Deny the flesh

We ’ ve just received the most extraordinary Freedom Of Information response from the Scottish Government , readers .
Trust us , you want to go and make yourselves a strong cup of tea before you read it .
Or get this guy to bring you one .
It ’ s a reply to this request , from 21 September .
Here ’ s a quick reminder : You ready ?
Here it comes .
For reference , here ’ s the 3 August 2020 response referred to above : In normal circumstances we ’ d have been fully expecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ we hold no recorded information about this meeting ” DIDN ’ T mean “ this meeting didn ’ t happen ” , just that it hadn ’ t been recorded .
But we ’ d naively thought that approach couldn ’ t hope to fly this time , as that fiction has been utterly destroyed by the Scottish Government itself .
Because the remit provided by John Swinney to the panel investigating Nicola Sturgeon for a possible breach of the Ministerial Code expressly notes that such a meeting took place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer on the EXACT SAME DATE that the Central Enquiry Unit ( CEU ) was flatly denying any knowledge of the meeting .
Which – unless Mr Swinney had written the inquiry ’ s remit on the bus on the way into Holyrood that morning , conveniently knowing that he was going to be asked about it – means that the remit was produced BEFORE the denial , and therefore the Scottish Government absolutely definitely DID “ hold a record ” of the 29 March meeting at that time , and therefore the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , flat-out , deliberate lie .
But even if a person was SO desperately gullible as to believe the “ wrote the remit on the bus ” scenario ( and recent experiences on social media have suggested to us that such people do exist ) , or that perhaps the records were only updated that day with the information and the CEU just hadn ’ t caught up , it ’ s no good .
Because the remit proves beyond any possible dispute that the Scottish Government definitely held an official record of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than SIX WEEKS before we sent in our request on 21 September .
And yet it has just told us categorically that it didn ’ t , and indeed that it still doesn ’ t in the middle of October .
It ’ s a quite jaw-dropping insult to the intelligence of everyone involved , and also to the people of Scotland who are entitled to the truth from their government .
We ’ ve sent a reply pointing out these facts and politely requesting that the CEU has a second stab at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not with a tissue of ridiculously obvious lies .
We ’ ll let you know how it goes .

We’ve just received the most extraordinary Freedom Of Information response from the Scottish Government, readers. Trust us, you want to go and make yourselves a strong cup of tea before you read it. Or get this guy to bring you one.
It’s a reply to this request, from 21 September. Here’s a quick reminder:
You ready? Here it comes.
Wow.
For reference, here’s the 3 August 2020 response referred to above:
In normal circumstances we’d have been fully expecting some sort of weasel-worded attempt to pretend that “we hold no recorded information about this meeting” DIDN’T mean “this meeting didn’t happen”, just that it hadn’t been recorded.
But we’d naively thought that approach couldn’t hope to fly this time, as that fiction has been utterly destroyed by the Scottish Government itself. Because the remit provided by John Swinney to the panel investigating Nicola Sturgeon for a possible breach of the Ministerial Code expressly notes that such a meeting took place.
That remit was published as a Parliamentary answer on the EXACT SAME DATE that the Central Enquiry Unit (CEU) was flatly denying any knowledge of the meeting.
Which – unless Mr Swinney had written the inquiry’s remit on the bus on the way into Holyrood that morning, conveniently knowing that he was going to be asked about it – means that the remit was produced BEFORE the denial, and therefore the Scottish Government absolutely definitely DID “hold a record” of the 29 March meeting at that time, and therefore the 3 August FOI response was a blatant, flat-out, deliberate lie.
But even if a person was SO desperately gullible as to believe the “wrote the remit on the bus” scenario (and recent experiences on social media have suggested to us that such people do exist), or that perhaps the records were only updated that day with the information and the CEU just hadn’t caught up, it’s no good.
Because the remit proves beyond any possible dispute that the Scottish Government definitely held an official record of the meeting in early August, more than SIX WEEKS before we sent in our request on 21 September. And yet it has just told us categorically that it didn’t, and indeed that it still doesn’t in the middle of October.
(It would also be fairly astonishing if the remit had indeed only been written in August, given that Alex Salmond was acquitted in late March and the inquiry into the Ministerial Code breach – which was referred in January 2019 and was paused to avoid a risk of prejudicing his trial, giving them 14 months to prepare it – should have been ready to go immediately, not four months later.)
It’s a quite jaw-dropping insult to the intelligence of everyone involved, and also to the people of Scotland who are entitled to the truth from their government. We’ve sent a reply pointing out these facts and politely requesting that the CEU has a second stab at answering our questions, only this time not with a tissue of ridiculously obvious lies. We’ll let you know how it goes.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-13--The Dimwit Of Doom

The Dimwit Of Doom

When even someone as catastrophically vacant as Alex Cole-Hamilton thinks he ’ s got your number , it ’ s probably time to accept that the game ’ s up .
But that ’ s the unenviable position the First Minister finds herself in today .
Because even with all the finely-honed bodyswerving skills showcased on Sky News at the weekend , it ’ s going to be terribly hard to dodge this : The opposition appears to have rather belatedly woken up to the fact that the separate inquiry over whether Nicola Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code in relation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the direction of John Swinney – NOT actually been asked to determine whether she lied to Parliament about it .
Given that the fundamental heart of the Code is ministers being truthful to Parliament , and given how long the standards panel has already taken , it will be extremely difficult to justify refusing to extend its brief to include Cole-Hamilton ’ s request .
( When you ’ ve been dicking around for 20 months already , another couple of days makes no odds . )
And if it does , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because as we already know beyond any shadow of doubt , by her own official and public admission , the First Minister definitely lied to Parliament about – at a minimum – when she knew of allegations of sexual misconduct about Alex Salmond .
It is now a matter of undisputed cut-and-dried record that she knew before she told Parliament she did ( and that for good measure there was also another breach of the Ministerial Code at the same time , when she used Parliamentary premises to discuss it as what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t allowed ) .
“ Oops , I forgot ” isn ’ t going to cut it .
Not even Neil Mackay , the self-styled hammer of vile cybernat conspiracists , strident despiser of sites like this one and arch-defender of Sturgeon ’ s woke , moderate , non-nationalist nationalism , is buying that donkey .
It ’ s a withering column , and it only appears to let up in a bizarrely mealy-mouthed conclusion whereby Mackay suggests that the solution to Sturgeon ’ s destruction of public trust over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parliament of what the SNP government , and in particular the First Minister , does , when it comes to Coronavirus ” .
But if scrutiny of the First Minister over COVID-19 is appropriate , then it goes unsaid that so must scrutiny of other subjects be , which puts Mackay firmly , if sneakily , lined up on the side of Alex Cole-Hamilton and the rest of the inquiry committee .
And when even her stoutest media champions are beginning to inch away , you know that time is running out .

When even someone as catastrophically vacant as Alex Cole-Hamilton thinks he’s got your number, it’s probably time to accept that the game’s up.
But that’s the unenviable position the First Minister finds herself in today.
Because even with all the finely-honed bodyswerving skills showcased on Sky News at the weekend, it’s going to be terribly hard to dodge this:
The opposition appears to have rather belatedly woken up to the fact that the separate inquiry over whether Nicola Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code in relation to the Alex Salmond affair had – at the direction of John Swinney – NOT actually been asked to determine whether she lied to Parliament about it.
Given that the fundamental heart of the Code is ministers being truthful to Parliament, and given how long the standards panel has already taken, it will be extremely difficult to justify refusing to extend its brief to include Cole-Hamilton’s request. (When you’ve been dicking around for 20 months already, another couple of days makes no odds.)
And if it does, then the First Minister is toast.
Because as we already know beyond any shadow of doubt, by her own official and public admission, the First Minister definitely lied to Parliament about – at a minimum – when she knew of allegations of sexual misconduct about Alex Salmond. It is now a matter of undisputed cut-and-dried record that she knew before she told Parliament she did (and that for good measure there was also another breach of the Ministerial Code at the same time, when she used Parliamentary premises to discuss it as what she claimed was a party matter, which isn’t allowed).
“Oops, I forgot” isn’t going to cut it. Not even Neil Mackay, the self-styled hammer of vile cybernat conspiracists, strident despiser of sites like this one and arch-defender of Sturgeon’s woke, moderate, non-nationalist nationalism, is buying that donkey.
It’s a withering column, and it only appears to let up in a bizarrely mealy-mouthed conclusion whereby Mackay suggests that the solution to Sturgeon’s destruction of public trust over the Salmond affair is “more scrutiny in parliament of what the SNP government, and in particular the First Minister, does, when it comes to Coronavirus”.
But if scrutiny of the First Minister over COVID-19 is appropriate, then it goes unsaid that so must scrutiny of other subjects be, which puts Mackay firmly, if sneakily, lined up on the side of Alex Cole-Hamilton and the rest of the inquiry committee.
And when even her stoutest media champions are beginning to inch away, you know that time is running out.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-14--Life at the poles

Life at the poles

We just noticed a finding from the most recent opinion poll that surprisingly seems to have escaped the attention of every Scottish newspaper except the Press & Journal .
As far as we can ascertain , the P & J was alone in reporting the obviously newsworthy fact that just a quarter of Scots believe the First Minister ’ s ridiculous cock-and-bull story about “ forgetting ” the occasion when she first heard that her friend , colleague and mentor of 30 years was facing charges of trying to rape some of her other friends .
But the figures are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Remarkably , even SNP voters aren ’ t buying Sturgeon ’ s tale – fewer than half of them ( 45 % ) told ComRes that they believed her .
But the numbers split down party lines in a manner that ’ s unusually stark even for modern times .
More SNP voters were willing to swallow the insultingly absurd claim than from all the other parties put together , as were more than three times as many Yes voters as No voters .
( Interestingly , Remain voters – who Sturgeon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years to – were significantly less supportive than the Yes ones she ’ s sidelined in her futile attempts to frustrate English and Welsh voters ’ desire to leave the EU . )
It chimed all too dismayingly with another poll we saw a few days ago over who voters blamed for the recent big surge in coronavirus cases in the UK .
Labour voters laid the responsibility squarely ( 55 % -29 % ) at the feet of the government .
But Conservative voters overwhelmingly ( by more than 11:1 ) blamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Lib Dems took almost the exact mirror image of Labour voters ’ stance .
It shouldn ’ t need to be said that there ’ s no difference between Tory voters believing absolute nonsense just because it comes from the Tories and SNP voters believing absolute nonsense just because it comes from the SNP .
Wings is a site with an unashamedly partisan political position , but we still base all our beliefs on facts .
We ’ ve defended the SNP for most of the last nine years against false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unionist media , but when the party ’ s behaviour has changed and uncomfortable facts have arisen about multiple aspects of its conduct , we ’ ve responded to reality and become critical – without ever changing our position on independence , because nothing has happened to justify any change to the fundamentally logical view that countries should elect their own governments .
For doing what we ’ ve always done – assessing events as rationally as we can – we ’ ve been met with a torrent of abuse and vitriol easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endured from Unionists since Wings started in 2011 .
But there ’ s a famous quote that ’ s always been at the absolute heart of what we stand for : We don ’ t think there ’ s ever been a time in either Scottish or British politics when fewer people have held to that philosophy .
And we don ’ t mind telling you , folks , it frightens the living hell out of us .

We just noticed a finding from the most recent opinion poll that surprisingly seems to have escaped the attention of every Scottish newspaper except the Press & Journal.
As far as we can ascertain, the P&J was alone in reporting the obviously newsworthy fact that just a quarter of Scots believe the First Minister’s ridiculous cock-and-bull story about “forgetting” the occasion when she first heard that her friend, colleague and mentor of 30 years was facing charges of trying to rape some of her other friends.
But the figures are part of a wider and depressing trend.
Remarkably, even SNP voters aren’t buying Sturgeon’s tale – fewer than half of them (45%) told ComRes that they believed her. But the numbers split down party lines in a manner that’s unusually stark even for modern times.
More SNP voters were willing to swallow the insultingly absurd claim than from all the other parties put together, as were more than three times as many Yes voters as No voters. (Interestingly, Remain voters – who Sturgeon has devoted most of the last four years to – were significantly less supportive than the Yes ones she’s sidelined in her futile attempts to frustrate English and Welsh voters’ desire to leave the EU.)
It chimed all too dismayingly with another poll we saw a few days ago over who voters blamed for the recent big surge in coronavirus cases in the UK.
Labour voters laid the responsibility squarely (55%-29%) at the feet of the government. But Conservative voters overwhelmingly (by more than 11:1) blamed the public while completely absolving the government, and Lib Dems took almost the exact mirror image of Labour voters’ stance.
(For what it’s worth, we’d put it at about 50:50. The government’s handling of the crisis has been incompetent beyond the wildest dystopian nightmares, but at the end of the day it’s still people who transmit the virus to each other by behaving irresponsibly. No matter how useless the government’s messaging is or how hypocritically it behaves, you still shouldn’t need to be TOLD not to do really obviously stupid things like gather in large groups without wearing masks during a pandemic.)
It shouldn’t need to be said that there’s no difference between Tory voters believing absolute nonsense just because it comes from the Tories and SNP voters believing absolute nonsense just because it comes from the SNP.
Wings is a site with an unashamedly partisan political position, but we still base all our beliefs on facts. We’ve defended the SNP for most of the last nine years against false attacks from Scotland’s pathologically dishonest Unionist media, but when the party’s behaviour has changed and uncomfortable facts have arisen about multiple aspects of its conduct, we’ve responded to reality and become critical – without ever changing our position on independence, because nothing has happened to justify any change to the fundamentally logical view that countries should elect their own governments.
For doing what we’ve always done – assessing events as rationally as we can – we’ve been met with a torrent of abuse and vitriol easily the equal of anything we’ve endured from Unionists since Wings started in 2011. But there’s a famous quote that’s always been at the absolute heart of what we stand for:
We don’t think there’s ever been a time in either Scottish or British politics when fewer people have held to that philosophy. And we don’t mind telling you, folks, it frightens the living hell out of us.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-14--The SNP Manifesto 2021

The SNP Manifesto 2021

The most tedious question we ever get asked when we criticise the SNP – because we ’ ve explained it a hundred times already and none of the people asking have ever bothered to look – is “ But what would YOU do to secure independence , clever-clogs ?
” We ’ ve outlined that plan in detail repeatedly – you can read it again here if you want .
But maybe we need something a bit simpler for the hard of thinking , so let ’ s have a go .
If we were in charge of the SNP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time of next year ’ s election – which is to say that support for Yes was still in the majority and the UK government was still refusing to grant a second referendum – the text in bold just below this paragraph would be our entire manifesto .
It ’ s nice and short ( barely over 200 words – in fact , amusingly we ’ ve just noticed that it ’ s exactly 1314 characters ) and you could fit it on a postcard .
Indeed , the core of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone , which is one tweet ’ s worth with 71 characters spare for a couple of hashtags and a link .
The rest is just extra detail .
So here it is : We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign , and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval .
Accordingly , if the Scottish National Party should secure more than 50 % of the constituency votes in this election , we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Treaty Of Union , declare Scotland to once more be an independent state , and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1 , Article 1 of the UN Charter , the right of all peoples to self-determination , that self-determination having been expressed by this vote .
Should the UK Government wish , we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum , to be held no later than three months from the date of the election , on the same question as that used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is requested or conducted , the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand .
Upon the secure establishment of independence , a new general election will be called immediately .
With regard to other policies , our current positions on all issues remain unchanged , and all future legislation will be brought before the Parliament , debated and voted on in the normal manner .
And that ’ s it .
You ’ re done .
An absolutely clear , impeccably democratic mandate that the international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
Everyone knows clearly what they ’ re voting for , and you ’ re even offering the UK government a second bite at the democratic cherry as a courtesy .
It requires no permission – parties can stand on whatever manifesto they want in a democracy and put their proposals to the people .
Basing it on the constituency vote alone makes it simpler ( one person , one vote ) , and it also prevents the election being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in unpopular policies that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can vote SNP for independence on the constituency vote , but then vote for whatever party you want on the list vote , because the list vote is the actual intended mechanism for ensuring proportional representation .
It ’ s also very easy to understand and explain – effectively the constituency vote is the referendum and the list vote the election .
If the SNP/Yes failed to get over 50 % of the constituency vote on those terms , we ’ d have a Parliament where they ’ d still almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government ( because they ’ re 30+ points ahead in the polls as it stands ) , so they have nothing to lose .
On current polling they ’ re going to get zero or very close to zero MSPs from the list anyway , so no harm done there .
Pro-indy Labour ( and Lib Dem and Tory ) voters would also have nothing to lose – they could safely vote SNP on the constituency vote for independence and Labour on the list , and be confident of getting the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via the list system , exactly as they did in 2016 .
Women and others uncomfortable with certain current SNP policies could do the same but voting for new list parties , giving them the best possible chance of blocking those policies without sacrificing independence .
And of course , diehard Unionists would simply vote as they ’ re going to anyway – the Unionist party of their preference on the constituency ballot , and Unionist on the list too .
Indeed , it ’ s better for them as they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” voting – any Unionist constituency vote effectively counts as a No .
All of the detail about the prospectus for independence , what currency we ’ d use and whether we ’ d still get Doctor Who , would be a matter for the campaign .
If people were happy with the answers given they ’ d vote Yes ( ie SNP on the constituency ) , and if they weren ’ t happy with the answers given they could vote No .
Of course , there ’ s no guarantee that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such an election just because they had no legitimate democratic grounds not to .
They might try various diplomatic methods to pressure other countries into not recognising the new Scotland , but frankly the UK ’ s international stock and bargaining power is pretty tiny at the moment and we wouldn ’ t fret too much about that .
Or they might send in the tanks , though it ’ d be interesting to see what happened if , say , everyone went out and parked their cars on all the roads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to let them keep Scotland prisoner forever anyway , we don ’ t really have anything to lose there either .
It ’ s hard to understand why this isn ’ t already the SNP ’ s official public position .
There ’ s no reason it should be a secret .
It ’ d certainly have put a lot of people ’ s minds at rest and saved the party an awful lot of discontent and disharmony in the last year or two .
There ’ s no reason to waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 and then , maybe , propose something like this for 2026 , by which time God knows what might have happened and there might not even be a Holyrood to have elections to any more .
If it continues not to be , people will be entitled to ask why .

The most tedious question we ever get asked when we criticise the SNP – because we’ve explained it a hundred times already and none of the people asking have ever bothered to look – is “But what would YOU do to secure independence, clever-clogs?”
We’ve outlined that plan in detail repeatedly – you can read it again here if you want. But maybe we need something a bit simpler for the hard of thinking, so let’s have a go.
If we were in charge of the SNP, and nothing had materially changed by the time of next year’s election – which is to say that support for Yes was still in the majority and the UK government was still refusing to grant a second referendum – the text in bold just below this paragraph would be our entire manifesto.
It’s nice and short (barely over 200 words – in fact, amusingly we’ve just noticed that it’s exactly 1314 characters) and you could fit it on a postcard. Indeed, the core of it is all contained in the first paragraph alone, which is one tweet’s worth with 71 characters spare for a couple of hashtags and a link. The rest is just extra detail. So here it is:
———————————————————————————
We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign, and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval.
Accordingly, if the Scottish National Party should secure more than 50% of the constituency votes in this election, we will consider that a clear mandate to withdraw from the Treaty Of Union, declare Scotland to once more be an independent state, and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of all peoples to self-determination, that self-determination having been expressed by this vote.
Should the UK Government wish, we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum, to be held no later than three months from the date of the election, on the same question as that used in 2014. If no such referendum is requested or conducted, the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand.
Upon the secure establishment of independence, a new general election will be called immediately.
With regard to other policies, our current positions on all issues remain unchanged, and all future legislation will be brought before the Parliament, debated and voted on in the normal manner.
———————————————————————————
(The bit in italics is optional.)
And that’s it. You’re done. An absolutely clear, impeccably democratic mandate that the international community would have no reason to object to. Everyone knows clearly what they’re voting for, and you’re even offering the UK government a second bite at the democratic cherry as a courtesy. It requires no permission – parties can stand on whatever manifesto they want in a democracy and put their proposals to the people.
Basing it on the constituency vote alone makes it simpler (one person, one vote), and it also prevents the election being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in unpopular policies that people don’t want to vote for. You can vote SNP for independence on the constituency vote, but then vote for whatever party you want on the list vote, because the list vote is the actual intended mechanism for ensuring proportional representation.
It’s also very easy to understand and explain – effectively the constituency vote is the referendum and the list vote the election.
(Getting >50% of the constituency vote would not guarantee the SNP a majority on its own, although of course it would make it more likely, but you’re holding a new election as soon as you’re independent so it doesn’t really matter.)
If the SNP/Yes failed to get over 50% of the constituency vote on those terms, we’d have a Parliament where they’d still almost certainly be the biggest party and form the government (because they’re 30+ points ahead in the polls as it stands), so they have nothing to lose. On current polling they’re going to get zero or very close to zero MSPs from the list anyway, so no harm done there.
(And if you’re one of the weirdo 5-10% of SNP voters who don’t want independence, vote for someone else on the constituency and SNP on the list – under the D’Hondt system you should still theoretically end up with the same number of SNP seats so you lose nothing either.)
Pro-indy Labour (and Lib Dem and Tory) voters would also have nothing to lose – they could safely vote SNP on the constituency vote for independence and Labour on the list, and be confident of getting the number of MSPs they’re entitled to via the list system, exactly as they did in 2016.
Women and others uncomfortable with certain current SNP policies could do the same but voting for new list parties, giving them the best possible chance of blocking those policies without sacrificing independence.
And of course, diehard Unionists would simply vote as they’re going to anyway – the Unionist party of their preference on the constituency ballot, and Unionist on the list too. Indeed, it’s better for them as they don’t have to worry about “tactical” voting – any Unionist constituency vote effectively counts as a No.
All of the detail about the prospectus for independence, what currency we’d use and whether we’d still get Doctor Who, would be a matter for the campaign. If people were happy with the answers given they’d vote Yes (ie SNP on the constituency), and if they weren’t happy with the answers given they could vote No.
(If that process was good enough for the Brexit vote then it’s good enough for us. You can never have definitive answers everyone will agree on in advance – that approach was tried with the White Paper and it failed – so there’s no point worrying about it. People will either trust their fellow Scots to make it work like every other nation on Earth does and deal with problems as they arise, or they won’t. That’s the vote.)
Of course, there’s no guarantee that the UK government would accept the result of such an election just because they had no legitimate democratic grounds not to. They might try various diplomatic methods to pressure other countries into not recognising the new Scotland, but frankly the UK’s international stock and bargaining power is pretty tiny at the moment and we wouldn’t fret too much about that.
Or they might send in the tanks, though it’d be interesting to see what happened if, say, everyone went out and parked their cars on all the roads to Faslane. But since the alternative is to let them keep Scotland prisoner forever anyway, we don’t really have anything to lose there either.
It’s hard to understand why this isn’t already the SNP’s official public position. There’s no reason it should be a secret. It’d certainly have put a lot of people’s minds at rest and saved the party an awful lot of discontent and disharmony in the last year or two. There’s no reason to waste five more years begging for a Section 30 and then, maybe, propose something like this for 2026, by which time God knows what might have happened and there might not even be a Holyrood to have elections to any more.
If it continues not to be, people will be entitled to ask why.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-15--The fireworks factory has not exploded

The fireworks factory has not exploded

We ’ ve had another Freedom Of Information response from the Scottish Government .
Here it is .
So it turns out the thing we can all see happening , the thing anyone can click on and observe for themselves , simply isn ’ t happening .
So when the Scottish Government publishes a document containing the phrase “ For clarity , the name of the First Minister ’ s Chief of Staff is Liz Lloyd ” , and yet you can not find that document by searching on its Publications website for the word “ clarity ” , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the name “ Liz Lloyd ” , and even though all of those terms DO work for finding other documents but not for this one , that simply isn ’ t happening .
And even though scores of other documents also fail to show up in search results , and ALL of those documents , by the most astonishing coincidence , happen to concern the inquiry into allegations about Alex Salmond , it simply isn ’ t happening .
You only THINK you can see it .
Click any of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing you thought you saw when you clicked them ?
Didn ’ t happen .
You imagined it .
There is no man behind the curtain .
Please go away .
Please go away .
Oh God , please go away .
We should note that we also raised this matter with the Scottish Information Commissioner , and had received this reply some time earlier : I write with reference to my email below , in response to your concern regarding the Scottish Government ’ s FOI disclosure log .
As set out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made some preliminary inquiries in relation to your concerns .
In response to these initial inquiries , I have been informed by the Scottish Government that , in summary : – No action has been taken to conceal publications from the Scottish Government website search engine .
– The website search engine requires individual search tags to be input as material is uploaded to the system .
– The website search engine uses these search tags to identify and return information in response to searches .
– Normal practice when uploading FOI disclosures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nature of the information requested , rather than the names of individuals involved in any particular case .
The Scottish Government notes that limitations of their website search mean that this differs from the functionality of a search engine such as Google , which allows for text searches of entire documents to be carried out .
The Scottish Government also notes , however , that the documents in question are also retrievable via external search engines using a range of relevant keywords .
In the process of carrying out these inquiries I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FOI request to the Scottish Government in relation to this matter .
This is referenced on your website , while the Scottish Government have also indicated that they are preparing a response to an FOI request on this issue .
With this in mind , I would suggest that the most appropriate route forward from this point would be for you to conclude your current FOI request to the Scottish Government .
If , at the end of this process , you are dissatisfied with the Scottish Government ’ s response for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take this to the Commissioner on appeal .
This would ensure that any inquiries we carry out at this time do not have the effect of prejudicing any future FOI appeal you make to the Commissioner .
In the process of investigating any future appeal , the Commissioner may consider whether it is appropriate to comment on any broader issues relating to the FOI practice of the Scottish Government .
I hope this information is helpful .
Further information on the process of making a formal appeal to the Commissioner is available on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete nonsense , but Mr Mutch is merely the messenger .

We’ve had another Freedom Of Information response from the Scottish Government.
Here it is.
So it turns out the thing we can all see happening, the thing anyone can click on and observe for themselves, simply isn’t happening.
So when the Scottish Government publishes a document containing the phrase “For clarity, the name of the First Minister’s Chief of Staff is Liz Lloyd”, and yet you cannot find that document by searching on its Publications website for the word “clarity”, or the phrase “Chief of Staff”, or the name “Liz Lloyd”, and even though all of those terms DO work for finding other documents but not for this one, that simply isn’t happening.
And even though scores of other documents also fail to show up in search results, and ALL of those documents, by the most astonishing coincidence, happen to concern the inquiry into allegations about Alex Salmond, it simply isn’t happening.
You only THINK you can see it. Click any of those links above, right now. The thing you thought you saw when you clicked them? Didn’t happen. You imagined it. There is no man behind the curtain. Please go away. Please go away. Oh God, please go away.
.
APPENDIX
We should note that we also raised this matter with the Scottish Information Commissioner, and had received this reply some time earlier:
“Dear Rev. Campbell, I write with reference to my email below, in response to your concern regarding the Scottish Government’s FOI disclosure log. As set out in my earlier email, I have made some preliminary inquiries in relation to your concerns. In response to these initial inquiries, I have been informed by the Scottish Government that, in summary: – No action has been taken to conceal publications from the Scottish Government website search engine. – The website search engine requires individual search tags to be input as material is uploaded to the system. – The website search engine uses these search tags to identify and return information in response to searches. – Normal practice when uploading FOI disclosures is for search tags to refer to the nature of the information requested, rather than the names of individuals involved in any particular case. The Scottish Government notes that limitations of their website search mean that this differs from the functionality of a search engine such as Google, which allows for text searches of entire documents to be carried out. The Scottish Government also notes, however, that the documents in question are also retrievable via external search engines using a range of relevant keywords. In the process of carrying out these inquiries I note that you have separately made an FOI request to the Scottish Government in relation to this matter. This is referenced on your website, while the Scottish Government have also indicated that they are preparing a response to an FOI request on this issue. With this in mind, I would suggest that the most appropriate route forward from this point would be for you to conclude your current FOI request to the Scottish Government. If, at the end of this process, you are dissatisfied with the Scottish Government’s response for any reason, you would be able to take this to the Commissioner on appeal. This would ensure that any inquiries we carry out at this time do not have the effect of prejudicing any future FOI appeal you make to the Commissioner. In the process of investigating any future appeal, the Commissioner may consider whether it is appropriate to comment on any broader issues relating to the FOI practice of the Scottish Government. I hope this information is helpful. Further information on the process of making a formal appeal to the Commissioner is available on our website. Regards, Paul Mutch”
It’s clearly complete nonsense, but Mr Mutch is merely the messenger.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-17--The Liberty Of Wallace

The Liberty Of Wallace

At the climax of a popular and multiple-Oscar-winning movie from 1995 , the Scottish leader William Wallace is portrayed heroically roaring the word “ FREEDOM !
” Unfortunately , at the time he ’ s bound by ropes to a wooden table , having been hanged until half-dead and then had his intestines torn out with a knife shortly before someone lops his head off with an axe , cuts his body into several parts and displays them on spikes all around Scotland as a warning to anyone who might seek its independence .
It ’ s in this sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Scottish Government has interpreted the word “ freedom ” in the phrase “ freedom of information ” .
Because in relation to information about its investigation of false allegations of sexual harassment against the former First Minister Alex Salmond , the Scottish Government seems determined to keep the truth tied to a table and torture it until it ’ s dead too .
Scottish Government denies hiding documents about the investigation from the search function on its Freedom Of Information website , despite being provided with a list of 16 such documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those same searches work for documents about anything else .
Scottish Government denies holding any information about a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018 , despite already having published official documents confirming that the meeting took place .
The First Minister had previously claimed on 4 August 2020 that she “ had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in , I think , late January/early February 2019 “ .
Scottish Government refuses to provide information regarding supposed civil service policy relating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government refuses to provide details of its legal advice regarding the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government denies knowing anything about a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018 .
( Like all the other denials prior to 8 October , this document CAN NOT be found on the Scottish Government ’ s FOI page by searching for the word “ Aberdein ” . )
Scottish Government publishes First Minister ’ s diary for 29 March 2018 , containing no mention of meeting with Geoff Aberdein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diary page for her chief of staff , Liz Lloyd , on the same date .
Scottish Government flatly refuses to answer 12 questions concerning meetings between Nicola Sturgeon , Alex Salmond and Geoff Aberdein , who arranged them , who was present and what was discussed .
In most of the 12 cases it does not even provide a reason for the refusal .
Scottish Government refuses to answer several questions relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond , in particular concerning the Permanent Secretary , Leslie Evans .
Scottish Government refuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation into the leak to the Daily Record in August 2018 of confidential information relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details regarding its legal advice about the judicial inquiry brought by Mr Salmond in respect of the allegations , or about the contractual arrangements of Leslie Evans .
Scottish Government refuses to disclose information relating to its legal advice in connection with the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between the First Minister and Liz Lloyd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subject of the allegations against Alex Salmond , citing cost reasons .
It also refuses to detail the costs to the Scottish taxpayer of the judicial inquiry raised and won by Mr Salmond , and numerous other requested pieces of information .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its internal legal costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of any communications between Liz Lloyd ( or other Scottish Government staff ) and the Daily Record newspaper in August 2018 , when the Record broke the story of allegations against Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses 31 of 32 requests for details of the Liz Lloyd ’ s diary , on various dates between January and August 2018 .
No reason is given for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the 32nd request is which newspapers Lloyd claimed expenses for on 2 April 2018 .
In response to a request for details of the First Minister ’ s diary on 2 April 2018 , Scottish Government again provides a completely blank sheet of paper .
It also declines to provide information for several other dates .
Scottish Government publishes Liz Lloyd ’ s diaries for five dates in April , June and July 2018 .
The entry for 2 April does NOT include mention of any meetings with the First Minister , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is despite the First Minister subsequently telling Parliament that she had held a meeting at her private Glasgow home with all three of them on this date , from which her husband , the SNP ’ s chief executive Peter Murrell , had been excluded because it was government rather than party business .
Scottish Government refuses to answer questions regarding the conduct of the initial investigation into allegations against Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to answer any of six questions relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond , or even to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government refuses to provide information relating to possible complaints about the conduct of Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of any communications between the First Minister and a special adviser relating to allegations against Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between the First Minister , Leslie Evans and Peter Murrell relating to allegations against Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding information regarding communications between government officials and civil servants relating to allegations against Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond on any subject in 2018 .
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister , Leslie Evans and Alex Salmond on any subject in 2018 .
Scottish Government refuses to answer eight questions relating to communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond in relation to allegations against him .
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Minister , Peter Murrell , Alex Salmond and any other Scottish Government ministers or staff relating to the allegations against Mr Salmond .
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond regarding allegations against him in 2018 .
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding the outcome of any discussions between the First Minister and Alex Salmond regarding allegations against him in 2018 .
Scottish Government denies Nicola Sturgeon knew anything about the allegations against Alex Salmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
When his head is detached , incidentally , Wallace finally releases his grasp on the blood-soaked document he ’ d been clutching tightly in his fist .
We make this observation without comment .

At the climax of a popular and multiple-Oscar-winning movie from 1995, the Scottish leader William Wallace is portrayed heroically roaring the word “FREEDOM!”
Unfortunately, at the time he’s bound by ropes to a wooden table, having been hanged until half-dead and then had his intestines torn out with a knife shortly before someone lops his head off with an axe, cuts his body into several parts and displays them on spikes all around Scotland as a warning to anyone who might seek its independence.
It’s in this sense that we’re forced to assume the Scottish Government has interpreted the word “freedom” in the phrase “freedom of information”.
Because in relation to information about its investigation of false allegations of sexual harassment against the former First Minister Alex Salmond, the Scottish Government seems determined to keep the truth tied to a table and torture it until it’s dead too.
Let’s have a recap.
————————————————————————————
8 OCTOBER 2020
Scottish Government denies hiding documents about the investigation from the search function on its Freedom Of Information website, despite being provided with a list of 16 such documents which evade all text searches, when those same searches work for documents about anything else.
8 OCTOBER 2020
Scottish Government denies holding any information about a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018, despite already having published official documents confirming that the meeting took place.
The First Minister had previously claimed on 4 August 2020 that she “had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019“.
16 SEPTEMBER 2020
Scottish Government refuses to provide information regarding supposed civil service policy relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.
16 SEPTEMBER 2020
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its legal advice regarding the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.
31 JULY 2020
Scottish Government denies knowing anything about a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018. (Like all the other denials prior to 8 October, this document CANNOT be found on the Scottish Government’s FOI page by searching for the word “Aberdein”.)
30 JUNE 2020
Scottish Government publishes First Minister’s diary for 29 March 2018, containing no mention of meeting with Geoff Aberdein. It also publishes a completely blank diary page for her chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, on the same date.
19 JUNE 2020
Scottish Government flatly refuses to answer 12 questions concerning meetings between Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond and Geoff Aberdein, who arranged them, who was present and what was discussed. In most of the 12 cases it does not even provide a reason for the refusal.
4 JUNE 2020
Scottish Government refuses to answer several questions relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond, in particular concerning the Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans.
(Evans, curiously, also has a habit of “forgetting” meetings attended relating to the allegations against Mr Salmond, this time involving Liz Lloyd.)
16 DECEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to say whether it has assisted any investigation into the leak to the Daily Record in August 2018 of confidential information relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond.
26 NOVEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to provide details regarding its legal advice about the judicial inquiry brought by Mr Salmond in respect of the allegations, or about the contractual arrangements of Leslie Evans.
25 SEPTEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to disclose information relating to its legal advice in connection with the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.
13 SEPTEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between the First Minister and Liz Lloyd, between August 2018 and January 2019 on the subject of the allegations against Alex Salmond, citing cost reasons.
It also refuses to detail the costs to the Scottish taxpayer of the judicial inquiry raised and won by Mr Salmond, and numerous other requested pieces of information.
13 SEPTEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.
10 SEPTEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.
10 SEPTEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its internal legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.
10 SEPTEMBER 2019
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.
23 MAY 2019
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of any communications between Liz Lloyd (or other Scottish Government staff) and the Daily Record newspaper in August 2018, when the Record broke the story of allegations against Alex Salmond.
13 FEBRUARY 2019
Scottish Government refuses 31 of 32 requests for details of Liz Lloyd’s diary, on various dates between January and August 2018. No reason is given for the refusal. The only information disclosed from the 32nd request is which newspapers Lloyd claimed expenses for on 2 April 2018.
13 FEBRUARY 2019
In response to a request for details of the First Minister’s diary on 2 April 2018, Scottish Government again provides a completely blank sheet of paper.
It also declines to provide information for several other dates.
8 FEBRUARY 2019
Scottish Government publishes Liz Lloyd’s diaries for five dates in April, June and July 2018. The entry for 2 April does NOT include mention of any meetings with the First Minister, Alex Salmond or Geoff Aberdein.
This is despite the First Minister subsequently telling Parliament that she had held a meeting at her private Glasgow home with all three of them on this date, from which her husband, the SNP’s chief executive Peter Murrell, had been excluded because it was government rather than party business.
7 FEBRUARY 2019
Scottish Government refuses to answer questions regarding the conduct of the initial investigation into allegations against Alex Salmond.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to answer any of six questions relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond, or even to confirm or deny holding information.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to provide information relating to possible complaints about the conduct of Alex Salmond.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of any communications between the First Minister and a special adviser relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between the First Minister, Leslie Evans and Peter Murrell relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding information regarding communications between government officials and civil servants relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between ministers and staff relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond on any subject in 2018.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister, Leslie Evans and Alex Salmond on any subject in 2018.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to answer eight questions relating to communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond in relation to allegations against him.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister, Peter Murrell, Alex Salmond and any other Scottish Government ministers or staff relating to the allegations against Mr Salmond.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond regarding allegations against him in 2018.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding the outcome of any discussions between the First Minister and Alex Salmond regarding allegations against him in 2018.
20 SEPTEMBER 2018
Scottish Government denies Nicola Sturgeon knew anything about the allegations against Alex Salmond before April 2018. (Also here.)
————————————————————————————
When his head is detached, incidentally, Wallace finally releases his grasp on the blood-soaked document he’d been clutching tightly in his fist.
We make this observation without comment.


His cotton socks

Holiday Boy is off for the next fortnight , readers , but there ’ s no way he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ funnier than this anyway .
We ’ re not sure he ’ s got the @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll add that one to the list .

Holiday Boy is off for the next fortnight, readers, but there’s no way he’d have come up with anything funnier than this anyway.
We’re not sure he’s got the name right. But we’ll add that one to the list.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-18--Waiting For The Men

Waiting For The Men

The battle to save the soul of the SNP – formerly a party of Scottish independence but now a career vehicle for intolerant science-denying cultists solely interested in social engineering – is already almost lost .
By delaying its online pretend “ conference ” until the end of November , the party has ensured that the chronically dysfunctional current National Executive Committee ( NEC ) controls the selection of candidates for next year ’ s election , and it ’ s using that power every bit as crookedly as anyone who ’ s been paying attention recently might fear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest victim of the SNP ’ s woke cabal is Caroline McAllister , a woman who the party considers quite fit to be a councillor – and indeed the Deputy Leader of its group on West Dunbartonshire council – but who has suddenly somehow become unacceptable when she tried to seek nomination for the MSP seat currently held by Jackie Baillie of Scottish Labour .
She is , of course , far from alone .
Party insiders like the former Trade And Industry spokesman Iain Lawson have been shining light on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , whereby people who want to be candidates themselves astonishingly have the power to block potential rivals and where “ woke ” candidates are receiving extremely preferential treatment , but the fait accompli is almost complete – by the time the party belatedly elects a new NEC in six weeks , candidates will be in place and it ’ ll be too late to change anything .
And of course , what ’ s revealing is who HAS been passed to stand for nomination as well as who hasn ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The person in the picture above with Nicola Sturgeon is both biologically and legally male – he has no Gender Recognition Certificate .
His name is Mridul Wadhwa ( Mridul is a male name in India , where he ’ s from ) and he ’ s the manager of Forth Valley Rape Crisis , a job he obtained by concealing the fact that he was a man – something he appeared to enjoy bragging about before suddenly deleting his tweets on the subject .
In this 2019 video , which hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes very clear that his deception was deliberate and premeditated , saying “ It was pretty clear to me that I was the only transwoman in the women ’ s aid movement [ laughs ] , and I wasn ’ t even sure whether I would have been hired if they had known that I was trans ” .
It ’ s even odder given Wadhwa ’ s own stated views on whether males should hold such positions , such as this astounding quote he gave to a student newspaper last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-ID of the sort he ’ s adopted for himself would ever be abused , despite the literally hundreds and hundreds of documented examples of it being abused by men in order to gain access to women and assault them .
Now , you might be forgiven for thinking that a man getting a job in a rape crisis centre by pretending to be a woman was behaviour that would set off every alarm and red flag on the face of the planet , but it doesn ’ t seem to bother the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in TWO seats – Edinburgh Central ( ironically the seat Joanna Cherry was effectively barred from contesting , and whose nomination will surely go to either Angus Robertson or Marco Biagi ) and more pertinently Stirling , the centre of the party ’ s woke faction .
Seven people are understood to be in the running for the Stirling nomination ( including , we note without comment , NEC member Ellen Forson , who would have had a vote on whether Wadhwa passed vetting ) , and there ’ s no obvious high-profile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to predict .
Given the electorate , it ’ s entirely possible that Wadhwa could secure the nomination .
This is despite the fact that because a male incumbent is standing down , under SNP policy Stirling is meant to be a woman-only shortlist .
The other six contenders , unlike Wadhwa , are all female .
We gather that a complaint has been filed through solicitors , but experience shows that the SNP ’ s rules are only ever applied to the non-woke .
So experienced , talented and principled female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are out , while dodgy blokes with an unexplained desire to deceive their way in plain view into the presence of the most vulnerable women in the country get waved through and invited to shape Scotland ’ s legislation for the next five years .
The only remaining obstacle to the woke coup is the party membership , who ultimately get to decide who they choose to stand as their candidates .
It ’ s the only part of the process that the leadership and the NEC don ’ t completely control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they know what they ’ re doing and who they ’ re being asked to hand control of the movement to for the next five years .
Meghan Murphy ( Canadian feminist silenced by Twitter , also here ) 4th Wave Now ( US parents group silenced by Twitter ) Things that only happen to biological women Statistics on the advantages held by biological males in women ’ s sports The huge financial interests behind transgenderism The alarming culture of misogyny at social-media and tech firms Two collections of violent threats from TRAs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to gain malign access to women and children

The battle to save the soul of the SNP – formerly a party of Scottish independence but now a career vehicle for intolerant science-denying cultists solely interested in social engineering – is already almost lost.
By delaying its online pretend “conference” until the end of November, the party has ensured that the chronically dysfunctional current National Executive Committee (NEC) controls the selection of candidates for next year’s election, and it’s using that power every bit as crookedly as anyone who’s been paying attention recently might fear.
Following the stitch-up of Joanna Cherry, the latest victim of the SNP’s woke cabal is Caroline McAllister, a woman who the party considers quite fit to be a councillor – and indeed the Deputy Leader of its group on West Dunbartonshire council – but who has suddenly somehow become unacceptable when she tried to seek nomination for the MSP seat currently held by Jackie Baillie of Scottish Labour.
She is, of course, far from alone.
Party insiders like the former Trade And Industry spokesman Iain Lawson have been shining light on the arcane and opaque processes of “vetting”, whereby people who want to be candidates themselves astonishingly have the power to block potential rivals and where “woke” candidates are receiving extremely preferential treatment, but the fait accompli is almost complete – by the time the party belatedly elects a new NEC in six weeks, candidates will be in place and it’ll be too late to change anything.
And of course, what’s revealing is who HAS been passed to stand for nomination as well as who hasn’t. Readers, meet a man called Mridul.
The person in the picture above with Nicola Sturgeon is both biologically and legally male – he has no Gender Recognition Certificate. His name is Mridul Wadhwa (Mridul is a male name in India, where he’s from) and he’s the manager of Forth Valley Rape Crisis, a job he obtained by concealing the fact that he was a man – something he appeared to enjoy bragging about before suddenly deleting his tweets on the subject.
The person posing the questions in that exchange has of course subsequently been banned from Twitter, as gender-critical feminists who pose awkward questions for trans activists invariably are. Incidentally, Wadhwa’s “14 years” claim above appears to be a blatant lie – according to his own LinkedIn page he’s only worked in Rape Crisis since 2014, which is six years, and at Forth Valley for two.
He’s also lying when he says that “no one asked”. The application form for the job can still be found on the organisation’s website and it clearly asks if the applicant considers themselves to be a trans person.
In addition, the ad for the job clearly stated it was for women only:
(Schedule 9, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 is the section which specifically allows employers to limit applicants to those of a particular biological sex, even if they’ve undergone legal gender reassignment, which Wadhwa has not.)
In this 2019 video, which hasn’t been deleted yet, Wadhwa makes it very plain that his deception was deliberate and premeditated, saying “It was pretty clear to me that I was the only transwoman in the women’s aid movement [laughs], and I wasn’t even sure whether I would have been hired if they had known that I was trans”.
(Which from the advert we know he wouldn’t. They wanted a woman, not a drag act.)
It’s even odder given Wadhwa’s own stated views on whether males should hold such positions, such as this astounding quote he gave to a student newspaper last year.
Wadhwa also doesn’t believe that self-ID of the sort he’s adopted for himself would ever be abused, despite the literally hundreds and hundreds of documented examples of it being abused by men in order to gain access to women and assault them.
Now, you might be forgiven for thinking that a man getting a job in a rape crisis centre by pretending to be a woman was behaviour that would set off every alarm and red flag on the face of the planet, but it doesn’t seem to bother the SNP.
(Although persistent but unverified rumours abound within the party rank-and-file that Wadhwa was just a step too far even for the NEC and he actually DID fail vetting, only for the decision to be overruled by a senior Cabinet minister whose name we won’t reveal as the story is unconfirmed. But if it’s true – and our sources are good ones – it would be perhaps the most revealing thing of all about the SNP’s current direction.)
Wadhwa has in fact been approved to stand for nomination in TWO seats – Edinburgh Central (ironically the seat Joanna Cherry was effectively barred from contesting, and whose nomination will surely go to either Angus Robertson or Marco Biagi) and more pertinently Stirling, the centre of the party’s woke faction.
Seven people are understood to be in the running for the Stirling nomination (including, we note without comment, NEC member Ellen Forson, who would have had a vote on whether Wadhwa passed vetting), and there’s no obvious high-profile front runner, so the outcome is hard to predict. Given the electorate, it’s entirely possible that Wadhwa could secure the nomination.
This is despite the fact that because a male incumbent is standing down, under SNP policy Stirling is meant to be a woman-only shortlist. The other six contenders, unlike Wadhwa, are all female.
We gather that a complaint has been filed through solicitors, but experience shows that the SNP’s rules are only ever applied to the non-woke. So experienced, talented and principled female candidates like Joanna Cherry and Caroline McAllister are out, while dodgy blokes with an unexplained desire to deceive their way in plain view into the presence of the most vulnerable women in the country get waved through and invited to shape Scotland’s legislation for the next five years.
The only remaining obstacle to the woke coup is the party membership, who ultimately get to decide who they choose to stand as their candidates. It’s the only part of the process that the leadership and the NEC don’t completely control.
Anyone who wants independence can only hope they know what they’re doing and who they’re being asked to hand control of the movement to for the next five years.
.
[EDIT 4 November 2020: Wadhwa has just been appointed as Women’s Officer for the SNP’s Fountainbridge and Craiglockhart branch in Edinburgh. We don’t know if there were any other candidates for the post.]
.
OTHER RESOURCES
Peak Trans
ForWomen.scot
Women And Girls In Scotland
Women Are Human
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
Serious violent and sexual male criminals who claim to be women
The War On Women
Pronouns Are Rohypnol
List of gender-critical feminists suspended by Twitter
Who are the TERFs?
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
The alarming culture of misogyny at social-media and tech firms
Two collections of violent threats from TRAs to women
A representative random selection of TRA quotes
Things men have pretended to be to gain malign access to women and children


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-19--The seizure of the means

The seizure of the means

If there ’ s still anyone left reading this site who doubts that the SNP National Executive Committee is currently engaged in a coup against the membership of the party , meant to be a fait accompli by the time the NEC is up for re-election at the end of November , we ’ d urge you to read the extremely disturbing letter below from the Convener of the party ’ s Constituency Association ( CA ) in Dumbarton , which he ’ s attempting to circulate to local members against obstruction from the NEC ( pictured ) , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from party HQ to stop the CA speaking to its members .
It ’ s long , so we ’ ve highlighted a couple of passages of particular interest .
You may have received a communication from the National Secretary advising that the hustings organised by the CA will not now take place .
The National Executive of the Party has insisted that it will arrange a hustings .
The CA executive has been in constant discussion since Friday 16th October 2020 and met by Zoom this afternoon to respond to an email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an employee of the Party , a Mr Chris Jones .
Following a further exchange of emails late this afternoon we were informed by Mr Jones acting on behalf of the National Secretary that our ‘ event ’ as he referred to it , must not go ahead .
I am instructed by the CA Executive to explain this matter to you .
When the National Executive Committee ( NEC ) issued its Candidate Vetting and Selection Rules ( which can be read on mysnp.org ) the Constituency Associations were excluded from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hustings .
Every other aspect of the selection process was handled by the NEC unlike in previous elections .
The CA organiser/ secretary emailed online members an invitation to a Zoom hustings for 19th October .
You were invited to submit questions beforehand to raise with the candidates .
We also indicated that we hoped to record the meeting so that those who couldn ’ t attend would be able to view the hustings in order to assess the nominees before voting .
Following that invitation it was a matter of some concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our members ( who are not online ) would not be part of the hustings or have access to a recording of it .
It occurred to us that there would be insufficient time for each nominee to adequately answer the questions put to them as by that point we had received a large number of questions .
To ensure the widest distribution of ( A ) all seven presentations and ( B ) answers to members ’ questions , the CA executive explored the possibility of an exclusive Question and Answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seven nominees .
All of these sessions would be recorded UNEDITED and made available online to all the members with online access ( around 950 ) .
This recording could be viewed immediately after the last session on 19th October 2020 .
Sadly as the NEC has made no provision for those members without online access , your CA executive had made arrangements to transcribe each session into a written format and post copies to all our non-online members .
Until we had put in place the recording and transcription we couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed changes .
In the meantime the sixty members who have indicated as of today a wish to be part of the hustings have received an acknowledgement from me .
On Thursday , when we were confident that our proposal for seven interviews , unedited recording and transcription could proceed I was authorised by the CA executive to email all nominees with our proposal .
None of the nominees offered any objection to us .
On Friday afternoon I had a telephone call with Mr Chris Jones who advised me that we could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in his opinion it wasn ’ t a hustings and we had to adhere to the guidance set forth by the NEC .
I interrogated Mr Jones at some length .
( A ) why the National vetting and selection process was generally viewed as “ a shambles ” ?
( B ) what was his authority for his claim that NEC guidance was obligatory ?
( C ) was he not aware that the dictionary definition of hustings includes campaign meetings involving one or more speeches ?
I ( D ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without online access with such disdain when the NEC had a means to include them ?
Furthermore I asked him who were the complainants were .
At first , he said members but strangely later in the conversation he admitted it wasn ’ t members but candidates .
I asked which candidates , but he refused to name them .
He said that the event had to be live so that the members could see the nominees ’ answer in real time but failed to appreciate that as the seven sessions were being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to consider each nominees ’ answers and would also be able to ask each nominee to clarify any point through the personal email and telephone number of each nominee which some nominees have already published .
He then volunteered that there were a few known ‘ hotheads ’ ( his words ) in our local membership who might concentrate their attack on one or two nominees over a certain issue which is currently the cause of heated debate within the Party and beyond .
He insisted that a strong neutral chair was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entitled to have opinions and to challenge the nominees on any issue which could impact on their selection of a candidate .
I also commented that if a nominee had to be protected from the scrutiny of party members it did not augur well for his or her prospects as our candidate in the cut and thrust of the election .
I explained to him that the CA executive has had to change its proposed hustings three times to accommodate the changes which the NEC had made to the vetting and selection process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Q and A sessions with each nominee , would give them the opportunity to make their responses without interruption in order that all members could witness the nominees ’ arguments .
Indeed the CA executive ’ s proposals ensured one topic , however important , would not dominate each interview .
As the interviewer I had made it clear that I HAVE NOT AND WOULD NOT voice any personal preference for any nominee .
I have already undertaken to abstain from voting in the selection process to ensure complete impartiality .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the conversation was causing some amusement in the SNP HQ office .
Members can draw their own conclusion as to whether this was an appropriate matter to be the subject of some amusement amongst SNP employees who are paid through members ’ subscriptions when the highly important selection contest for our constituency in the forthcoming Independence Election was being discussed .
Sadly Mr Jones threatened to request the National Secretary to arrange a hustings if the CA executive did not change to the one which Mr Jones indicated was required by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d seek the views of the CA executive and revert to him .
I immediately contacted the CA executive and over the weekend there has been much discussion and outrage at the attempt by the NEC to interfere with our practical proposals to offer all our members an opportunity to engage in the democratic process .
I have still not received any complaint or adverse comment from any of the nominees to our proposal .
Late this afternoon I was instructed by the CA executive to advise Mr Jones that the CA would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the selection process and change the format .
This I did .
I then received a response from Mr Jones , on behalf of the National Secretary , NOT to proceed with the hustings tomorrow evening and that the NEC would arrange its own hustings under what he termed a ’ neutral ’ chair .
I regret any inconvenience to members and the nominees as we all wish to ensure a fair and informed choice when selecting our candidate .
However the CA executive is firmly and unanimously of the view that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We strongly urge all members to register for the NEC hustings and submit robust questioning on the topics which matter to you .
As you know the AGM of the CA which was delayed as a result of the Covid 19 crisis , is taking place shortly .
If delegates disagree with the actions of the CA executive they are free to vote for others to replace them .
Equally National Conference at the end of November will give all branch and CA delegates the opportunity to register their satisfaction or otherwise with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use your vote to maintain the democratic rights of all members .

If there’s still anyone left reading this site who doubts that the SNP National Executive Committee is currently engaged in a coup against the membership of the party, meant to be a fait accompli by the time the NEC is up for re-election at the end of November, we’d urge you to read the extremely disturbing letter below from the Convener of the party’s Constituency Association (CA) in Dumbarton, which he’s attempting to circulate to local members against obstruction from the NEC (pictured), who have shut down the branch mailer system from party HQ to stop the CA speaking to its members.
(We first saw it on Iain Lawson’s excellent blog, and are carrying out the request for it to be as widely distributed as possible.)
It’s long, so we’ve highlighted a couple of passages of particular interest.
“Dear Member
You may have received a communication from the National Secretary advising that the hustings organised by the CA will not now take place.
The National Executive of the Party has insisted that it will arrange a hustings.
The CA executive has been in constant discussion since Friday 16th October 2020 and met by Zoom this afternoon to respond to an email which I received late this morning from an employee of the Party, a Mr Chris Jones.
Following a further exchange of emails late this afternoon we were informed by Mr Jones acting on behalf of the National Secretary that our ‘event’ as he referred to it, must not go ahead.
I am instructed by the CA Executive to explain this matter to you.
When the National Executive Committee (NEC) issued its Candidate Vetting and Selection Rules (which can be read on mysnp.org) the Constituency Associations were excluded from the process except for the arranging of a hustings. Every other aspect of the selection process was handled by the NEC unlike in previous elections.
The CA organiser/ secretary emailed online members an invitation to a Zoom hustings for 19th October. You were invited to submit questions beforehand to raise with the candidates. We also indicated that we hoped to record the meeting so that those who couldn’t attend would be able to view the hustings in order to assess the nominees before voting.
Following that invitation it was a matter of some concern to the CA executive that around 140 of our members (who are not online) would not be part of the hustings or have access to a recording of it. It occurred to us that there would be insufficient time for each nominee to adequately answer the questions put to them as by that point we had received a large number of questions.
To ensure the widest distribution of (A) all seven presentations and (B) answers to members’ questions, the CA executive explored the possibility of an exclusive Question and Answer session of 15 minutes with each of the seven nominees. All of these sessions would be recorded UNEDITED and made available online to all the members with online access (around 950).
This recording could be viewed immediately after the last session on 19th October 2020. Sadly as the NEC has made no provision for those members without online access, your CA executive had made arrangements to transcribe each session into a written format and post copies to all our non-online members.
Until we had put in place the recording and transcription we couldn’t advise the membership of the proposed changes. In the meantime the sixty members who have indicated as of today a wish to be part of the hustings have received an acknowledgement from me.
On Thursday, when we were confident that our proposal for seven interviews, unedited recording and transcription could proceed I was authorised by the CA executive to email all nominees with our proposal. None of the nominees offered any objection to us.
On Friday afternoon I had a telephone call with Mr Chris Jones who advised me that we could not hold the hustings as he said that in his opinion it wasn’t a hustings and we had to adhere to the guidance set forth by the NEC.
I interrogated Mr Jones at some length. (A) why the National vetting and selection process was generally viewed as “a shambles” ? (B) what was his authority for his claim that NEC guidance was obligatory? (C) was he not aware that the dictionary definition of hustings includes campaign meetings involving one or more speeches? I(D) why was the NEC treating the members without online access with such disdain when the NEC had a means to include them?
Furthermore I asked him who were the complainants were. At first, he said members but strangely later in the conversation he admitted it wasn’t members but candidates. I asked which candidates, but he refused to name them. He said that the event had to be live so that the members could see the nominees’ answer in real time but failed to appreciate that as the seven sessions were being recorded our members would have even more opportunity to consider each nominees’ answers and would also be able to ask each nominee to clarify any point through the personal email and telephone number of each nominee which some nominees have already published.
He then volunteered that there were a few known ‘hotheads’ (his words) in our local membership who might concentrate their attack on one or two nominees over a certain issue which is currently the cause of heated debate within the Party and beyond. He insisted that a strong neutral chair was required.
I replied that members were entitled to have opinions and to challenge the nominees on any issue which could impact on their selection of a candidate. I also commented that if a nominee had to be protected from the scrutiny of party members it did not augur well for his or her prospects as our candidate in the cut and thrust of the election .
I explained to him that the CA executive has had to change its proposed hustings three times to accommodate the changes which the NEC had made to the vetting and selection process, and that our proposal for individual Q and A sessions with each nominee, would give them the opportunity to make their responses without interruption in order that all members could witness the nominees’ arguments. Indeed the CA executive’s proposals ensured one topic, however important, would not dominate each interview. As the interviewer I had made it clear that I HAVE NOT AND WOULD NOT voice any personal preference for any nominee. I have already undertaken to abstain from voting in the selection process to ensure complete impartiality.
In the course of the conversation Mr Jones volunteered that the conversation was causing some amusement in the SNP HQ office. Members can draw their own conclusion as to whether this was an appropriate matter to be the subject of some amusement amongst SNP employees who are paid through members’ subscriptions when the highly important selection contest for our constituency in the forthcoming Independence Election was being discussed.
Sadly Mr Jones threatened to request the National Secretary to arrange a hustings if the CA executive did not change to the one which Mr Jones indicated was required by the NEC.
I indicated that I’d seek the views of the CA executive and revert to him.
I immediately contacted the CA executive and over the weekend there has been much discussion and outrage at the attempt by the NEC to interfere with our practical proposals to offer all our members an opportunity to engage in the democratic process. I have still not received any complaint or adverse comment from any of the nominees to our proposal.
Late this afternoon I was instructed by the CA executive to advise Mr Jones that the CA would not deny our members the widest involvement in the selection process and change the format. This I did.
I then received a response from Mr Jones, on behalf of the National Secretary, NOT to proceed with the hustings tomorrow evening and that the NEC would arrange its own hustings under what he termed a ’neutral’ chair.
I regret any inconvenience to members and the nominees as we all wish to ensure a fair and informed choice when selecting our candidate. However the CA executive is firmly and unanimously of the view that manipulation of the process is afoot. We strongly urge all members to register for the NEC hustings and submit robust questioning on the topics which matter to you.
As you know the AGM of the CA which was delayed as a result of the Covid 19 crisis, is taking place shortly . If delegates disagree with the actions of the CA executive they are free to vote for others to replace them.
Equally National Conference at the end of November will give all branch and CA delegates the opportunity to register their satisfaction or otherwise with the membership of the NEC. Please use your vote to maintain the democratic rights of all members.
Yours for Scotland
Graeme McCormick
Convener”