wingsoverscotland--2020-05-20--In the hands of others

In the hands of others

On the 1st of January , Chinese authorities took the decision to close the Wuhan food market .
The following day , 41 admitted hospital patients in Wuhan , were confirmed to have contracted 2019-nCoV ( novel coronavirus ) which we now know as COVID-19 .
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued a New Year message , from the private island of Mustique in the Caribbean , that the “ first item ” on his agenda remained his commitment to take Britain out of the EU by the end of January .
Within weeks the virus had spread across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany , Australia , the USA and of course the UK .
It was on the radar of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control who in their first risk assessment on the epidemic cautioned about the direct flights from Wuhan into the EU .
Destinations included Rome , as well as London ’ s Gatwick and Heathrow airports .
With the UK Governments gaze firmly fixed on Brexit , Westminster Health Secretary Matt Hancock had no issue with Public Health England ’ s advice being that the risk to the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even given the clear threat to travellers to and from Wuhan .
Despite the upcoming Chinese New Year , they suggested to travellers there was no need to change plans .
In an extraordinary display of insularity and folly they moved the the threat from “ very low ” to “ low ” on the 22nd of January .
In contrast one week later the World Health Organisation declared the virus a Public Health Emergency of International Concern .
The UK Government were criminally complacent about a virus which has , a mere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35,000 citizens across the UK -a figure which most experts agree is a very substantial underestimate – the true figure is likely almost double – and now the highest death rate in Europe .
When the alarm bells should have been sounding at the heart of government , the attention of the UK administration was focussed on making Big Ben bong again to celebrate Brexit day .
However , at any point up until perhaps early March it would still have been possible to impede the virus ’ s deadly spread , provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and isolate and treat cases were taken , along with social distancing measures commensurate with the risk .
In March the World Health Organisation rammed home its message of “ test , test test ” .
It was to be many more weeks before the above measures would be implemented .
As we watched news reports from around the world , and a disaster unfolded in northern Italy , in Scotland and across the UK children continued to go to school as normal , people socialised and spoke of the virus as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part due to the idiotic attitude of a UK Government from which the best advice was to wash hands whilst singing the national anthem .
In fact on the day that parts of northern Italy were locked down , thousands of Scots were in Rome watching a Six Nations match before then returning home to communities across the country .
In mid-March more than 250,000 people travelled to attend the Cheltenham festival , and a number of these racegoers are now dead .
In the absence of official guidance , many still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the most vulnerable groups .
In Edinburgh , just a week after confirmation that an outbreak had emerged from a Nike conference , 67,000 fans from across the country packed into Murrayfield to watch another rugby match , and of course there was the infamous claim that you weren ’ t at risk of catching the virus crammed into an arena with thousands of other people to see Lewis Capaldi or Stereophonics .
At the very moment Boris Johnson was spouting theories about herd immunity on TV , and glib inanities about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , people were being fatally infected by the silent killer .
Indeed he himself was being infected at the time .
Thankfully he has survived to tell the tale .
Many thousands have not been so fortunate .
If the advice of the World Health Organisation had been implemented , it is likely that the UK now would be in at least as favourable a position as Germany , which has one fifth of our death rate .
That means that tens of thousands of people are now dead who would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their high office .
Those countries who acted even more urgently – New Zealand , Taiwan , Iceland – have a mere fraction , proportionately , of the relatively low German casualties .
Even Sweden , which hasn ’ t locked down at all , has had far fewer deaths per capita than the UK – around one person in every 2700 ( almost all of them over-70s living in care homes ) , compared to the UK ’ s one in 1900 .
The UK Government often wish to conjure up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a war , but another of their often used bellicisms is that the first duty of Government is to protect its citizens – on this front they have grossly failed .
In Scotland health is devolved , and most of the measures adopted by more successful countries could and should have been implemented much earlier .
Nicola Sturgeon is being rightly lauded for her communication skills , but Scottish public health policy has been only marginally better than that prevailing south of the border .
There is little excuse for Scotland only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to test and isolate , and there is no excuse for allowing our care home sector to become the unprepared and unprotected viral frontline .
But what this crisis has also shown is that without the autonomy of all economic levers it is often not possible to do everything that you want to .
Absent of the financial powers to provide assurance to furloughed workers and businesses forced to close , an early lockdown would have been difficult to introduce independently .
Scotland was locked into a fatal two-step with Westminster .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norway that UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak drew inspiration when he copied their job retention scheme for rollout in the UK – something that the oil-rich North Sea-adjacent nation of 5.3m people was well able to afford .
Other smaller nations put similar schemes in place , such as New Zealand with one of the largest per-capita response packages in the world basis .
Their decision to prioritise lives was in part possible thanks to their control over their economy .
For Scotland , with the benefit of hindsight , in the years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action that could have been taken – as difficult as that would ’ ve been given the current constitutional status .
But an even bigger argument should be about what is to come .
The economic decisions that are made next year and those that immediately follow will impact upon the lives of people in Scotland for decades .
There will be two issues the UK government will address urgently .
In the immediate term it will be the overall level of debt that will be targeted and whether the cost of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing expenditure .
I seriously doubt they will embrace the former .
The UK Government could borrow to invest in the recovery of the economy , but that would be an admission that the past decade of austerity was a political choice , not one of necessity .
In the unique circumstances of the post pandemic world there is a strong case for printing much of the required finance – quantitive easing for the people not the banks .
Again a challenge likely to be ducked by the U.K. and one just not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake of the Second World War the UK had a debt worth more than 250 % of GDP , far higher than today .
Yet it heralded an age of the establishment of a new social contract encapsulated by the birth of the NHS .
There will be a burning popular demand to build on the social policies established during this crisis .
Some suggest that the introduction of a Universal Basic Income would be transformative , but again it ’ s highly doubtful the UK Government will embrace it .
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply can ’ t .
The second major issue that must be addressed is employment .
In January of this year , across the UK , unemployment sat at a rate of 3.8 % .
The OBR projects this to hit 10 % because of coronavirus .
Getting people back into work is going to be a priority , one that will not be made any easier as Scotland is dragged out of the single marketplace .
Scottish fishermen suffering like the rest of us should be reflecting on the shape of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not because it is any more dangerous but because it just can not pay when the most lucrative markets are shut .
When it comes to the biggest economic decisions of our lifetimes and what they are to be , the people of Scotland and their Scottish Government will have no say .
Anyone who thinks otherwise need look no further than the cause of Scotland during the Brexit bourach .
Right now defeating this virus is everyone ’ s priority , but long-lasting choices are coming and coming up fast .
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boris Johnson or Scotland ’ s own government ?
That is a choice I believe the people of Scotland will want to make , for themselves .

On the 1st of January, Chinese authorities took the decision to close the Wuhan food market. The following day, 41 admitted hospital patients in Wuhan, were confirmed to have contracted 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) which we now know as COVID-19.
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued a New Year message, from the private island of Mustique in the Caribbean, that the “first item” on his agenda remained his commitment to take Britain out of the EU by the end of January.
Within weeks the virus had spread across the world to many countries including Italy, Germany, Australia, the USA and of course the UK.
It was on the radar of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control who in their first risk assessment on the epidemic cautioned about the direct flights from Wuhan into the EU. Destinations included Rome, as well as London’s Gatwick and Heathrow airports.
With the UK Governments gaze firmly fixed on Brexit, Westminster Health Secretary Matt Hancock had no issue with Public Health England’s advice being that the risk to the United Kingdom population was “very low” even given the clear threat to travellers to and from Wuhan. Despite the upcoming Chinese New Year, they suggested to travellers there was no need to change plans. In an extraordinary display of insularity and folly they moved the the threat from “very low” to “low” on the 22nd of January.
In contrast one week later the World Health Organisation declared the virus a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The UK Government were criminally complacent about a virus which has, a mere three months later, officially killed over 35,000 citizens across the UK -a figure which most experts agree is a very substantial underestimate – the true figure is likely almost double – and now the highest death rate in Europe.
When the alarm bells should have been sounding at the heart of government, the attention of the UK administration was focussed on making Big Ben bong again to celebrate Brexit day.
However, at any point up until perhaps early March it would still have been possible to impede the virus’s deadly spread, provided that strong measures to detect the disease and isolate and treat cases were taken,along with social distancing measures commensurate with the risk. In March the World Health Organisation rammed home its message of “test, test test”.
It was to be many more weeks before the above measures would be implemented. As we watched news reports from around the world, and a disaster unfolded in northern Italy, in Scotland and across the UK children continued to go to school as normal, people socialised and spoke of the virus as being an “exaggeration”– no doubt in part due to the idiotic attitude of a UK Government from which the best advice was to wash hands whilst singing the national anthem.
In fact on the day that parts of northern Italy were locked down, thousands of Scots were in Rome watching a Six Nations match before then returning home to communities across the country.
In mid-March more than 250,000 people travelled to attend the Cheltenham festival, and a number of these racegoers are now dead. In the absence of official guidance, many still continued to visit elderly relatives who were in the most vulnerable groups.
In Edinburgh, just a week after confirmation that an outbreak had emerged from a Nike conference, 67,000 fans from across the country packed into Murrayfield to watch another rugby match, and of course there was the infamous claim that you weren’t at risk of catching the virus crammed into an arena with thousands of other people to see Lewis Capaldi or Stereophonics.
At the very moment Boris Johnson was spouting theories about herd immunity on TV, and glib inanities about taking the virus “on the chin”, people were being fatally infected by the silent killer. Indeed he himself was being infected at the time. Thankfully he has survived to tell the tale. Many thousands have not been so fortunate.
If the advice of the World Health Organisation had been implemented, it is likely that the UK now would be in at least as favourable a position as Germany, which has one fifth of our death rate. That means that tens of thousands of people are now dead who would have been alive if politicians had been fit for their high office.
Those countries who acted even more urgently – New Zealand, Taiwan, Iceland – have a mere fraction, proportionately, of the relatively low German casualties. Even Sweden, which hasn’t locked down at all, has had far fewer deaths per capita than the UK – around one person in every 2700 (almost all of them over-70s living in care homes), compared to the UK’s one in 1900.
(Or one in 1000 if you use the more realistic figures. On the official numbers Scotland has lost around one in 2500 of its population, still higher than Sweden despite the lockdown, and around 60% of deaths have happened in the last month even though we started locking down in March.)
The UK Government often wish to conjure up the jingoism of tackling a virus being like a war , but another of their often used bellicisms is that the first duty of Government is to protect its citizens – on this front they have grossly failed.
In Scotland health is devolved, and most of the measures adopted by more successful countries could and should have been implemented much earlier. Nicola Sturgeon is being rightly lauded for her communication skills, but Scottish public health policy has been only marginally better than that prevailing south of the border. There is little excuse for Scotland only now in May mobilising the citizens army required to test and isolate, and there is no excuse for allowing our care home sector to become the unprepared and unprotected viral frontline.
But what this crisis has also shown is that without the autonomy of all economic levers it is often not possible to do everything that you want to. Absent of the financial powers to provide assurance to furloughed workers and businesses forced to close, an early lockdown would have been difficult to introduce independently. Scotland was locked into a fatal two-step with Westminster.
Of course, it was from independent Norway that UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak drew inspiration when he copied their job retention scheme for rollout in the UK – something that the oil-rich North Sea-adjacent nation of 5.3m people was well able to afford.
Other smaller nations put similar schemes in place, such as New Zealand with one of the largest per-capita response packages in the world basis. Their decision to prioritise lives was in part possible thanks to their control over their economy.
For Scotland, with the benefit of hindsight, in the years to come people may identify different courses of action that could have been taken – as difficult as that would’ve been given the current constitutional status. But an even bigger argument should be about what is to come.
The economic decisions that are made next year and those that immediately follow will impact upon the lives of people in Scotland for decades. There will be two issues the UK government will address urgently. In the immediate term it will be the overall level of debt that will be targeted and whether the cost of that will be met by increasing taxes or reducing expenditure. I seriously doubt they will embrace the former.
The UK Government could borrow to invest in the recovery of the economy, but that would be an admission that the past decade of austerity was a political choice, not one of necessity. In the unique circumstances of the post pandemic world there is a strong case for printing much of the required finance – quantitive easing for the people not the banks. Again a challenge likely to be ducked by the U.K. and one just not available to devolved Scotland.
In the wake of the Second World War the UK had a debt worth more than 250% of GDP, far higher than today. Yet it heralded an age of the establishment of a new social contract encapsulated by the birth of the NHS.
There will be a burning popular demand to build on the social policies established during this crisis. Some suggest that the introduction of a Universal Basic Income would be transformative, but again it’s highly doubtful the UK Government will embrace it. Even if Scotland wanted to implement it, we simply can’t.
The second major issue that must be addressed is employment. In January of this year, across the UK, unemployment sat at a rate of 3.8%. The OBR projects this to hit 10% because of coronavirus. Getting people back into work is going to be a priority, one that will not be made any easier as Scotland is dragged out of the single marketplace. Scottish fishermen suffering like the rest of us should be reflecting on the shape of things to come. Most fishing has stopped not because it is any more dangerous but because it just cannot pay when the most lucrative markets are shut.
When it comes to the biggest economic decisions of our lifetimes and what they are to be, the people of Scotland and their Scottish Government will have no say. Anyone who thinks otherwise need look no further than the cause of Scotland during the Brexit bourach.
Right now defeating this virus is everyone’s priority, but long-lasting choices are coming and coming up fast. Who do we want to make them? Boris Johnson or Scotland’s own government? That is a choice I believe the people of Scotland will want to make, for themselves.


Passing the buck

With commendable swiftness , we ’ ve received a reply to our letter of earlier this week to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice .
You can read it in full below ( click to enlarge ) .
Sadly , however , it ’ s precisely the sort of evasion we expected , and it is not acceptable .
The primary content of the reply is “ Ooh , nothing to do with me , guv , you want that Lord Advocate fella ” , which is an unsurprising but still disappointing response from one of the Scottish Government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct of that government which encompassed more than mere legal technicalities .
It also rather clashes with the Scottish Government ’ s own website , which clearly states that the Scottish Cabinet is the primary decision-making body ( in which Mr Yousaf gets top billing after the First Minister and her Deputy ) , with Ministers , including the Lord Advocate , in a subordinate supporting role .
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice is clearly listed as having ultimate responsibility for police , courts , sentencing and justice system and criminal law procedure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lord Advocate would therefore be effectively within the Cabinet Secretary ’ s powers , if such a thing should ever be deemed as necessary because , for example , the Lord Advocate had not carried out his duties properly and impartially .
We make no such allegation .
The reply also worrying misrepresented our letter .
We had of course NOT made any demand that the Lord Advocate take any particular actions regarding any prosecutions , nor that Mr Yousaf should order him to do so .
We had sought in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COPFS considered a specific piece of information published in several newspapers to amount to identification of a specific individual , so that as journalists we would know whether or not it was lawful to quote that paragraph in our coverage of the wider issue .
It is part of COPFS ’ s duties to inform the public and media regarding such issues in order to help prevent contempt of court being committed .
In any event , however , we ’ d actually sent our letter not only to Humza Yousaf ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address given on the same website for the Lord Advocate .
We had also already written separately , on 7 May , to the COPFS complaints address named in the response .
We still await a reply to that letter two weeks later .
So even if it wasn ’ t the case that the Cabinet Secretary is ultimately responsible for and senior to the Lord Advocate , we ’ d already asked the Lord Advocate as well anyway , so “ Go and ask the Lord Advocate ” is not a satisfactory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable and we have directed them to the proper people .
Yet another fobbing-off will not do .
We have conveyed that position to the Directorate For Justice , and we ’ ll continue to keep readers informed of developments .

With commendable swiftness, we’ve received a reply to our letter of earlier this week to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. You can read it in full below (click to enlarge).
Sadly, however, it’s precisely the sort of evasion we expected, and it is not acceptable.
The primary content of the reply is “Ooh, nothing to do with me, guv, you want that Lord Advocate fella”, which is an unsurprising but still disappointing response from one of the Scottish Government’s most senior officers to questions about the conduct of that government which encompassed more than mere legal technicalities.
It also rather clashes with the Scottish Government’s own website, which clearly states that the Scottish Cabinet is the primary decision-making body (in which Mr Yousaf gets top billing after the First Minister and her Deputy), with Ministers, including the Lord Advocate, in a subordinate supporting role.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice is clearly listed as having ultimate responsibility for police, courts, sentencing and justice system and criminal law procedure.
We must deduce that sacking the Lord Advocate would therefore be effectively within the Cabinet Secretary’s powers, if such a thing should ever be deemed as necessary because, for example, the Lord Advocate had not carried out his duties properly and impartially. We make no such allegation.
(The Lord Advocate, like the Permanent Secretary, is officially appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. But it’s quite inconceivable that they could remain in post if those were withdrawn, and as such the de facto position is that the Cabinet has the power.)
The reply also worrying misrepresented our letter.
We had of course NOT made any demand that the Lord Advocate take any particular actions regarding any prosecutions, nor that Mr Yousaf should order him to do so. We had sought in the first instance a simple clarification as to whether COPFS considered a specific piece of information published in several newspapers to amount to identification of a specific individual, so that as journalists we would know whether or not it was lawful to quote that paragraph in our coverage of the wider issue. It is part of COPFS’s duties to inform the public and media regarding such issues in order to help prevent contempt of court being committed.
In any event, however, we’d actually sent our letter not only to Humza Yousaf’s email address, but also to the address given on the same website for the Lord Advocate.
We had also already written separately, on 7 May, to the COPFS complaints address named in the response. We still await a reply to that letter two weeks later.
So even if it wasn’t the case that the Cabinet Secretary is ultimately responsible for and senior to the Lord Advocate, we’d already asked the Lord Advocate as well anyway, so “Go and ask the Lord Advocate” is not a satisfactory response.
This is particularly true since the Lord Advocate quite properly recused himself from his responsibility for the Alex Salmond trial, as it represented an obvious conflict of interest in his dual role as law official and Scottish Government adviser, as discussed rather disturbingly and in detail by Kenny MacAskill last month in The Scotsman.
Our questions are legitimate and reasonable and we have directed them to the proper people. Yet another fobbing-off will not do. We have conveyed that position to the Directorate For Justice, and we’ll continue to keep readers informed of developments.


Another problem solved

Lots of Scottish newspapers ( most notably everything in the Herald And Times Group ) had already ducked out of @ @ @ @ @ , but this will be a godsend for the rest to save their growing embarrassment @ @ @ @ @ the pitiful state of the last published figures here .

When the news isn’t news:
Lots of Scottish newspapers (most notably everything in the Herald And Times Group) had already ducked out of providing ABC figures at all, but this will be a godsend for the rest to save their growing embarrassment.
Wings readers can remember the pitiful state of the last published figures here.


Is it safe?

`` 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--2020-05-26--Left to their own devices

Left to their own devices

We ’ ve received a response from the Scottish Government to our follow-up letter of last week regarding the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service .
It ’ s attached below .
Thank you for your further e-mail of 20 May 2020 .
Your message of 16 May invited Mr Yousaf to “ instruct COPFS , in the first instance , simply to answer my questions properly , fully and without the evasion and equivocation it has deployed until now ” .
I have responded that he may not do so .
The same is true of the Scottish Ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure you are well aware , the Scottish Ministers act as a collective body .
Given the provisions of section 48 ( 5 ) of that Act ( to which I see Mr Robert Black alluded in comments on your site ) , it is no more lawful for the Scottish Ministers to instruct the Crown Office in the performance of their functions , as a body , than for Mr Yousaf to do so , individually .
Writing to the Scottish Ministers as a body is not the most appropriate way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his functions as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths , but in any event , you have written to the Crown Office , which is .
Obviously I am not aware of their internal arrangements , but it seems likely that if you had complained to them on 7 May , the fact that you have not received a response by 16 May ( or even 26 May ) is not very surprising .
It is likely you will receive one in due course ; in which case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accordance with the respective procedures .
Two rather concerning things leap out from that reply ( or three if you count the fact that the Criminal Justice Division is apparently reading all the comments on Wings articles ) .
The less important one is that if “ writing to the Scottish Ministers as a body is not the most appropriate way to contact the Lord Advocate in respect of his functions ” , then it ’ s perhaps somewhat less than ideal that the official Scottish Government web page listing the functions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact address .
But the more alarming part is this one : We actually wrote to the Crown Office to report the numerous newspapers publishing identifying information on 4 April , not 16 May ( something we clearly stated in our initial letter ) .
And we also noted that the police consider the threat to the witnesses , should they be identified , to be so grave that they had to be issued with personal alarms .
So in fact , unlike Mr Philpott , we find it extremely surprising – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t taken any action to remove this supposedly highly dangerous information in almost TWO MONTHS , let alone pursue those who published it .
That seems to us a very cavalier approach to take to the safety of the witness , and what DOES surprise us is hearing a Scottish Government representative casually dismiss the idea that the matter should be treated with any urgency .
We ’ ve conveyed these views to Mr Philpott .
In addition to the Crown Office we ’ ve also contacted ( on 21 May ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our concerns about the matter .
We await acknowledgement of the email , and will continue to keep you abreast of any developments .

We’ve received a response from the Scottish Government to our follow-up letter of last week regarding the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It’s attached below.
Dear Mr Campbell Thank you for your further e-mail of 20 May 2020. Your message of 16 May invited Mr Yousaf to “instruct COPFS, in the first instance, simply to answer my questions properly, fully and without the evasion and equivocation it has deployed until now”. I have responded that he may not do so. The same is true of the Scottish Ministers as a body. As I am sure you are well aware, the Scottish Ministers act as a collective body. Given the provisions of section 48(5) of that Act (to which I see Mr Robert Black alluded in comments on your site), it is no more lawful for the Scottish Ministers to instruct the Crown Office in the performance of their functions, as a body, than for Mr Yousaf to do so, individually. Writing to the Scottish Ministers as a body is not the most appropriate way to contact the Lord Advocate in respect of his functions as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths, but in any event, you have written to the Crown Office, which is. Obviously I am not aware of their internal arrangements, but it seems likely that if you had complained to them on 7 May, the fact that you have not received a response by 16 May (or even 26 May) is not very surprising. It is likely you will receive one in due course; in which case you can consider any further action in accordance with the respective procedures. Regards Kevin Philpott
Criminal Justice Division
Two rather concerning things leap out from that reply (or three if you count the fact that the Criminal Justice Division is apparently reading all the comments on Wings articles).
The less important one is that if “writing to the Scottish Ministers as a body is not the most appropriate way to contact the Lord Advocate in respect of his functions”, then it’s perhaps somewhat less than ideal that the official Scottish Government web page listing the functions of the Lord Advocate gives that as his contact address.
But the more alarming part is this one:
“it seems likely that if you had complained to them on 7 May, the fact that you have not received a response by 16 May (or even 26 May) is not very surprising”
We actually wrote to the Crown Office to report the numerous newspapers publishing identifying information on 4 April, not 7 May (something we clearly stated in our initial letter). And we also noted that the police consider the threat to the witnesses, should they be identified, to be so grave that they had to be issued with personal alarms.
So in fact, unlike Mr Philpott, we find it extremely surprising – and worrying – that the Crown Office hasn’t taken any action to remove this supposedly highly dangerous information in almost TWO MONTHS, let alone pursue those who published it.
That seems to us a very cavalier approach to take to the safety of the witness, and what DOES surprise us is hearing a Scottish Government representative casually dismiss the idea that the matter should be treated with any urgency.
We’ve conveyed these views to Mr Philpott. In addition to the Crown Office we’ve also contacted (on 21 May) HM Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland outlining our concerns about the matter. We await acknowledgement of the email, and will continue to keep you abreast of any developments.


Of no materiality

We ’ ve just learned that we ’ ve lost the appeal over our defamation by the then-Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale , when she repeatedly and publicly made the appalling , damaging and wholly untrue smear that I was a homophobe , even though the appeal judges all agreed with the original sheriff that the smear was false and defamatory .
To quote a later passage of the judgement , it appears this fact is “ of no materiality ” .
The appeal was purely a financial matter .
Sheriff Nigel Ross , in his original finding a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything Dugdale had claimed .
He found that she HAD defamed me , that her allegation of homophobia was utterly untrue , that it was damaging to say such a thing , and that I was not someone so bereft of reputation that I could not be defamed , all of which she ’ d argued – yet then let her off anyway , essentially on the grounds that she was too stupid to understand what she ’ d said .
Extraordinarily , he ’ d then also not only awarded her all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 50 % “ uplift ” to her QC ’ s already astronomical fees for the onerous task of having had to do his normal job in the normal way for his normal rates .
But entirely contrary to what some people have said , I found the original verdict a massive relief .
To have officially lost and be landed with a huge bill was obviously upsetting , but I went to court to refute the claim that I was a homophobe , and in that respect I was completely vindicated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled , absolutely unambiguously and unequivocally , that I was in fact someone who not only wasn ’ t homophobic , but who was completely committed to equality for gay people .
So as far as I was concerned , in all but the financial sense I ’ d won the case and the financial sense was – despite the vast sums involved – emotionally a trivial one .
I wasn ’ t happy with the thought of handing a large chunk of the Wings Fighting Fund to Dugdale ’ s lawyers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d polled readers to decide whether to continue with the case or abandon it , and their votes had been overwhelmingly for the former .
My conscience was clear .
So a vast burden lifted off me on the day of the judgement a year ago .
I ’ d suffered badly from anxiety in the preceding two years – it affected my personal life severely , and it was only a diazepam prescription from my doctor that enabled me to make the long journey to Edinburgh for the case .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition , including a ridiculous trumped-up arrest , by far the biggest fear that haunted me in that stressful period was the thought that a court would deem it lawful and proper for people to call me a homophobe for the rest of my life .
That allegation isn ’ t just false , it ’ s the polar opposite of the truth .
It ’ s the most despicable lie anyone ’ s ever told about me .
Since I was a teenager I ’ ve advocated and actively campaigned for equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utterly repulsed and outraged by discrimination against anyone for their sexual orientation , just like I am by racism or sexism or religious bigotry or any other kind .
To be responsible for the most offensive and disgusting thing anyone ’ s ever said about me or done to me , as readers can possibly imagine , is no small achievement .
But when the person concerned is someone as loathsome in every conceivable way a human being as Kezia Dugdale , to have them weaponise hatred for the sake of a tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and because my site embarrassed her by repeatedly pointing out her ham-fisted lies , it somehow makes it even worse .
There are many , many people I dislike intensely in Scottish politics ( to be honest the list of ones I don ’ t would be significantly shorter ) , but Dugdale is the most nauseating creature of all .
Full of a child ’ s pouting , narcissistic malice but without a discernible scrap of adult intelligence , she blundered into embarrassing pratfall after embarrassing pratfall for every day of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spectacular new lows even after the catastrophic 2015 election .
The list of her U-turns and flip-flops and bare-faced hypocrisies is an almost endless one , whether the subject is second referendums or nuclear weapons or Jeremy Corbyn or voting for Tories or people rejected by voters at elections becoming MSPs anyway or just about anything else .
But unfortunately we live in a world where such things are the basic essence of politicians .
To really plumb the depths and stand out as a piece of proper gutter trash you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literally crawl on your hands and knees through a vat of stinking offal .
Because remarkably , abandoning her constituents for several weeks to go and be a “ celebrity ” on a degrading TV show wasn ’ t even nearly the worst of it .
The man Kezia Dugdale called her “ best friend ” , Gordon Aikman , had died of the truly monstrous illness that is Motor Neurone Disease just a few months before she ditched the people she was supposed to represent and went into the jungle .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the show , Dugdale quietly dropped her pledge to “ as a matter of principle ” donate all non-Parliamentary earnings to MND Scotland , so that she could cram almost all of the cash into her own already-well-stuffed pockets .
Readers , I swear quite a bit on social media – or to be accurate , I used to – and I ’ m sometimes pretty mean about people in the public eye when they behave badly , but the day I ever do something so flat-out contemptible as cheat my dead best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of pounds to fight an awful , cruel , killer disease then you have my permission to come to my house and throw rotten fruit and rocks at me .
And yet even after that , while Wings remains a vile , untouchable black sheep , Dugdale is the darling of the Scottish media and establishment .
Astonishingly and hilariously , after walking away from her constituents a second time she was rewarded with an even better-paid publicly-funded job in which she professed the intent to “ rebuild faith in politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hiring Harold Shipman to rebuild faith in the NHS or putting Fred West and Josef Fritzl in charge of PR for the building trade .
Dugdale ’ s torching of her “ principles ” was barely reported in the Scottish media , even though an SNP MP being involved in a charity which made supposedly low donations was a front-page story during Dugdale ’ s leadership .
( Despite that one not being true . )
Dugdale wasn ’ t challenged over the Celebrity cash despite being Scottish Labour leader when her party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over extra-Parliamentary earnings , even when those earnings were for spending a couple of hours one day a week cutting constituents ’ hair for a few quid to keep in touch with the community , or doing a dozen other things a thousand times more commendable than rooting around in fish guts for fame .
And when Sheriff Ross found that Dugdale had indeed defamed a journalist and member of the public with grotesque false allegations on national television and in the press , that same press and media then gave her literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ column inches to chat about the case with sympathetic hacks and presenters , without ever once even being asked if she might now like to withdraw or apologise for the comments or reflect on what she ’ d done .
And in a comical final twist , after the sheriff ’ s judgement that her allegations of homophobia had been completely unfounded and defamatory , Dugdale – in a column for the Scotsman to which I was of course offered no right of reply – pulled a complete about-face and pretended that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
It is of course upsetting to lose to the worst person in Scottish politics – someone so awful even her own father wouldn ’ t back her .
But it is important to note that the court has once again found that Kezia Dugdale defamed me .
Curiously , it has once again attached no importance to the fact that she flat-out lied that my tweet was part of a homophobic “ tirade ” of similar tweets , rather than a single tweet which she blatantly misrepresented because she didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” meant .
I find this baffling .
A single tweet could easily be ( and was ) misunderstood or twisted maliciously .
A “ tirade ” would be much more likely to signify a view that someone genuinely held .
This “ error ” by Dugdale – or as one might more properly call it , a lie , since absolutely nothing could possibly have given her grounds to believe there was more than one tweet – seems to entirely undermine the legal requirement that opinion be founded on accurate facts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment .
But Lords Carloway , Brodie and Menzies get to decide that , not me , so that ’ s the story done .
( They disagreed with Sheriff Ross only in so far as they thought an appropriate sum for damages would have been £5000 , not the insulting £100 he suggested . )
While our case was clearly just , I hadn ’ t been building my hopes up .
I truly wish I could feel more surprised that the sweary independence blogger had lost to the Unionist politician despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that ’ s the Scottish establishment for you , and Wings can afford it .
It ’ s not like there ’ s any prospect of the SNP bringing us another indyref that we ’ d have needed the cash for anyway .
I will of course watch keenly to see if anyone in the media who solicits a reaction from Dugdale will take the second opportunity to ask her if she retracts and/or apologises for defaming someone with grotesque falsehoods – something which according to the judgement is “ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One would imagine that “ rebuilding faith in politics ” would require that as a minimum .
But perhaps that , too , is of no materiality .

We’ve just learned that we’ve lost the appeal over our defamation by the then-Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, when she repeatedly and publicly made the appalling, damaging and wholly untrue smear that I was a homophobe, even though the appeal judges all agreed with the original sheriff that the smear was false and defamatory.
But when it comes to deciding the verdict in a defamation case, it seems that the fact that absolutely everyone agrees I was definitely defamed is, to borrow a phrase from later in the judgement,“of no materiality”.
The appeal was purely a financial matter. Sheriff Nigel Ross, in his original finding a year ago, had already ruled against almost everything Dugdale had claimed.
He found that she HAD defamed me, that her allegation of homophobia was utterly untrue, that it was damaging to say such a thing, and that I was not someone so bereft of reputation that I could not be defamed, all of which she’d argued – yet then he let her off anyway, essentially on the slightly worrying grounds that she was too stupid to understand what she’d said.
(“Most” in the above extract in fact means “any”. Not even the Stonewall definition, which was produced in court, offered anything that could be applied to the tweet.)
Extraordinarily, he’d then also not only awarded her all costs in the case, but added a 50% “uplift” to her QC’s already astronomical fees for the onerous and traumatic task of, um, having had to do his normal job in the normal way for his normal rates.
But entirely contrary to what some people have claimed, I found the original verdict a massive relief. To have officially lost and be landed with a huge bill was obviously upsetting, but I went to court to refute the claim that I was a homophobe, and in that respect I was completely vindicated by Sheriff Ross’s judgement. He ruled, absolutely unambiguously and unequivocally, that I was in fact someone who not only wasn’t homophobic, but who was completely committed to equality for gay people.
So as far as I was concerned, in all but the financial sense I’d won the case and the financial sense was – despite the vast sums involved – emotionally a trivial one. I wasn’t happy with the thought of handing a large chunk of the Wings Fighting Fund to Dugdale’s lawyers, but every step of the way I’d polled readers to decide whether to continue with the case or abandon it, and their votes had been overwhelmingly for the former. My conscience was clear.
(By contrast, neither Labour members nor Daily Record readers were consulted about whether they wanted to pour vast sums of money into Dugdale’s defence, and when Labour finally pulled the plug, having had her waste close to £100,000 on a failed attempt to stop the case reaching court at all, she reacted not with gratitude for so much funding but with sour complaints.)
So a vast burden lifted off me on the day of the judgement a year ago. I’d suffered badly from anxiety in the preceding two years – it affected my personal life severely, and it was only a diazepam prescription from my doctor that enabled me to make the long journey to Edinburgh for the case. And while there were several factors affecting that condition, including a ridiculous trumped-up arrest, by far the biggest fear that haunted me in that stressful period was the thought that a court would deem it lawful and proper for people to call me a homophobe for the rest of my life.
That allegation isn’t just false, it’s the polar opposite of the truth. It’s the most despicable lie anyone’s ever told about me. Since I was a teenager I’ve advocated and actively campaigned for equal rights for gay people, and been utterly repulsed and outraged by discrimination against anyone for their sexual orientation, just like I am by racism or sexism or religious bigotry or any other kind.
To be responsible for the most offensive and disgusting thing anyone’s ever said about me or done to me, as readers can possibly imagine, is no small achievement.
But when the person concerned is someone as loathsome in every conceivable way a human being as Kezia Dugdale, to have them weaponise hatred for the sake of a tiny, pointless bit of pathetic political pointscoring and because my site embarrassed her by repeatedly pointing out her ham-fisted lies, it somehow makes it even worse.
There are many, many people I dislike intensely in Scottish politics (to be honest the list of ones I don’t would be significantly shorter), but Dugdale is the most nauseating creature of all. Full of a child’s pouting, narcissistic malice but without a discernible scrap of adult intelligence, she blundered into embarrassing pratfall after embarrassing pratfall for every day of her disastrous leadership, which took Scottish Labour to spectacular new lows even after the catastrophic 2015 election.
The list of her U-turns and flip-flops and bare-faced hypocrisies is an almost endless one, whether the subject is second referendums or nuclear weapons or Jeremy Corbyn or voting for Tories or people rejected by voters at elections becoming MSPs anyway or just about anything else.
But unfortunately we live in a world where such things are the basic essence of politicians. To really plumb the depths and stand out as a piece of proper gutter trash you have to be prepared to both metaphorically and literally crawl on your hands and knees through a vat of stinking offal.
Because remarkably, abandoning her constituents for several weeks to go and be a “celebrity” on a degrading TV show wasn’t even nearly the worst of it.
The man Kezia Dugdale called her “best friend”, Gordon Aikman, had died of the truly monstrous illness that is Motor Neurone Disease just a few months before she ditched the people she was supposed to represent and went into the jungle.
But between his death and her appearance on the show, Dugdale quietly dropped her pledge to “as a matter of principle” donate all non-Parliamentary earnings to MND Scotland, so that she could cram almost all of the cash, bar one small token donation, into her own already-well-stuffed pockets.
(MSPs trouser a healthy salary of over £60,000 a year, plus expenses, with an extra £13,000 available to opposition party leaders. Dugdale’s partner is also an MSP.)
Readers, I swear quite a bit on social media – or to be accurate, I used to – and I’m sometimes pretty mean about people in the public eye when they behave badly, but the day I ever do something so flat-out contemptible as cheat my dead best friend’s charity out of tens of thousands of pounds to fight an awful, cruel, killer disease then you have my permission to come to my house and throw rotten fruit and rocks at me.
And yet even after that, while Wings remains a vile, untouchable black sheep, Dugdale is the darling of the Scottish media and establishment. Astonishingly and hilariously, after walking away from her constituents a second time she was rewarded with an even better-paid publicly-funded job in which she professed the intent to “rebuild faith in politics”, which is a bit like hiring Harold Shipman to rebuild faith in the NHS or putting Fred West and Josef Fritzl in charge of PR for the building trade.
(Dugdale has now been head of the John Smith Centre for almost a year. We’d quite like to hear of anything at all she’s done in the role during that time, let alone anything which has achieved that lofty aim.)
Dugdale’s torching of her “principles” was barely reported in the Scottish media, even though an SNP MP being involved in a charity which made supposedly low donations was a front-page story during Dugdale’s leadership. (Despite that one not being true.)
Dugdale wasn’t challenged over the Celebrity cash despite being Scottish Labour leader when her party had viciously and constantly castigated SNP politicians over extra-Parliamentary earnings, even when those earnings were for spending a couple of hours one day a week cutting constituents’ hair for a few quid to keep in touch with the community, or doing a dozen other things a thousand times more commendable than rooting around in fish guts for fame.
And when Sheriff Ross found that Dugdale had indeed defamed a journalist and member of the public with grotesque false allegations on national television and in the press, that same press and media then gave her literally hours of BBC Scotland interview time and column inches to chat about the case with sympathetic hacks and presenters, without ever once even being asked if she might now like to withdraw or apologise for the comments or reflect on what she’d done.
(Despite repeatedly asking and even contacting Ofcom, and despite having been found to have been the wronged party, I was never permitted to give my side on air. I strongly suspect that the same will happen again now.)
And in a comical final twist, after the sheriff’s judgement that her allegations of homophobia had been completely unfounded and defamatory, Dugdale – in a column for the Scotsman to which I was of course offered no right of reply – pulled a complete about-face and pretended that the case had never been about homophobia at all.
It is of course upsetting to lose to the worst person in Scottish politics – someone so awful even her own father wouldn’t back her. But it is important to note that the court has once again found that Kezia Dugdale defamed me.
Curiously, it has once again attached no importance to the fact that she flat-out lied that my tweet was part of a homophobic “tirade” of similar tweets, rather than a single tweet which she blatantly misrepresented because she didn’t know what the word “homophobia” meant.
I find this baffling. A single tweet could easily be (and was) misunderstood or twisted maliciously. A “tirade” would be much more likely to signify a view that someone genuinely held. This “error” by Dugdale – or as one might more properly call it, a lie, since absolutely nothing could possibly have given her grounds to believe there was more than one tweet – seems to entirely undermine the legal requirement that opinion be founded on accurate facts, and therefore the whole defence of fair comment.
(Absurdly, at the appeal her QC attempted to claim that because the tweet had been retweeted many times, that amounted to multiple separate tweets.)
But Lords Carloway, Brodie and Menzies get to decide that, not me, so that’s the story done. (They disagreed with Sheriff Ross only in so far as they thought an appropriate sum for damages would have been £5000, not the insulting £100 he suggested.)
While our case was clearly just, I hadn’t been building my hopes up. I truly wish I could feel more surprised that the sweary independence blogger had lost to the Unionist politician despite the court agreeing with everything we claimed. But that’s the Scottish establishment for you, and Wings can afford it. It’s not like there’s any prospect of the SNP bringing us another indyref that we’d have needed the cash for anyway.
(Here’s a fun true fact: Wings will almost certainly still have more money in the bank after paying the costs of this case than the SNP does. We should find out in August.)
I will of course watch keenly to see if anyone in the media who solicits a reaction from Dugdale will take the second opportunity to ask her if she retracts and/or apologises for defaming someone with grotesque falsehoods – something which according to the judgement is “not now disputed” by anyone involved.
One would imagine that “rebuilding faith in politics” would require that as a minimum. But perhaps that, too, is of no materiality.


The hot potato

Our ongoing quest to discover just who is actually willing to take responsibility for the actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) with regard to the trial of Alex Salmond and its aftermath took another diversion yesterday when we received a reply from HM Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland .
It had sounded like a promising lead .
After all , HMIPS ’ apparent purpose is to “ inspect the operation ” of COPFS , “ improve the way COPFS serves the public ” and “ make COPFS more accountable ” , all of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sadly we had another disappointment in store .
Thank you for your email of 21 May 2020 in which you raise concerns regarding the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to the case of HMA v Alexander Salmond .
As HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland , my role is to secure the inspection of the operation of COPFS , as set out in the Criminal Proceedings etc .
( Reform ) ( Scotland ) Act 2007 .
Inspecting the operation of the service takes the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues , and findings are reported to the Lord Advocate and to the public generally .
My role does not include the investigation of the service ’ s handling of individual cases .
In particular , decisions in relation to criminal prosecutions , including whether proceedings should be initiated , are taken by the Lord Advocate acting independently of any other person , in accordance with section 48 ( 5 ) of the Scotland Act 1998 .
As a result of our inspections , I make any necessary recommendations with a view to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service .
However , I am not able to ‘ instruct ’ the service as you request – I am not a regulator , and have no power to enforce compliance .
Where there are concerns about the handling by COPFS of individual cases , these are more appropriately dealt with by the complaints handling function of COPFS in the first instance .
The COPFS website describes various means by which a complaint can be made .
If you are unhappy with the manner in which your complaint has been dealt with , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling your complaint , you should contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman .
Information on how to do so is included on the same page noted above , and you may also wish to visit www.spso.org.uk .
Further information about my role and the types of inspection activity undertaken is available online .
I hope this information will be of assistance .
5 APRIL : We send our initial report about the apparent witness identification in six Scottish newspapers .
It ’ s sent to Police Scotland and to the Complaints address at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all clear from the options on the COPFS website what the appropriate address would be ) .
RESPONSE : A generic “ we are actively considering ” reply , no name attached .
4 MAY : Concerned by the lack of action , we telephone COPFS for an update , and are told to email their Media Relations team .
RESPONSE : Two days later we get a sniffy reply saying we ’ ve contacted the wrong department and another generic cut-and-paste job .
It suggests that we contact the Complaints address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place a month earlier .
7 MAY : We send another reply asking that if Mr Shields is not responsible – contrary to what COPFS itself had told us – he forward the letter to whoever is .
We also resend the letter to the Complaints address ourselves .
RESPONSE : None as yet , from either Mr Shields or anyone else at COPFS .
19 MAY : With no response forthcoming , and considering the matter urgent , we send the letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website for the Lord Advocate , James Wolffe .
RESPONSE : The next day we receive a letter telling us that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is not responsible for justice and that we should instead write to the Lord Advocate ( which we ’ ve already done ) , to the Complaints address of COPFS ( which we ’ ve already done twice ) , to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and to HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland .
One of the several problems with this response , though , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of responsibility for the Salmond case due to his conflict of interest , and it was prosecuted by Senior Crown QC Alex Prentice .
But we don ’ t yet know if the Lord Advocate also recused himself from related matters like the charges against Craig Murray and Mark Hirst , and potentially the people named in our report .
We also don ’ t know if Alex Prentice recused himself too , because there would seem to be a clear and apparent conflict of interest there , since he could be viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some sort of scalp from among Salmond ’ s supporters to save face after the failed prosecution of Salmond himself .
Nevertheless , HMIPS sounds like the most relevant body of the other two mentioned in the letter , so we decide to give them a go .
21 MAY : We write to HMIPS , and get the response above , telling us it ’ s nothing to do with them and to contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman .
The SPSO is basically a consumer watchdog with no actual powers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compel COPFS to answer our questions .
We ’ ll send them the email too , but it seems a waste of time .
So that leaves us with this situation : DEFINITELY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN SCOTLAND : RESPONSIBLE FOR JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN SCOTLAND : – Or maybe we should talk to DI John Rebus .
Might he know anything ?
To be honest we ’ re running out of ideas , readers .
We ’ ll keep you posted .

Our ongoing quest to discover just who is actually willing to take responsibility for the actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) with regard to the trial of Alex Salmond and its aftermath took another diversion yesterday when we received a reply from HM Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland.
It had sounded like a promising lead. After all, HMIPS’ apparent purpose is to “inspect the operation” of COPFS, “improve the way COPFS serves the public” and “make COPFS more accountable”, all of which are exactly what we were after.
Sadly we had another disappointment in store.
“Dear Mr Campbell Thank you for your email of 21 May 2020 in which you raise concerns regarding the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to the case of HMA v Alexander Salmond. As HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland, my role is to secure the inspection of the operation of COPFS, as set out in the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. Inspecting the operation of the service takes the form of assessing strategic, thematic or recurring issues, and findings are reported to the Lord Advocate and to the public generally. My role does not include the investigation of the service’s handling of individual cases. In particular, decisions in relation to criminal prosecutions, including whether proceedings should be initiated, are taken by the Lord Advocate acting independently of any other person, in accordance with section 48(5) of the Scotland Act 1998. As a result of our inspections, I make any necessary recommendations with a view to supporting improvement in the delivery of the service. However, I am not able to ‘instruct’ the service as you request – I am not a regulator, and have no power to enforce compliance. Where there are concerns about the handling by COPFS of individual cases, these are more appropriately dealt with by the complaints handling function of COPFS in the first instance. The COPFS website describes various means by which a complaint can be made. If you are unhappy with the manner in which your complaint has been dealt with, including in relation to any delays in handling your complaint, you should contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Information on how to do so is included on the same page noted above, and you may also wish to visit www.spso.org.uk. Further information about my role and the types of inspection activity undertaken is available online. I hope this information will be of assistance. Yours sincerely Laura Paton
HM Chief Inspector
Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland”
So let’s recap the timeline.
——————————————————————————————-
5 APRIL: We send our initial report about the apparent witness identification in six Scottish newspapers. It’s sent to Police Scotland and to the Complaints address at COPFS (because it’s not at all clear from the options on the COPFS website what the appropriate address would be).
RESPONSE: A generic “we are actively considering” reply, no name attached.
4 MAY: Concerned by the lack of action, we telephone COPFS for an update, and are told to email their Media Relations team.
RESPONSE: Two days later we get a sniffy reply saying we’ve contacted the wrong department and another generic cut-and-paste job. It suggests that we contact the Complaints address we’d written to in the first place a month earlier.
7 MAY: We send another reply asking that if Mr Shields is not responsible – contrary to what COPFS itself had told us – he forward the letter to whoever is. We also resend the letter to the Complaints address ourselves.
RESPONSE: None as yet, from either Mr Shields or anyone else at COPFS.
19 MAY: With no response forthcoming, and considering the matter urgent, we send the letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and to the address given on the Scottish Government website for the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe.
RESPONSE: The next day we receive a letter telling us that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is not responsible for justice and that we should instead write to the Lord Advocate (which we’ve already done), to the Complaints address of COPFS (which we’ve already done twice), to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and to HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland.
One of the several problems with this response, though, is that the Lord Advocate actually recused himself of responsibility for the Salmond case due to his conflict of interest, and it was prosecuted by Advocate Depute Alex Prentice. But we don’t yet know if the Lord Advocate also recused himself from related matters like the charges against Craig Murray and Mark Hirst, and potentially the people named in our report.
We also don’t know if Alex Prentice recused himself too, because there would seem to be a clear and apparent conflict of interest there, since he could be viewed as having a vested interest in claiming some sort of scalp from among Salmond’s supporters to save face after the failed prosecution of Salmond himself.
Nevertheless, HMIPS sounds like the most relevant body of the other two mentioned in the letter, so we decide to give them a go.
21 MAY: We write to HMIPS, and get the response above, telling us it’s nothing to do with them and to contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The SPSO is basically a consumer watchdog with no actual powers to do anything, and therefore cannot compel COPFS to answer our questions.
We’ll send them the email too, but it seems a waste of time.
——————————————————————————————-
So that leaves us with this situation:
DEFINITELY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN SCOTLAND:
-The Lord Advocate
-The Cabinet Secretary For Justice
-The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
-HM Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland
-The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
RESPONSIBLE FOR JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN SCOTLAND:
– Um…
– Er…
– Taggart?
– Chief Commissioner Miekelson?
– Supercop?
– Det. Sgt. Bruce Robertson?
– PC Murdoch?
– Hamish Macbeth (and wee Towser)?
– Or maybe we should talk to DI John Rebus. Might he know anything?
To be honest we’re running out of ideas, readers. We’ll keep you posted.


The test case

Some in the independence movement got quite excited yesterday about a widely-reported poll showing that 63 % of Scots want a new indyref in the next five years .
It reminded us that we ’ d had a question on the subject in our own Panelbase poll earlier this month that we hadn ’ t got around to talking about .
Because of what we wanted to find out that question was asked in a slightly strange way , so let ’ s quickly explain .
People could tick either or both of the “ electoral mandate ” options , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were allowed to choose more than one option .
What the responses break down to more simply is this : There should be a democratic way to secure an indyref at the next Scottish Parliament election : 36 % There should NOT be a democratic way to secure an indyref at the next Scottish Parliament election : 45 % That ’ s a little worrying , particularly as only 67 % of SNP supporters thought it should be up to Scottish voters to decide – 17 % didn ’ t know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Westminster and 9 % thought there definitely shouldn ’ t be an indyref in the next five years under any circumstances whatsoever .
It ’ s also surprising , as poll after poll for years and years has found that a clear and substantial majority thought it should be a decision for the Scottish Parliament , not the Westminster Parliament , to make .
We ’ ll be probing a bit more deeply into this apparent contradiction/reversal in our next poll .
But the true reality of the situation was revealed by another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had nothing to do with independence .
A UK survey commissioned by the Daily Mail found that an absolutely overwhelming majority of Conservative voters ( 63-37 excluding DKs ) thought Dominic Cummings should either resign or be fired .
It found that the Cummings affair was significantly damaging voters ’ opinion of Boris Johnson and his government , something which was emphatically confirmed by other polls .
But here ’ s the thing : Dominic Cummings is still in a job .
The SNP ’ s current official strategy is to increase support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ magic number ” of 60 % is often cited – at which point we ’ re told that Westminster will cave in to public opinion and grant us one .
Yet this week we saw that even the fury of almost two thirds OF ITS OWN VOTERS – and dozens of its own MPs and MSPs , who ’ ve now called for Cummings to be sacked – hasn ’ t been enough to get Boris Johnson to let go of one man .
Do we truly believe that a smaller majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already don ’ t vote Tory – would force him to let go of five million ?

Some in the independence movement got quite excited yesterday about a widely-reported poll showing that 63% of Scots want a new indyref in the next five years. It reminded us that we’d had a question on the subject in our own Panelbase poll earlier this month that we hadn’t got around to talking about.
Because of what we wanted to find out, that question was asked in a slightly strange way, so let’s quickly explain.
People could tick either or both of the “electoral mandate” options, but those were the only circumstances where they were allowed to choose more than one option. What the responses break down to more simply is this:
There should be a democratic way to secure an indyref at the next Scottish Parliament election: 36%
There should NOT be a democratic way to secure an indyref at the next Scottish Parliament election: 45%
Don’t know: 19%
That’s a little worrying, particularly as only 67% of SNP supporters thought it should be up to Scottish voters to decide – 17% didn’t know, 7% wanted it left up to Westminster and 9% thought there definitely shouldn’t be an indyref in the next five years under any circumstances whatsoever.
It’s also surprising, as poll after poll for years and years has found that a clear and substantial majority thought it should be a decision for the Scottish Parliament, not the Westminster Parliament, to make. We’ll be probing a bit more deeply into this apparent contradiction/reversal in our next poll.
But the true reality of the situation was revealed by another poll this week, one which ostensibly had nothing to do with independence.
A UK survey commissioned by the Daily Mail found that an absolutely overwhelming majority of Conservative voters (63-37 excluding DKs) thought Dominic Cummings should either resign or be fired. It found that the Cummings affair was significantly damaging voters’ opinion of Boris Johnson and his government, something which was emphatically confirmed by other polls.
But here’s the thing: Dominic Cummings is still in a job.
The SNP’s current official strategy is to increase support for independence in the polls – a “magic number” of 60% is often cited – at which point we’re told that Westminster will cave in to public opinion and grant us one.
Yet this week we saw that even the fury of almost two thirds OF ITS OWN VOTERS – and dozens of its own MPs and MSPs, who’ve now called for Cummings to be sacked – hasn’t been enough to get Boris Johnson to let go of one man.
Do we truly believe that a smaller majority of Scottish voters – most of whom already don’t vote Tory – would force him to let go of five million?


Coach and horses


Justice for some

We ’ ve been fobbed off again with another generic response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service , which again entirely fails to avoid our simple and legitimate journalistic question , and to which nobody has been prepared to sign their name .
But this one is considerably more disturbing .
You can read it below if you want to know what shameless , transparent corruption sounds like .
I would refer you to our earlier response to your email to our Response and Information Unit dated 5 April 2020 : The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contraventions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 .
I can advise that we continue to closely monitor press coverage and social media and are actively considering if any articles or postings may give rise to a potential contempt .
In such circumstances , careful consideration is given to whether any further procedure is required having regard to the nature and detail of the individual publication .
At this time on the basis of the available evidence it is not intended to take any action in relation to the journalists whom you identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
In relation to the specific questions posed in your email dated 4 May 2020 , it would not be appropriate for COPFS to comment in respect of individual persons or reports in such circumstances , nor can we offer any assurances that no action would be taken against you should you publish something which could lead to the identification of a complainer in the case .
I understand that you have submitted a further email to COPFS yesterday , 28 May 2020 .
This email will be considered and a response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an extraordinary missive , in particular the fourth paragraph which we ’ ve bolded .
On the one hand they say they do not intend to take action against the six newspapers who published the identifying information , but at the same time if I simply QUOTED THAT EXACT SAME PIECE OF INFORMATION USING THE EXACT SAME WORDS AND NOTHING MORE , they explicitly refuse to say that they wouldn ’ t prosecute me .
This , readers , is Schrodinger ’ s Law .
The exact same paragraph is , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garavelli to say in a national newspaper , but if I quote it I might end up in jail for two years .
Scotland is openly a banana republic now , where justice depends on who you are and who you know , and the hate-crime bill isn ’ t even law yet .
Good luck .

We’ve been fobbed off again with another generic response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which again wholly fails to answer our simple and legitimate journalistic question, and to which nobody has been prepared to sign their name.
(We should also note in passing that not a single Scottish newspaper appears to have followed up on the story in that last link except the Sunday National, btw.)
But this one is considerably more disturbing. You can read it below if you want to know what shameless, transparent corruption sounds like.
Dear Rev Campbell I would refer you to our earlier response to your email to our Response and Information Unit dated 5 April 2020: The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) takes seriously any potential contraventions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. I can advise that we continue to closely monitor press coverage and social media and are actively considering if any articles or postings may give rise to a potential contempt. In such circumstances, careful consideration is given to whether any further procedure is required having regard to the nature and detail of the individual publication. At this time on the basis of the available evidence it is not intended to take any action in relation to the journalists whom you identify in your said email dated 5 April 2020. In relation to the specific questions posed in your email dated 4 May 2020, it would not be appropriate for COPFS to comment in respect of individual persons or reports in such circumstances, nor can we offer any assurances that no action would be taken against you should you publish something which could lead to the identification of a complainer in the case. I understand that you have submitted a further email to COPFS yesterday, 28 May 2020. This email will be considered and a response issued in early course. Yours sincerely Response and Information Unit
It’s an extraordinary missive, in particular the fourth paragraph which we’ve bolded. On the one hand they say they do not intend to take action against the six newspapers who published the identifying information, but at the same time if I simply QUOTED THAT EXACT SAME PIECE OF INFORMATION USING THE EXACT SAME WORDS AND NOTHING MORE, they explicitly refuse to say that they wouldn’t prosecute me.
This, readers, is Schrodinger’s Law. The exact same paragraph is, we’re told, fine for Dani Garavelli to say in a national newspaper, but if I quote it I might end up in jail for two years. Scotland is openly a banana republic now, where justice depends on who you are and who you know, and the hate-crime bill isn’t even law yet. Good luck.


wingsoverscotland--2020-06-02--Never changing, never learning

Never changing, never learning

We ’ re STILL officially on holiday , readers , and that means that for the last four months we ’ ve barely watched the news or looked at a newspaper , because who wants to be depressed by being lied to by a never-ending parade of scumbags when they ’ re on holiday ?
Not us , and we ’ ll tell you that for nothing .
So we ’ re grateful to alert readers who still point us to stuff like this .
EIGHT YEARS since Scottish Labour got into bed with the Tories to ensure the Tories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t grasped why they don ’ t get the “ protect us from the Tories ” vote any more .
Honestly , folks , if it wasn ’ t so tragic it ’ d be hilarious .
Because the inconvenient reality is that Scotland DOES still remember the thing that a Scottish Labour activist urged it to keep in mind just a few weeks after the Brexit vote : Indeed it would .
It would also still be in the European Union , and it wouldn ’ t be entering a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s now more than 10 years since David Cameron walked into 10 Downing Street and basically set everything in the country on fire . )
It sure is a mystery why people aren ’ t more grateful to Scottish Labour , eh ?
And a third decade of Tory rule is highly likely too , because the current government has almost five full years to run , and Labour would need the biggest swing in its history to prevent it from securing another five years after that ( breaking the all-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 years from 1979-1997 ) .
We were helpfully reminded of that fact by a truly demented interview in the weekend ’ s Herald On Sunday with Labour ’ s sole surviving Scottish MP ( again ) , Ian Murray .
It ’ s now more than eight years since this website comprehensively shattered the absolute lie in the last of those paragraphs .
Labour does NOT need , and has NEVER needed , Scottish seats to win a UK election .
Tony Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , and every single one of his administrations would have had a comfortable majority if Scotland was independent and sent no MPs at all to Westminster .
Indeed , in 1997 and 2001 Labour would have had a large UK majority ( of 67 and 55 seats respectively ) even if Scotland was still part of the UK and every single seat in it had been won by the Tories .
So it ’ s quite bold of Murray to still be trying to punt that ridiculous and easily-disproven falsehood after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Labour wins England it wins the UK , and Scotland has never made any meaningful difference to a UK election outcome – hardly surprising when England provides 82 % of MPs and Scotland just 9 % .
But it ’ s far from the most jaw-dropping line in the interview .
“ Our seats ” .
Wow .
That ’ s the same overweening , oblivious entitlement that we saw oozing from John Ruddy ’ s tweet at the top of this piece .
Three absolute thrashings in a row , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of NINE Scottish MPs compared to 138 in the previous three elections , has done nothing to dent it .
It still thinks Scotland is its property – even though the most recent Westminster poll put it THIRTY-SIX points behind the SNP and 10 behind the Tories – and it still thinks Scotland has a duty to vote Labour to get the Tories out for England ’ s benefit , rather than to vote for what Scotland actually wants for itself .
Murray went on to completely rubbish the idea that Scottish Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Were the SNP to secure a majority in 2021 on a platform of a second independence referendum , Murray insisted that it would be meaningless and irrelevant until the UK election three years later .
“ You can ’ t say one half of the equation has a mandate and not the other ” ?
Um , that ’ s exactly what you ARE doing , Ian .
You ’ re saying Starmer ’ s victory would be a mandate but the SNP ’ s wouldn ’ t , you great twit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scottish elections are meaningless and irrelevant forever .
Because Murray ’ s argument is “ If Scotland votes for a second referendum in 2021 , and then Labour wins at Westminster three years later , there ’ ll be no referendum .
But if the Tories win , there ’ ll also be no referendum .
And the SNP can ’ t get a majority at Westminster , so there ’ s nothing the people of Scotland can ever vote for peacefully and democratically that will get them a referendum ” .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we knew what it meant , from Murray himself : We ’ ll gloss quickly over Murray ’ s unambiguous and alarming implication that only an armed revolution therefore offers Scotland a route to its independence , and instead muse on whether “ vote for us and we guarantee that you ’ ll never get democracy as long as you live , because you can ’ t be trusted to vote Labour like you ’ re supposed to ” is really the surefire election-winning slogan Ian Murray appears to imagine it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there ’ s a rather obvious logical flaw in it .

We’re STILL officially on holiday, readers, and that means that for the last four months we’ve barely watched the news or looked at a newspaper, because who wants to be depressed by being lied to by a never-ending parade of scumbags when they’re on holiday? Not us, and we’ll tell you that for nothing.
So we’re grateful to alert readers who still point us to stuff like this.
EIGHT YEARS since Scottish Labour got into bed with the Tories to ensure the Tories kept ruling Scotland, and they still haven’t grasped why they don’t get the “protect us from the Tories” vote any more. Honestly, folks, if it wasn’t so tragic it’d be hilarious.
Because the inconvenient reality is that Scotland DOES still remember the thing that a Scottish Labour activist urged it to keep in mind just a few weeks after the Brexit vote:
Indeed it would. It would also still be in the European Union, and it wouldn’t be entering a second decade of Tory rule. (It’s now more than 10 years since David Cameron walked into 10 Downing Street and basically set everything in the country on fire.) It sure is a mystery why people aren’t more grateful to Scottish Labour, eh?
And a third decade of Tory rule is highly likely too, because the current government has almost five full years to run, and Labour would need the biggest swing in its history to prevent it from securing another five years after that (breaking the all-time record for continuous Tory governments, the 18 years from 1979-1997).
We were helpfully reminded of that fact by a truly demented interview in the weekend’s Herald On Sunday with Labour’s sole surviving Scottish MP (again), Ian Murray.
It’s now more than eight years since this website comprehensively shattered the absolute lie in the last of those paragraphs. Labour does NOT need, and has NEVER needed, Scottish seats to win a UK election. Tony Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a UK general election in the last 46 years, and every single one of his administrations would have had a comfortable majority if Scotland was independent and sent no MPs at all to Westminster.
1997
Actual majority: 179
Majority without Scotland: 139
2001
Actual majority: 167
Majority without Scotland: 127
2005
Actual majority: 66
Majority without Scotland: 43
Indeed, in 1997 and 2001 Labour would have had a large UK majority (of 67 and 55 seats respectively) even if Scotland was still part of the UK and every single seat in it had been won by the Tories.
So it’s quite bold of Murray to still be trying to punt that ridiculous and easily-disproven falsehood after all these years. The fact is that if Labour wins England it wins the UK, and Scotland has never made any meaningful difference to a UK election outcome – hardly surprising when England provides 82% of MPs and Scotland just 9%.
But it’s far from the most jaw-dropping line in the interview.
“Our seats”. Wow. That’s the same overweening, oblivious entitlement that we saw oozing from John Ruddy’s tweet at the top of this piece. Three absolute thrashings in a row, in which Scottish Labour have returned a total of NINE Scottish MPs compared to 138 in the previous three elections, has done nothing to dent it.
It still thinks Scotland is its property – even though the most recent Westminster poll put it THIRTY-SIX points behind the SNP and 10 behind the Tories – and it still thinks Scotland has a duty to vote Labour to get the Tories out for England’s benefit, rather than to vote for what Scotland actually wants for itself.
Murray went on to completely rubbish the idea that Scottish Parliament elections counted for anything at all. Were the SNP to secure a majority in 2021 on a platform of a second independence referendum, Murray insisted that it would be meaningless and irrelevant until the UK election three years later.
“You can’t say one half of the equation has a mandate and not the other”? Um, that’s exactly what you ARE doing, Ian. You’re saying Starmer’s victory would be a mandate but the SNP’s wouldn’t, you great twit.
But what that actually means is that Scottish elections are meaningless and irrelevant forever. Because Murray’s argument is “If Scotland votes for a second referendum in 2021, and then Labour wins at Westminster three years later, there’ll be no referendum. But if the Tories win, there’ll also be no referendum. And the SNP can’t get a majority at Westminster, so there’s nothing the people of Scotland can ever vote for peacefully and democratically that will get them a referendum”.
We already knew that, of course. And we knew what it meant, from Murray himself:
We’ll gloss quickly over Murray’s unambiguous and alarming implication that only an armed revolution therefore offers Scotland a route to its independence, and instead muse on whether “vote for us and we guarantee that you’ll never get democracy as long as you live, because you can’t be trusted to vote Labour like you’re supposed to” is really the surefire election-winning slogan Ian Murray appears to imagine it to be.
Because it seems to us that there’s a rather obvious logical flaw in it.


A minor confusion

Oh no , someone ’ s let Ian Murray say words again .
There ’ s only one small problem with that complaint .
Ian Murray , as the strapline on the piece notes , is “ Scotland ’ s only Labour MP ” .
Which is to say , he ’ s an MP .
Not an MSP .
He was elected to the UK Parliament , where he ’ s “ an opposition politician ” to the Tory UK government .
The Scottish Government , which sits in Edinburgh without the benefit of Mr Murray ’ s presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business .
Anyone , of course , is entitled to an opinion about anything they like .
And it certainly seems to be the case that the Scottish Government has some fairly serious questions to answer about its handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
But so ( and much more so ) does the UK government – and that ’ s the one Ian Murray is supposed to , and is paid to , hold to account , rather than waging a psychotically obsessive war against the party running a Parliament 400 miles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser asked this week how the party could “ revitalise itself north of the border ” ( and got over 1300 replies , not all of which were just “ LOL ” ) .
And while frankly that ’ s rather like asking how polio could make a comeback , we noted that a number of people offered Hazarika the same advice that this site would give : line 1 , paragraph 1 of The Great Scottish Labour Revival Plan would be “ For the love of God , superglue Ian Murray ’ @ @ @ @ @

Oh no, someone’s let Ian Murray say words again.
There’s only one small problem with that complaint.
Ian Murray, as the strapline on the piece notes, is “Scotland’s only Labour MP”. Which is to say, he’s an MP. Not an MSP. He was elected to the UK Parliament, where he’s “an opposition politician” to the Tory UK government. The Scottish Government, which sits in Edinburgh without the benefit of Mr Murray’s presence, is absolutely none of his professional business.
Anyone, of course, is entitled to an opinion about anything they like. And it certainly seems to be the case that the Scottish Government has some fairly serious questions to answer about its handling of the coronavirus pandemic. But so (and much more so) does the UK government – and that’s the one Ian Murray is supposed to, and is paid to, hold to account, rather than waging a psychotically obsessive war against the party running a Parliament 400 miles away.
A journalist and former Labour adviser asked this week how the party could “revitalise itself north of the border” (and got over 1300 replies, not all of which were just “LOL”).
And while frankly that’s rather like asking how polio could make a comeback, we noted that a number of people offered Hazarika the same advice that this site would give: line 1, paragraph 1 of The Great Scottish Labour Revival Plan would be “For the love of God, superglue Ian Murray’s mouth shut”.


The strongman


wingsoverscotland--2020-06-08--Jail time for Joanne

Jail time for Joanne

This site is not terribly inclined towards sympathy for popular children ’ s author Joanne Kathleen Rowling .
We ’ re still waiting on an apology for her donating a crucial million pounds towards ensuring Scotland stayed ruled by Tories and got dragged out of the EU against its will , on the bonkers premise that voting No would magically put Scots in a position of unprecedented popularity and power within the UK .
As a smart piece of analysis it ’ s right up there with “ They couldn ’ t hit an elephant at this distance ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at some point in the last six years she ’ d held her hands up and gone “ Y ’ know what , I called that one really badly wrong .
Sorry about the whole Tory/Brexit thing , everyone .
We all make mistakes ” .
We still don ’ t think she deserves seven years in prison , though .
Yet under Scotland ’ s proposed new Hate Crime And Public Order Act , it ’ s exactly what she ’ d be looking at after the events of the past weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genuinely least-horrific responses from “ trans rights activists ” ( TRAs ) to a short series of tweets Rowling made on Saturday expressing the not-terribly-controversial view that human sex is real .
If you want some of the really nasty ones , we ’ re sure you can figure out what sort of search terms to use on Twitter .
The thread has had over 50,000 direct replies at the time of writing , and many more indirectly .
Thousands and thousands of them are indescribably appalling , in all the ways you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Scotland the SNP is currently proposing to create , it ’ s Rowling who ’ d go to jail .
Because the Hate Crime Bill makes EVEN UNINTENTIONAL “ stirring up of hatred ” a criminal offence punishable by up to two-thirds of a decade in the clink .
And what absolutely nobody who spent any time on Twitter or Facebook this past weekend could dispute is that hatred was stirred up , in truly epic amounts .
In a deeply troubling article for the Scotsman and a letter to The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yousaf attempted to reassure people – and the fact that he felt it was necessary to do so is deeply scary in itself – that the new act wouldn ’ t be used to criminalise opposition to government policy .
But his attempted defences were notable for some telling and terrifying uses of the word “ or ” .
The requirement that any potentially criminal comments must in the first instance be “ threatening or abusive ” is meaningless , because it ’ s open to infinite interpretation .
We now live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be not just abuse but “ literal violence ” if you accurately identify the sex of a person claiming to be of the other sex .
So Rowling ’ s only remaining defence would be that she didn ’ t INTEND her words to stir up hatred , and nobody who read them could honestly dispute that .
Whether one agrees with the views she expressed or not , she did so calmly and sensitively .
But under this law that would do her no good whatsoever .
Because even if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was nevertheless overwhelmingly likely – indeed , it was absolutely certain – that the reaction to those tweets from the demented , fundamentalist , extremist ideology of the transcult would be hysterical , and because of the size and intensity of Rowling ’ s following it would be enormous in scale .
No matter how reasonable a person ’ s comments , the reaction of TRAs to dissent is always instantly apocalyptic .
Rowling would have known that as well as anyone else – she ’ s been down this road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law would have had no valid defence .
By any possible measure she would be guilty of the crime as defined and looking at a spell behind bars .
This catastrophically ill-conceived and illiberal new law – which has already triggered alarms right across the political spectrum , from SNP loyalist Andrew Tickell through habitual party flesh-thorn Jim Sillars and feminist policy thinktank Murray Blackburn Mackenzie and the National Secular Society all the way to Daily Mail and Spectator columnist Stephen Daisley and right-wing blog Spiked – has no direct bearing on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the SNP achieve the third successive landslide next year that all polls currently predict , the bill will pass and become law whether Scotland is independent or not .
Readers , this site has said many times that it believes in independence as a principle , regardless of what policies any parties may advocate , and that those are matters to be decided at elections , not in referendums .
That remains the case .
But the conduct of the Scottish Government over the last couple of years has become so deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so full of arrogant hubris ( with worrying side orders of operational incompetence and increasingly open corruption ) , that our blood runs cold at the thought of what it might do with more power .
And the shamefully , disgracefully , farcically pathetic state of all three main opposition parties offers no credible hope of checks or balances , let alone alternatives .
As a matter of principle , independence remains uncontestable .
But as a matter of real-world here-and-now practicality , it is becoming harder and harder to advocate , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ painfully that breaks our heart .

This site is not terribly inclined towards sympathy for popular children’s author Joanne Kathleen Rowling. We’re still waiting on an apology for her donating a crucial million pounds towards ensuring Scotland stayed ruled by Tories and got dragged out of the EU against its will, on the bonkers premise that voting No would magically put Scots in a position of unprecedented popularity and power within the UK.
As a smart piece of analysis it’s right up there with “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance”, and it would have been nice if at some point in the last six years she’d held her hands up and gone “Y’know what, I called that one really badly wrong. Sorry about the whole Tory/Brexit thing, everyone. We all make mistakes”.
(Wings, of course, got it exactly right at the time.)
We still don’t think she deserves seven years in prison, though.
Yet under Scotland’s proposed new Hate Crime And Public Order Act, it’s exactly what she’d be looking at after the events of the past weekend.
Above are just two of the genuinely least-horrific responses from “trans rights activists” (TRAs) to a short series of tweets Rowling made on Saturday expressing the not-terribly-controversial view that human sex is real. If you want some of the really nasty ones, we’re sure you can figure out what sort of search terms to use on Twitter.
(One of the above comes from a “progressive left” US activist and staffer on Elisabeth Warren’s presidential campaign who describes himself as an “intersectional feminist”. The other comes from a convicted thug who’s already violently assaulted one elderly woman for her views on gender – a crime which will have been recorded as being committed by a female even though he’s a man. The judge ordered the victim to refer to her assailant as a woman during the trial and denied her compensation not because she refused, but because she complied “with bad grace”.)
The thread has had over 50,000 direct replies at the time of writing, and many more indirectly. Thousands and thousands of them are indescribably appalling, in all the ways you’d imagine and worse.
But in the Scotland the SNP is currently proposing to create, it’s Rowling who’d go to jail. Because the Hate Crime Bill makes EVEN UNINTENTIONAL “stirring up of hatred” a criminal offence punishable by up to two-thirds of a decade in the clink. And what absolutely nobody who spent any time on Twitter or Facebook this past weekend could dispute is that hatred was stirred up, in truly epic amounts.
In a deeply troubling article for the Scotsman and a letter to The National last month, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf attempted to reassure people – and the fact that he felt it was necessary to do so is deeply scary in itself – that the new act wouldn’t be used to criminalise opposition to government policy. But his attempted defences were notable for some telling and terrifying uses of the word “or”.
The requirement that any potentially criminal comments must in the first instance be “threatening or abusive” is meaningless, because it’s open to infinite interpretation. We now live in a world where it’s considered to be not just abuse but “literal violence” if you accurately identify the sex of a person claiming to be of the other sex.
So Rowling’s only remaining defence would be that she didn’t INTEND her words to stir up hatred, and nobody who read them could honestly dispute that. Whether one agrees with the views she expressed or not, she did so calmly and sensitively.
But under this law that would do her no good whatsoever. Because even if the court accepted her lack of hateful intent, it was nevertheless overwhelmingly likely – indeed, it was absolutely certain – that the reaction to those tweets from the demented, fundamentalist, extremist ideology of the transcult would be hysterical, and because of the size and intensity of Rowling’s following it would be enormous in scale.
No matter how reasonable a person’s comments, the reaction of TRAs to dissent is always instantly apocalyptic. Rowling would have known that as well as anyone else – she’s been down this road before – and therefore under the new law would have had no valid defence. By any possible measure she would be guilty of the crime as defined and looking at a spell behind bars.
(Yeah, yeah, we know – look at us pretending for the sake of argument that the law in Scotland is applied equally to all.)
This catastrophically ill-conceived and illiberal new law – which has already triggered alarms right across the political spectrum, from SNP loyalist Andrew Tickell through habitual party flesh-thorn Jim Sillars and feminist policy thinktank Murray Blackburn Mackenzie and the National Secular Society all the way to Daily Mail and Spectator columnist Stephen Daisley and right-wing blog Spiked – has no direct bearing on the constitutional debate. Justice is devolved and if the SNP achieve the third successive landslide next year that all polls currently predict, the bill will pass and become law whether Scotland is independent or not.
Readers, this site has said many times that it believes in independence as a principle, regardless of what policies any parties may advocate, and that those are matters to be decided at elections, not in referendums. That remains the case.
But the conduct of the Scottish Government over the last couple of years has become so deeply frightening, so intolerant and authoritarian, so full of arrogant hubris (with worrying side orders of operational incompetence and increasingly open corruption), that our blood runs cold at the thought of what it might do with more power. And the shamefully, disgracefully, farcically pathetic state of all three main opposition parties offers no credible hope of checks or balances, let alone alternatives.
As a matter of principle, independence remains uncontestable. But as a matter of real-world here-and-now practicality, it is becoming harder and harder to advocate, and we cannot begin to express how painfully that breaks our heart.