five others , because [ REDACTED ] .
But it is so easy to do so once armed with the new information published by Garavelli and the others that one need only Google the obvious words [ REDACTED ] .
She is the only person it could possibly be .
Indeed , the words [ REDACTED ] alone will achieve the same result .
Yet one of the authors of the articles containing the new information apparently felt so safe from prosecution as to tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the public domain information that aids jigsaw identification [ of the accusers ] deserves the jail sentence they will undoubtedly get for contempt of court ” .
And sure enough , no action appears to have been taken in respect of my report .
The case of the blogger and former UK ambassador Craig Murray demonstrates that the COPFS is still managing to operate despite the restrictions of the COVID-19 crisis , so it seems extraordinary that such blatant breaches would have gone entirely unpursued , and that none of the publications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the paragraphs enabling such simple identification of the protected witness .
This is doubly so given that apparently the police regard all of the complainers in the case to be in such danger should their identities become known that they ’ ve been issued with alarms : and given that the journalist Mark Hirst has been charged with threatening behaviour towards the women , even though their identities are still NOT officially known to the public .
The only characteristic shared by Mr Hirst and Mr Murray , but not shared by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been publicly supportive of Mr Salmond .
The impression therefore unavoidably given is that COPFS is only interested in prosecuting those politically sympathetic to Mr Salmond , while those critical of him are apparently above the law .
This impression is significantly amplified by the fact that when I pressed COPFS for an update on my report I was directed to , and then fobbed off dismissively and rather rudely with a generic form reply by , its grandly and apparently ironically-named Head Of Strategic Communications And Engagement , one Graham Shields @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shields was the editor of the Evening Times , one of the two flagship titles of the Glasgow-based Herald And Times Group .
While he held the position the group ’ s other main title , the Herald , was edited by a gentleman by the name of Graeme Smith , with whom it is reasonable to assume Mr Shields would , by choice or necessity , have been a close colleague .
Mr Smith , by a remarkable coincidence , is the husband of Dani Garavelli .
While making no allegations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spell out why that , to coin a phrase , “ puts a smell on ” Mr Shields ’ actions in attempting to deflect legitimate press enquiries from an accredited professional journalist , or why other anti-Salmond journalists who are also likely to be personal and/or professional associates of Mr Shields apparently feel able to break the law with such certain impunity that they can demand prison sentences for others while committing the same crime themselves .
It is now several weeks since I asked COPFS to state for the record whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – which they obviously and demonstrably do – and why ( a ) the authors have not been acted against , and why ( b ) at a bare minimum it has not required the publications involved to remove or edit the articles in question to remove this information .
( All of them continue to feature the relevant passages at the time of writing this letter . )
I still await a meaningful reply .
This is plainly unacceptable and indefensible – it is a straightforward question which cuts to the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether contempt of court has been committed or not , and its important duty to inform the public about what it is and is not permissible to say .
The only conceivable reason not to answer is that COPFS would then be forced either to uphold the law equally for both supporters and opponents of Mr Salmond , or to explain why it was refusing to do so .
As Mr Murray has pointed out , it would not constitute a legal defence for him if accused of robbing a bank to point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so and gotten away with it .
An affirmative answer therefore would NOT prejudice his trial .
But such a blatantly one-sided prosecution of one person while six others go completely unpursued for the same offence places such obvious and wholly justified suspicion over COPFS ’ s impartiality and propriety to any fair-minded observer that even your own party colleague and predecessor-but-one as Justice Secretary , Kenny MacAskill – who I ’ m sure you will agree is no tinfoil-hatted internet conspiracy theorist – has been driven to publicly cast serious aspersions over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that senior Scottish Government members and officials were/are involved in an “ orchestrated campaign ” against Mr Salmond and his defence team .
We must of course also view these actions in the light of the outcome of the enquiry into the intial investigations of the proven-false allegations against Mr Salmond .
The Scottish Government has already admitted that that enquiry was “ unlawful ” and “ tainted by apparent bias ” against him .
You were not the Justice Secretary of the Scottish Government when that happened , but you are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign of unlawful bias against Mr Salmond – which appears to have not only continued unabated but increased in its intensity and determination despite those findings – now reflects directly and personally on you , and may of course in itself constitute a very serious crime .
( That will be presumably determined by the pending inquiry into the matter . )
I urge you , therefore , to exercise your duties and instruct COPFS , in the first instance , simply to answer my questions properly , fully and without the evasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Scottish public deserve to be told clearly and unambiguously whether the information revealed in my report constitutes contempt of court or not .
If it does not , there will clearly be ramifications for Mr Murray , whose liberty is currently at stake as Mr Salmond ’ s was .
If if does , there should and must be ramifications for Ms Garavelli and the others , and you must instruct COPFS to execute its responsibilities in a fair and transparent manner , in the name of justice .
If answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible to avoid the conclusion that not only COPFS but also your own office and by extension the Scottish Government as a whole are indeed still engaged in the orchestrated and unlawfully biased campaign to which it has previously admitted .
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience .
A continued avoidance of this very important matter will place the integrity of the Scottish Government in serious question .

As we still haven’t received any response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we sent this letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice today. Some passages have been redacted in accordance with contempt-of-court law.
We hope he’s listening.
16 May 2020
Dear Justice Secretary,
I wish to raise with you the gravest concerns regarding the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), for which you are ultimately responsible.
It is my belief that COPFS is acting in a manner which risks bringing the entire justice system of Scotland into serious disrepute, by carrying out its duties not only incompetently, but with undisguised partisanship and nepotism.
In early April of this year, I reported to COPFS and to Police Scotland a number of instances where Scottish newspapers and their websites had published a piece of information which very clearly enabled the jigsaw identification of one of the complainers in the highly-publicised case of HM Advocate vs Alexander Salmond, specifically [REDACTED].
The most prominent and widely-shared of the articles was published by both Tortoise Media (online) and Scotland On Sunday (print and online). It was written by the freelance Dani Garavelli and contains the following paragraph:
[REDACTED]
That piece of information enables anyone to very easily identify the complainer as [REDACTED].
I have personally shown the paragraph to several friends in England with no knowledge whatsoever of Scottish politics, giving them no other clues, and asked them if they were able to find the name of the woman concerned. Without fail, every one of them has been able to correctly do so within a matter of seconds, and is prepared to testify to that fact.
It was not possible to identify [REDACTED] before the articles by Garavelli and the five others, because [REDACTED].
But it is so easy to do so once armed with the new information published by Garavelli and the others that one need only Google the obvious words [REDACTED]. She is the only person it could possibly be. Indeed, the words [REDACTED] alone will achieve the same result.
Yet one of the authors of the articles containing the new information apparently felt so safe from prosecution as to tweet last month that “anyone… who puts into the public domain information that aids jigsaw identification [of the accusers] deserves the jail sentence they will undoubtedly get for contempt of court”. And sure enough, no action appears to have been taken in respect of my report.
The case of the blogger and former UK ambassador Craig Murray demonstrates that the COPFS is still managing to operate despite the restrictions of the COVID-19 crisis, so it seems extraordinary that such blatant breaches would have gone entirely unpursued, and that none of the publications involved have even been told to remove the paragraphs enabling such simple identification of the protected witness.
This is doubly so given that apparently the police regard all of the complainers in the case to be in such danger should their identities become known that they’ve been issued with alarms:
and given that the journalist Mark Hirst has been charged with threatening behaviour towards the women, even though their identities are still NOT officially known to the public.
The only characteristic shared by Mr Hirst and Mr Murray, but not shared by the other six journalists, is that they have been publicly supportive of Mr Salmond. The impression therefore unavoidably given is that COPFS is only interested in prosecuting those politically sympathetic to Mr Salmond, while those critical of him are apparently above the law.
This impression is significantly amplified by the fact that when I pressed COPFS for an update on my report I was directed to, and then fobbed off dismissively and rather rudely with a generic form reply by, its grandly and apparently ironically-named Head Of Strategic Communications And Engagement, one Graham Shields.
Prior to taking that post Mr Shields was the editor of the Evening Times, one of the two flagship titles of the Glasgow-based Herald And Times Group. While he held the position the group’s other main title, the Herald, was edited by a gentleman by the name of Graeme Smith, with whom it is reasonable to assume Mr Shields would, by choice or necessity, have been a close colleague.
Mr Smith, by a remarkable coincidence, is the husband of Dani Garavelli.
While making no allegations, I trust I do not have to spell out why that, to coin a phrase, “puts a smell on” Mr Shields’ actions in attempting to deflect legitimate press enquiries from an accredited professional journalist, or why other anti-Salmond journalists who are also likely to be personal and/or professional associates of Mr Shields apparently feel able to break the law with such certain impunity that they can demand prison sentences for others while committing the same crime themselves.
It is now several weeks since I asked COPFS to state for the record whether it considers the articles to contain identifying information – which they obviously and demonstrably do – and why (a) the authors have not been acted against, and why (b) at a bare minimum it has not required the publications involved to remove or edit the articles in question to remove this information. (All of them continue to feature the relevant passages at the time of writing this letter.)
I still await a meaningful reply. This is plainly unacceptable and indefensible – it is a straightforward question which cuts to the most fundamental responsibility of the Office in determining whether contempt of court has been committed or not, and its important duty to inform the public about what it is and is not permissible to say. The only conceivable reason not to answer is that COPFS would then be forced either to uphold the law equally for both supporters and opponents of Mr Salmond, or to explain why it was refusing to do so.
As Mr Murray has pointed out, it would not constitute a legal defence for him if accused of robbing a bank to point out that other people had also done so and gotten away with it. An affirmative answer therefore would NOT prejudice his trial.
But such a blatantly one-sided prosecution of one person while six others go completely unpursued for the same offence places such obvious and wholly justified suspicion over COPFS’s impartiality and propriety to any fair-minded observer that even your own party colleague and predecessor-but-one as Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill – who I’m sure you will agree is no tinfoil-hatted internet conspiracy theorist – has been driven to publicly cast serious aspersions over the conduct of the case, alleging that senior Scottish Government members and officials were/are involved in an “orchestrated campaign” against Mr Salmond and his defence team.
We must of course also view these actions in the light of the outcome of the enquiry into the intial investigations of the proven-false allegations against Mr Salmond. The Scottish Government has already admitted that that enquiry was “unlawful” and “tainted by apparent bias” against him.
You were not the Justice Secretary of the Scottish Government when that happened, but you are the Justice Secretary now, and that orchestrated campaign of unlawful bias against Mr Salmond – which appears to have not only continued unabated but increased in its intensity and determination despite those findings – now reflects directly and personally on you, and may of course in itself constitute a very serious crime. (That will be presumably determined by the pending inquiry into the matter.)
I urge you, therefore, to exercise your duties and instruct COPFS, in the first instance, simply to answer my questions properly, fully and without the evasion and equivocation it has deployed until now. The Scottish public deserve to be told clearly and unambiguously whether the information revealed in my report constitutes contempt of court or not. If it does not, there will clearly be ramifications for Mr Murray, whose liberty is currently at stake as Mr Salmond’s was. If if does, there should and must be ramifications for Ms Garavelli and the others, and you must instruct COPFS to execute its responsibilities in a fair and transparent manner, in the name of justice.
If answers are not forthcoming, it will be impossible to avoid the conclusion that not only COPFS but also your own office and by extension the Scottish Government as a whole are indeed still engaged in the orchestrated and unlawfully biased campaign to which it has previously admitted.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. A continued avoidance of this very important matter will place the integrity of the Scottish Government in serious question.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Campbell
Editor
Wings Over Scotland


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-17--Blind pig finds truffle

Blind pig finds truffle

In a shock finding that ’ s sure to provoke soul-searching and recriminations at SNP HQ , it appears that the Scottish Government actually has a new policy that ’ s backed by a majority of the Scottish public .
Honestly , we were as surprised as you .
In our latest Panelbase poll , respondents supported the idea of giving every citizen a Universal Basic Income during the coronavirus pandemic by a margin of 4:1 , and were also in favour of adopting the measure permanently by 2:1 .
To absolutely nobody ’ s amazement , the concept – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials – was most welcomed by SNP , Labour and Yes voters and the less-well-off , and most opposed by Tories , Lib Dems , Unionists and the wealthy .
And just while we ’ re tidying up the last of the poll findings , alert readers may recall our frequently observing that when conducting opinion polling you can get 5-10 % of people to vote for just about anything , up to and probably including “ Would you like us to come round to your house right now and shoot you in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that theory , this : Almost one-tenth of our respondents – the largest group of them Tories , but at least 5 % of every other party ’ s voters too , including the SNP – were happy to say either that they preferred clapping the NHS to funding it properly , or that they didn ’ t know which of the two options was the best .
Some of these people live in your street , folks .
Think about that .

In a shock finding that’s sure to provoke soul-searching and recriminations at SNP HQ, it appears that the Scottish Government actually has a new policy that’s backed by a majority of the Scottish public.
Honestly, we were as surprised as you.
In our latest Panelbase poll, respondents supported the idea of giving every citizen a Universal Basic Income during the coronavirus pandemic by a margin of 4:1, and were also in favour of adopting the measure permanently by 2:1.
To absolutely nobody’s amazement, the concept – which has been subject to many successful trials – was most welcomed by SNP, Labour and Yes voters and the less-well-off, and most opposed by Tories, Lib Dems, Unionists and the wealthy.
And just while we’re tidying up the last of the poll findings, alert readers may recall our frequently observing that when conducting opinion polling you can get 5-10% of people to vote for just about anything, up to and probably including “Would you like us to come round to your house right now and shoot you in the face?”
In support of that theory, this:
Almost one-tenth of our respondents – the largest group of them Tories, but at least 5% of every other party’s voters too, including the SNP – were happy to say either that they preferred clapping the NHS to funding it properly, or that they didn’t know which of the two options was the best.
Some of these people live in your street, folks. Think about that.


wingsoverscotland--2020-05-19--A bit of spot colour

A bit of spot colour

We thought readers might be interested in a small update on yesterday ’ s post .
As we told you @ @ @ @ @ Head of Strategic Communications and Engagement at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who @ @ @ @ @ newspapers enabling the identification of sexual assault accusers – was the editor of the Evening @ @ @ @ @ go in December 2017 .
Which is just two months after this happened : So @ @ @ @ @ if anyone knew what jigsaw identification looked like , he would .

We thought readers might be interested in a small update on yesterday’s post. As we told you, Graham Shields – the Head of Strategic Communications and Engagement at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who fobbed off our complaint about newspapers enabling the identification of sexual assault accusers – was the editor of the Evening Times until he was let go in December 2017.
Which is just two months after this happened:
So you’d think that if anyone knew what jigsaw identification looked like, he would.