Going walkabout

`` 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)


Becoming exercised

Yeah , we know we said we weren ’ t going to say anything else about the COVID-19 crisis , but sometimes there ’ s just too much stupid going around to stay silent .
A disturbing number of people appear to have interpreted the undoubted seriousness of the pandemic to mean that nobody is ever allowed to be even slightly happy for the briefest of moments until it ’ s all over .
As a result , while half the country is full of people just trying to cope as best they can while acting sensibly and responsibly within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency restrictions , the other half has elected itself officers of the Lockdown Gestapo , pointing fingers and shrieking at anyone deemed not to be miserable enough .
Please , please , can we stop doing that , folks ?
Quite aside from hundreds of examples of overzealous policing that we won ’ t list here because police are largely trying their best at a tough job in extraordinary times , social media is also full of pious , virtue-signalling lockdown-shaming , almost all of it directed at people who aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most of all , people are witch-hunting what they deem to be breaches of the exemption for “ exercise ” , for example castigating anyone found “ sunbathing ” , otherwise known as “ being stationary and non-vertical in a public place during daylight hours ” , and in some particularly heinous cases also eating food , the monsters .
But to illustrate the flaw in that reasoning , let ’ s walk through a scenario and see if we can find out where the legal line should , or indeed could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re exercising , are you allowed to stop for a rest ?
It ’ s pretty much the definition of exercise , after all , that it ’ s supposed to make you tired and a little out of breath .
If that happens , does the emergency legislation require you to carry on regardless until you collapse of exhaustion and require the assistance of hard-pressed emergency services ?
If not , must you sit down at exactly 90 degrees , or can you lean back a bit ?
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie down all the way to a full 180 degrees ?
If not , what is the permissible maximum angle of recline and are the police going to be issued with protractors to enforce it ?
( 2 ) Exercise depletes energy .
Are you allowed to eat anything , eg a protein bar , while you ’ re sitting down during your exercise period ?
That ’ s surely fine , right ?
Food is the body ’ s fuel .
( 3 ) But if you ’ re allowed to sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bar , why not other sources of energy ?
Why not a packet of crisps or a Twix ?
They still provide fuel .
How could anyone possibly legislate between acceptable and non-acceptable sources of bodily energy ?
Many supposedly “ healthy ” snacks contain huge amounts of sugar and/or fat , are those still okay ?
Can ’ t we just have a nice packet of Starburst ?
[ EDIT 2.14pm : a very serious runner friend interjects with some expertise : “ A Twix is a better immediate energy source as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A protein bar wouldn ’ t be absorbed during exercise so best taken after.
” ] If you ’ re allowed to eat during your exercise then the law can not realistically distinguish between permissible and impermissible foods .
( 4 ) If you ’ re allowed to eat any sort of food while out exercising , it follows that there also can ’ t sensibly be any restrictions placed on the temperature of that food .
You ’ re still allowed to buy hot food from takeaways and places like Greggs ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter ) , so it ’ s clearly not outlawed in itself .
And if you ’ re allowed to eat hot food then why – if you ’ re obeying the laws on keeping a safe distance from others and not congregating in non-household groups of more than two people – couldn ’ t you , for example , have a mini-barbecue in a park or on a beach ?
What difference does it make to anything if you ’ re heating it up yourself ?
The people sitting down in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least they were until the police showed up ) and there are only two of them , so nothing we can see actually tells us that they ’ re infringing any rules , any more than they would be if they were having a salad or some hummus .
( 5 ) If any kind of food is okay then the same must logically follow for any kind of drink .
If someone can pause during their exercise to rehydrate with water , which is obviously reasonable , then why not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine then why not full-fat Coke ?
If regular Coke is okay , why not shandy ?
If shandy , why not normal beer ?
Etc etc .
Again , how could you possibly legislate the distinction ?
It ’ s technically a bit easier with liquids – alcohol content , sugar content and so on are all measurable and labelled – but since Coke and beer are still perfectly legal ( off-licences are among the categories of shops still allowed to trade as normal ) it would be irrational and unjustifiable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that it ’ s perfectly possible that a family of five people could be sitting in a park having a barbecue and drinking alcohol and still be in total compliance with the law , because while nobody would consider that to be exercise in itself , it ’ s still covered every individual step of the way by the exercise exemption .
You ’ re allowed to be out for exercise , and the simple act of walking to the park or beach or wherever is exercise .
Nothing in the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constant motion the whole time .
Nothing says you ’ re forbidden from sitting down at some point or consuming food or drink , or imposes limits on what food or drink it could be .
Just so we ’ re clear , this site absolutely urges everyone to obey the law and act safely and responsibly towards themselves and everyone else .
Don ’ t gather in large non-household groups .
Don ’ t get within 2 metres of anyone else , and be much further apart than that if you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any surface you don ’ t have to .
But as we ’ ve explained , even people who don ’ t LOOK like they ’ re “ exercising ” may very well not be breaking any law or putting anyone at risk , and if we ’ re all going to get through this without murdering each other then maybe we should leave them the hell alone and get on with our own lives .
( The absolute worst possible argument in response to this view , incidentally , is “ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quiet lawful pleasure in public places , EVERYONE will want to do it and they ’ ll be overrun by hordes of lunatics crawling all over each other and licking everything !
” But there ’ s no evidence whatsoever of that happening .
People aren ’ t stupid , at least not when their own lives are at stake .
If they head out to the park and it ’ s getting a bit busy , they ’ ll turn round and go somewhere else .
Below are pictures of our lovely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21C of glorious mid-afternoon sun . )
As we said last week : you don ’ t know anyone else ’ s story .
We don ’ t know what their personal circumstances are and what stresses they may be under .
They might have just done a brutal , unimaginably grim week of 14-hour shifts in a hospital or being yelled at by fractious customers on a supermarket till .
We don ’ t know if half an hour by themselves in the sunshine with a sandwich might be the only thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Everyone except me is a reckless idiot who should be chained to a radiator for the duration of the crisis !
” is not the mindset that ’ s going to get us through this .
So we ’ re begging – unless it ’ s ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that people are risking others , leave them be .
Every time excessive hyper-policing ( whether it ’ s by the police and authorities or ordinary citizens ) gets a beach or a park closed down , we all get jammed just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nothing a virus loves more than antsy , edgy , increasingly resentful and mutinous people all being crammed together in the smallest space possible .
Let ’ s look after each other , gang .

Yeah, we know we said we weren’t going to say anything else about the COVID-19 crisis, but sometimes there’s just too much stupid going around to stay silent.
A disturbing number of people appear to have interpreted the undoubted seriousness of the pandemic to mean that nobody is ever allowed to be even slightly happy for the briefest of moments until it’s all over.
As a result, while half the country is full of people just trying to cope as best they can while acting sensibly and responsibly within both the letter and spirit of the emergency restrictions, the other half has elected itself officers of the Lockdown Gestapo, pointing fingers and shrieking at anyone deemed not to be miserable enough.
Please, please, can we stop doing that, folks?
Quite aside from hundreds of examples of overzealous policing that we won’t list here because police are largely trying their best at a tough job in extraordinary times, social media is also full of pious, virtue-signalling lockdown-shaming, almost all of it directed at people who aren’t actually visibly breaking any of the rules.
Most of all, people are witch-hunting what they deem to be breaches of the exemption for “exercise”, for example castigating anyone found “sunbathing”, otherwise known as “being stationary and non-vertical in a public place during daylight hours”, and in some particularly heinous cases also eating food, the monsters.
But to illustrate the flaw in that reasoning, let’s walk through a scenario and see if we can find out where the legal line should, or indeed could, be drawn.
———————————————————————————————–
(1) If you’re exercising, are you allowed to stop for a rest? It’s pretty much the definition of exercise, after all, that it’s supposed to make you tired and a little out of breath.
If that happens, does the emergency legislation require you to carry on regardless until you collapse of exhaustion and require the assistance of hard-pressed emergency services? If not, must you sit down at exactly 90 degrees, or can you lean back a bit? If you can lean back, can you lie down all the way to a full 180 degrees? If not, what is the permissible maximum angle of recline and are the police going to be issued with protractors to enforce it?
(2) Exercise depletes energy. Are you allowed to eat anything, eg a protein bar, while you’re sitting down during your exercise period?
That’s surely fine, right? Food is the body’s fuel.
(3) But if you’re allowed to sit down while exercising and eat a protein bar, why not other sources of energy? Why not a packet of crisps or a Twix? They still provide fuel.
How could anyone possibly legislate between acceptable and non-acceptable sources of bodily energy? Many supposedly “healthy” snacks contain huge amounts of sugar and/or fat, are those still okay? Can’t we just have a nice packet of Starburst?
[EDIT 2.14pm: a very serious runner friend interjects with some expertise: “A Twix is a better immediate energy source as it’s largely simple sugars. A protein bar wouldn’t be absorbed during exercise so best taken after.”]
If you’re allowed to eat during your exercise then the law cannot realistically distinguish between permissible and impermissible foods.
(4) If you’re allowed to eat any sort of food while out exercising, it follows that there also can’t sensibly be any restrictions placed on the temperature of that food. You’re still allowed to buy hot food from takeaways and places like Greggs (and ice lollies from supermarkets for that matter), so it’s clearly not outlawed in itself.
And if you’re allowed to eat hot food then why – if you’re obeying the laws on keeping a safe distance from others and not congregating in non-household groups of more than two people – couldn’t you, for example, have a mini-barbecue in a park or on a beach? What difference does it make to anything if you’re heating it up yourself?
The people sitting down in that picture are miles from anyone else (or at least they were until the police showed up) and there are only two of them, so nothing we can see actually tells us that they’re infringing any rules, any more than they would be if they were having a salad or some hummus.
(A salad would in fact probably present a higher infection risk.)
(5) If any kind of food is okay then the same must logically follow for any kind of drink. If someone can pause during their exercise to rehydrate with water, which is obviously reasonable, then why not Diet Coke? If Diet Coke is fine then why not full-fat Coke? If regular Coke is okay, why not shandy? If shandy, why not normal beer? Etc etc.
Again, how could you possibly legislate the distinction? It’s technically a bit easier with liquids – alcohol content, sugar content and so on are all measurable and labelled – but since Coke and beer are still perfectly legal (off-licences are among the categories of shops still allowed to trade as normal) it would be irrational and unjustifiable.
———————————————————————————————–
What we’ve just shown above is that it’s perfectly possible that a family of five people could be sitting in a park having a barbecue and drinking alcohol and still be in total compliance with the law, because while nobody would consider that to be exercise in itself, it’s still covered every individual step of the way by the exercise exemption.
You’re allowed to be out for exercise, and the simple act of walking to the park or beach or wherever is exercise. Nothing in the law says that you have to be in constant motion the whole time. Nothing says you’re forbidden from sitting down at some point or consuming food or drink, or imposes limits on what food or drink it could be.
Just so we’re clear, this site absolutely urges everyone to obey the law and act safely and responsibly towards themselves and everyone else. Don’t gather in large non-household groups. Don’t get within 2 metres of anyone else, and be much further apart than that if you can manage it. Don’t touch any surface you don’t have to.
But as we’ve explained, even people who don’t LOOK like they’re “exercising” may very well not be breaking any law or putting anyone at risk, and if we’re all going to get through this without murdering each other then maybe we should leave them the hell alone and get on with our own lives.
(The absolute worst possible argument in response to this view, incidentally, is “But if we let people find moments of quiet lawful pleasure in public places, EVERYONE will want to do it and they’ll be overrun by hordes of lunatics crawling all over each other and licking everything!”
But there’s no evidence whatsoever of that happening. People aren’t stupid, at least not when their own lives are at stake. If they head out to the park and it’s getting a bit busy, they’ll turn round and go somewhere else. Below are pictures of our lovely and legally-open local park yesterday, in 21C of glorious mid-afternoon sun.)
As we said last week: you don’t know anyone else’s story. We don’t know what their personal circumstances are and what stresses they may be under. They might have just done a brutal, unimaginably grim week of 14-hour shifts in a hospital or being yelled at by fractious customers on a supermarket till. We don’t know if half an hour by themselves in the sunshine with a sandwich might be the only thing standing between them and a complete breakdown.
“Everyone except me is a reckless idiot who should be chained to a radiator for the duration of the crisis!” is not the mindset that’s going to get us through this.
So we’re begging – unless it’s ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that people are risking others, leave them be. Every time excessive hyper-policing (whether it’s by the police and authorities or ordinary citizens) gets a beach or a park closed down, we all get jammed just a little bit closer together, and there’s nothing a virus loves more than antsy, edgy, increasingly resentful and mutinous people all being crammed together in the smallest space possible.
Let’s look after each other, gang.


The poisoned pens

Scotland ’ s media is still unable to contain its outpouring of bitter , resentful rage over Alex Salmond ’ s exoneration by a jury on trumped-up sexual assault charges .
Flailing blindly in all directions it ’ s achieving little other than to embarrass itself , such as last night when Scotland On Sunday had to change its front page in a late panic .
But the media ’ s toxic fury at being denied Salmond ’ s head on a pole has also led it to do something far , far more serious and reckless .
And every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve done .
As Kenny Farquharson of the Times pointed out in the above tweet from Thursday , it is a very serious criminal offence to publish information which enables a person whose anonymity is protected by a court order to be identified by a third party – even if the information does not in itself directly identify the person .
For obvious reasons this phenomenon is known by the term “ jigsaw identification ” , because it ’ s providing pieces which alone do not show the full picture , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a full LinkedIn bio and a picture of their house .
All nine of the women who accused Alex Salmond are still protected by a court order hiding their identities .
The Crown Office And Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) felt it was necessary to remind people of that fact just days ago , and to explain why .
And yet in the intervening time , almost all of Scotland ’ s newspapers have repeated a piece of information which would enable anyone , in a matter of seconds , to identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but one who is at the very heart of the alleged conspiracy to have Alex Salmond wrongfully convicted .
It is a piece of information which was revealed in the court , but should not have been reported , just as large parts of the proceedings were banned from being discussed in the public domain .
At least two reporters were chastised and/or removed from the court during the trial for actions which risked identifying a witness directly or indirectly .
Ironically , the Scottish media has been fulminating self-righteously against people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost every newspaper now has .
No prior knowledge of the case would be required to utilise the information .
Armed with a single sentence from any of the articles , a newly-arrived alien from the Andromeda galaxy could type just TWO WORDS – the two most obvious ones – into Google and immediately be presented with the name of the woman in question , in circumstances putting it beyond any doubt whatsoever that she was the person being discussed .
We ’ ve already been contacted by a number of people expressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no prior knowledge to correctly identify the woman using that one piece of information alone .
Some have also volunteered , unsolicited , their willingness to provide an affidavit to that effect if requested .
The contempt of court is SO blatant that this site isn ’ t going to even quote the specific paragraphs or sentences in question for fear of repeating the contempt .
All that we ’ re willing to do is list – for the benefit of the COPFS – all of the people who ’ ve put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles in which they did so .
When the articles in question are removed , so will the references to them here be .
We ’ re also not going to link to any the scores of articles which the piece of information “ unlocks ” to provide the name of the woman by completing the jigsaw .
Nothing in this article adds any information whatsoever to the public domain which hasn ’ t already been put there by all of these newspapers .
NB If you determine the woman ’ s identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post the name in the comments , obviously .
If you wish to discuss it , use the Contact form .
We take this extraordinary step in the hope of impressing the seriousness of the matter on the collective Scottish media , in the hope they will stop repeatedly endangering the woman ’ s anonymity .
So far their complacency about the situation is breathtaking .
In Garavelli ’ s case she has repeated the identification today even after being repeatedly told what she ’ d done the first time her article was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leask the people below are “ bloggers , conspiracists and general scumbags ” .
In the opinion of Kenny Farquharson and Dani Garavelli , they all deserve a jail sentence .
This site prefers to leave that decision to the proper authorities , and we have accordingly passed all of the information in this article to COPFS and the police .
They are , in alphabetical order : Kieran Andrews ( the Times ) , here and here .
Dani Garavelli ( Tortoise Media , Scotland On Sunday ) , here and here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also here and here .

Scotland’s media is still unable to contain its outpouring of bitter, resentful rage over Alex Salmond’s exoneration by a jury on trumped-up sexual assault charges.
Flailing blindly in all directions it’s achieving little other than to embarrass itself, such as last night when Scotland On Sunday had to change its front page in a late panic. But the media’s toxic fury at being denied Salmond’s head on a pole has also led it to do something far, far more serious and reckless.
And every one of them knows exactly what they’ve done.
As Kenny Farquharson of the Times pointed out in the above tweet from Thursday, it is a very serious criminal offence to publish information which enables a person whose anonymity is protected by a court order to be identified by a third party – even if the information does not in itself directly identify the person.
For obvious reasons this phenomenon is known by the term “jigsaw identification”, because it’s providing pieces which alone do not show the full picture, but when added together might as well be a full LinkedIn bio and a picture of their house.
All nine of the women who accused Alex Salmond are still protected by a court order hiding their identities. The Crown Office And Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) felt it was necessary to remind people of that fact just days ago, and to explain why.
And yet in the intervening time, almost all of Scotland’s newspapers have repeated a piece of information which would enable anyone, in a matter of seconds, to identify not just one of the complainers, but one who is at the very heart of the alleged conspiracy to have Alex Salmond wrongfully convicted.
It is a piece of information which was revealed in the court, but should not have been reported, just as large parts of the proceedings were banned from being discussed in the public domain. At least two reporters were chastised and/or removed from the court during the trial for actions which risked identifying a witness directly or indirectly.
Ironically, the Scottish media has been fulminating self-righteously against people who did NOT identify anyone in the way almost every newspaper now has.
No prior knowledge of the case would be required to utilise the information. Armed with a single sentence from any of the articles, a newly-arrived alien from the Andromeda galaxy could type just TWO WORDS – the two most obvious ones – into Google and immediately be presented with the name of the woman in question, in circumstances putting it beyond any doubt whatsoever that she was the person being discussed.
We’ve already been contacted by a number of people expressing their shock, who were all able with no prior knowledge to correctly identify the woman using that one piece of information alone. Some have also volunteered, unsolicited, their willingness to provide an affidavit to that effect if requested.
The contempt of court is SO blatant that this site isn’t going to even quote the specific paragraphs or sentences in question for fear of repeating the contempt. All that we’re willing to do is list – for the benefit of the COPFS – all of the people who’ve put her anonymity at risk, and the articles in which they did so. When the articles in question are removed, so will the references to them here be.
We’re also not going to link to any the scores of articles which the piece of information “unlocks” to provide the name of the woman by completing the jigsaw. Nothing in this article adds any information whatsoever to the public domain which hasn’t already been put there by all of these newspapers.
(For that reason, we believe it would in fact be perfectly lawful for us to screenshot the offending paragraphs. However, while we consider the woman in question to be a malicious liar who deliberately and knowingly colluded in an attempt to imprison an innocent man for political reasons, we still respect her right to the protection of the law more than the Scottish media who hypocritically laud her “bravery” do.)
NB If you determine the woman’s identity after reading this piece, DO NOT post the name in the comments, obviously. If you wish to discuss it, use the Contact form.
We take this extraordinary step in the hope of impressing the seriousness of the matter on the collective Scottish media, in the hope they will stop repeatedly endangering the woman’s anonymity. So far their complacency about the situation is breathtaking. In Garavelli’s case she has repeated the identification today even after being repeatedly told what she’d done the first time her article was published.
(So astonishingly transparent is the identification, as correctly deciphered by numerous completely unqualified readers of this site, that we must conclude she had it “legalled” by some passing small drunk children, or perhaps a badger.)
In the view of David Leask the people below are “bloggers, conspiracists and general scumbags”. In the opinion of Kenny Farquharson and Dani Garavelli, they all deserve a jail sentence. This site prefers to leave that decision to the proper authorities, and we have accordingly passed all of the information in this article to COPFS and the police.
They are, in alphabetical order:
Kieran Andrews (the Times), here and here.
Steve Bird (Telegraph), here.
Severin Carrell, (Guardian), here.
Mure Dickie (Financial Times), here.
Kenny Farquharson (Times), here.
Dani Garavelli (Tortoise Media, Scotland On Sunday), here and here.
Paul Hutcheon (Daily Record), here.
Magnus Linklater (Times), also here and here.
Izzy Lyons (Telegraph), also here.
David Mackay (Press & Journal), here.


The sharp end


wingsoverscotland--2020-03-29--The women you mustn’t believe

The women you mustn’t believe

It will come as little surprise to any observer of the Scottish media for the last decade that the trial of Alex Salmond is to continue indefinitely after the actual court case that cleared him of all charges .
With very occasional honourable exceptions , including some from rather unexpected sources , the Scottish press has been – even by its own spectacularly low standards – an absolute sewer for the past week .
Wings has taken the decision not to link to any of the most disgusting articles , even as archives , because frankly in the current stressful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poison in our headspace .
Scotland ’ s political journalists have been unable to contain their seething fury at being robbed of the head on a pike that they were all expecting and salivating about like Pavlov ’ s dogs .
But scumbags are gon na scumbag , and that ’ s not news .
What ’ s far more alarming is something in today ’ s papers that they didn ’ t write .
Most have run with a statement issued by Rape Crisis Scotland last night on behalf of the nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still hiding behind a cloak of anonymity .
The statement itself – which we assume they all collaborated on using the same WhatsApp group they “ discussed ” their complaints in before bringing the case – is a tissue-thin outpouring of self-pity and hypocritical hand-wringing piety , skirting as close as it can to defamation without quite stepping across the line .
It calls for unspecified “ changes ” to unspecified “ procedures ” in order to “ achieve justice ” .
But what happened in the highest court in Scotland this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence ( such as it was ) was heard at great length after a wide-ranging police investigation , it was weighed by a mostly-female jury under the direction of a female judge , and a verdict of innocence was reached .
The accused walked out of the court a free man .
In what way are we to conclude that this was not “ just ” ?
The only possible interpretation of the statement is that the jury should not be believed , and that the seven female witnesses who gave evidence for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hiding behind a screen , and some of whom risked their careers to do so – must not be believed either .
Apparently THOSE women are the wrong type of women , uniquely unworthy of belief .
For reasons and motivations unexplained , we are not to trust them .
Rape Crisis Scotland is mostly funded by the Scottish Government , with less than 1 % of its income coming from donations .
It spends over £600,000 a year on staff wages .
The accusers , readers will recall , are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government or SNP staff or civil servants working for the Scottish Government .
In publishing the statement , therefore , Rape Crisis Scotland ( whose board includes embittered former political opponents of Alex Salmond like Margaret Curran ) is in effect using its position to serve as a paid propaganda arm of the Scottish Government .
So the government is basically paying what amount to its own employees to issue statements in the ( redacted ) name of some of its other employees , and to defend the government ( including those employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while ostensibly pretending to be an impartial external body .
In doing so it seeks to undermine not only the verdict of a serious criminal trial , but a current live inquiry about the conduct of that same Scottish Government , over a matter in which the government has already been found by an independent court to have acted unlawfully and with serious bias , imperilling a man ’ s freedom , jeopardising a criminal trial and ruining him financially despite his proven innocence .
The accusers of Alex Salmond , who a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dutifully to their accusations for two weeks , are already suspected of being part of a political conspiracy orchestrated by the Scottish Government to imprison an innocent man for political reasons .
It is an act of spectacular ill judgement on the part of Rape Crisis Scotland to double down on those disproven claims .
It betrays the women who gave evidence for the defence .
It betrays the women of the jury .
It betrays the woman who presided over the trial .
But perhaps more than any of those , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual assault , by implying to them that they can expect no justice and therefore that it ’ s hopeless to raise their cases .
None of the anonymous accusers of Alex Salmond – who that same mainly-female jury decided had NOT been sexually assaulted – appear to care about women who really have been raped and assaulted .
If they did , they would not have put their ( fake ) names to a document which tells those women that the legal system will not protect them .
And that , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an innocent man , is a shame and a disgrace that will stick to those who perpetrated it forever .

It will come as little surprise to any observer of the Scottish media for the last decade that the trial of Alex Salmond is to continue indefinitely after the actual court case that cleared him of all charges.
With very occasional honourable exceptions, including some from rather unexpected sources, the Scottish press has been – even by its own spectacularly low standards – an absolute sewer for the past week. Wings has taken the decision not to link to any of the most disgusting articles, even as archives, because frankly in the current stressful situation none of us needs any extra poison in our headspace.
Scotland’s political journalists have been unable to contain their seething fury at being robbed of the head on a pike that they were all expecting and salivating about like Pavlov’s dogs. But scumbags are gonna scumbag, and that’s not news. What’s far more alarming is something in today’s papers that they didn’t write.
Most have run with a statement issued by Rape Crisis Scotland last night on behalf of the nine accusers in the case, all nine still hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. The statement itself – which we assume they all collaborated on using the same WhatsApp group they “discussed” their complaints in before bringing the case – is a tissue-thin outpouring of self-pity and hypocritical hand-wringing piety, skirting as close as it can to defamation without quite stepping across the line.
It calls for unspecified “changes” to unspecified “procedures” in order to “achieve justice”. But what happened in the highest court in Scotland this month if not “justice”?
The evidence (such as it was) was heard at great length after a wide-ranging police investigation, it was weighed by a mostly-female jury under the direction of a female judge, and a verdict of innocence was reached. The accused walked out of the court a free man. In what way are we to conclude that this was not “just”?
The only possible interpretation of the statement is that the jury should not be believed, and that the seven female witnesses who gave evidence for the defence – none with the benefit of hiding behind a screen, and some of whom risked their careers to do so – must not be believed either.
Apparently THOSE women are the wrong type of women, uniquely unworthy of belief. For reasons and motivations unexplained, we are not to trust them.
Rape Crisis Scotland is mostly funded by the Scottish Government, with less than 1% of its income coming from donations. It spends over £600,000 a year on staff wages. The accusers, readers will recall, are all (either current or former) Scottish Government or SNP staff or civil servants working for the Scottish Government.
In publishing the statement, therefore, Rape Crisis Scotland (whose board includes embittered former political opponents of Alex Salmond like Margaret Curran) is in effect using its position to serve as a paid propaganda arm of the Scottish Government.
So the government is basically paying what amount to its own employees to issue statements in the (redacted) name of some of its other employees, and to defend the government (including those employees) against allegations of wrongdoing, but while ostensibly pretending to be an impartial external body.
In doing so it seeks to undermine not only the verdict of a serious criminal trial, but a current live inquiry about the conduct of that same Scottish Government, over a matter in which the government has already been found by an independent court to have acted unlawfully and with serious bias, imperilling a man’s freedom, jeopardising a criminal trial and ruining him financially despite his proven innocence.
The accusers of Alex Salmond, who a jury declined to believe after listening intently and dutifully to their accusations for two weeks, are already suspected of being part of a political conspiracy orchestrated by the Scottish Government to imprison an innocent man for political reasons. It is an act of spectacular ill judgement on the part of Rape Crisis Scotland to double down on those disproven claims.
It betrays the women who gave evidence for the defence. It betrays the women of the jury. It betrays the woman who presided over the trial. But perhaps more than any of those, it betrays the victims of rape and sexual assault, by implying to them that they can expect no justice and therefore that it’s hopeless to raise their cases.
None of the anonymous accusers of Alex Salmond – who that same mainly-female jury decided had NOT been sexually assaulted – appear to care about women who really have been raped and assaulted. If they did, they would not have put their (fake) names to a document which tells those women that the legal system will not protect them.
And that, more even than the failed attempt to imprison an innocent man, is a shame and a disgrace that will stick to those who perpetrated it forever.


Best served cold


wingsoverscotland--2020-03-27--Let’s not kill ourselves

Let’s not kill ourselves

This article is the only thing Wings is going to say about the COVID-19 crisis , because ( a ) we ’ re on holiday , ( b ) it has very little to do with Scottish politics , and ( c ) we ’ re not virologists and have no expertise to offer .
But in so far as we have some sort of reach and to some extent people listen to us , and we don ’ t want any of you to die , here ’ s a small plea for all our sakes .
The emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacting the most draconian restrictions on freedom of movement in British history ( peacetime or wartime ) seems to us to be reasonable and proportionate in these extraordinary circumstances .
We commend Parliament for making it reviewable every 21 days – it ’ s unlikely to end so soon , but it ’ s a sensible , manageable period of time to stop people feeling imprisoned .
What ’ s less helpful are authorities and the public alike taking it upon themselves to exceed even those severe restrictions with overzealous policing of lawful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of replies , the above tweet from Derbyshire Police has generated an angry reaction .
It shows people observing the social-distancing rules impeccably while taking exercise for themselves and their dogs as explicitly permitted by the new law , and hounding them with drone cameras and public shaming can only be counter-productive .
Coupled with wildly irresponsible tweets like this ( thankfully now deleted ) one : …it ’ s the sort of thing that will generate resentment and hostility towards the forces of law and order at a time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public is an absolute necessity for the maintenance of order .
People going on social media and competing to virtue-signal by hysterically savaging the lawful dog-walkers with madly overblown catastrophism about what might happen if their car went over a landmine or they suddenly fell down a mountain , causing extra strain on hard-pressed emergency services , are being equally destructive .
By and large , you ’ re far more likely to ( a ) have an accident and ( b ) transmit the virus by doing your exercising in a busy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving a few miles to a piece of quiet countryside , and once again it ’ s not illegal – if it was such a big risk , it would have been forbidden in the emergency legislation .
The famous WW2 poster didn ’ t read “ SHRIEK AND POINT YOUR FINGER LIKE A WITCH-HUNTING LUNATIC AND CARRY ON ” .
It said “ Keep Calm ” .
Under the great national and personal stresses caused by this virus everyone needs to retain their sanity if we ’ re going to get through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like getting out into the fresh air and sunshine , safely , for some peace and quiet and nature .
If people are obeying the law and observing social distancing – which everyone in the video was – then leave them the hell alone .
If we all get at each other ’ s throats from the word go and nobody trusts their neighbours , this will not end well .
Shops – being just about the only place left where groups of people can ( and have to ) legally congregate – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our local small Co-op , for example , there ’ s a limit of one of ANY item , regardless of whether there ’ s a shortage or not .
The fridges are jammed to the doors with milk , yet customers can only buy a maximum of one four-pint jug at a time .
For many families that ’ s barely one day ’ s supply of an essential staple , so they have to go back to the shop unnecessarily every single day , when otherwise they could have managed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If milk ( or anything else ) gets short , by all means ration it .
But when there ’ s plenty , don ’ t make people leave the house and come into close contact with each other two or three times as often as they need to .
And if you see someone at the supermarket with what you consider to be an over-full trolley , just maybe don ’ t immediately start pelting them with tins of baked beans and forming a lynch mob .
Maybe they ’ re shopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or for a shift of hard-pressed key-worker colleagues who can ’ t easily get out to the shops in normal hours .
You don ’ t know their story .
Wind your neck in .
The supposed epidemic of panic-buying has in fact been severely exaggerated and misrepresented .
While clearly there have been some isolated incidences of rampant and despicable selfishness , they ’ re not the norm .
Let ’ s cut each other a little bit of slack before we leap to conclusions and start tarring and feathering .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to say on the subject .
There ’ ll be plenty of time for the recriminations about how we got here and what we did about it and how we fix it when this is all over .
For many it could be a chance to enjoy a rare slowing in the breakneck pace of life .
It ’ s not even beyond the bounds of possibility that a much better society waits for us on the other side .
But for now , let ’ s just not kill ourselves .

This article is the only thing Wings is going to say about the COVID-19 crisis, because (a) we’re on holiday, (b) it has very little to do with Scottish politics, and (c) we’re not virologists and have no expertise to offer.
But in so far as we have some sort of reach and to some extent people listen to us, and we don’t want any of you to die, here’s a small plea for all our sakes.
The emergency legislation that came into place this week enacting the most draconian restrictions on freedom of movement in British history (peacetime or wartime) seems to us to be reasonable and proportionate in these extraordinary circumstances. We commend Parliament for making it reviewable every 21 days – it’s unlikely to end so soon, but it’s a sensible, manageable period of time to stop people feeling imprisoned.
What’s less helpful are authorities and the public alike taking it upon themselves to exceed even those severe restrictions with overzealous policing of lawful activities.
As you can see from the number of replies, the above tweet from Derbyshire Police has generated an angry reaction. It shows people observing the social-distancing rules impeccably while taking exercise for themselves and their dogs as explicitly permitted by the new law, and hounding them with drone cameras and public shaming can only be counter-productive.
Coupled with wildly irresponsible tweets like this (thankfully now deleted) one:
…it’s the sort of thing that will generate resentment and hostility towards the forces of law and order at a time when mutual trust between the police and the public is an absolute necessity for the maintenance of order.
People going on social media and competing to virtue-signal by hysterically savaging the lawful dog-walkers with madly overblown catastrophism about what might happen if their car went over a landmine or they suddenly fell down a mountain, causing extra strain on hard-pressed emergency services, are being equally destructive.
By and large, you’re far more likely to (a) have an accident and (b) transmit the virus by doing your exercising in a busy town or city than you are by driving a few miles to a piece of quiet countryside, and once again it’s not illegal – if it was such a big risk, it would have been forbidden in the emergency legislation.
The famous WW2 poster didn’t read “SHRIEK AND POINT YOUR FINGER LIKE A WITCH-HUNTING LUNATIC AND CARRY ON”. It said “Keep Calm”. Under the great national and personal stresses caused by this virus everyone needs to retain their sanity if we’re going to get through it, and very little reduces stress like getting out into the fresh air and sunshine, safely, for some peace and quiet and nature.
If people are obeying the law and observing social distancing – which everyone in the video was – then leave them the hell alone. If we all get at each other’s throats from the word go and nobody trusts their neighbours, this will not end well.
Shops – being just about the only place left where groups of people can (and have to) legally congregate – need to act smart too. In our local small Co-op, for example, there’s a limit of one of ANY item, regardless of whether there’s a shortage or not.
The fridges are jammed to the doors with milk, yet customers can only buy a maximum of one four-pint jug at a time. For many families that’s barely one day’s supply of an essential staple, so they have to go back to the shop unnecessarily every single day, when otherwise they could have managed on a couple of visits a week.
If milk (or anything else) gets short, by all means ration it. But when there’s plenty, don’t make people leave the house and come into close contact with each other two or three times as often as they need to.
(We’ve already heard countless tales of utter stupidity like people not being allowed to buy three individual oranges, but allowed to go and put them back on the shelves – having touched them – and buy a single bag of six oranges. Who was helped there?)
And if you see someone at the supermarket with what you consider to be an over-full trolley, just maybe don’t immediately start pelting them with tins of baked beans and forming a lynch mob. Maybe they’re shopping for a couple of elderly neighbours, or for a shift of hard-pressed key-worker colleagues who can’t easily get out to the shops in normal hours. You don’t know their story. Wind your neck in.
The supposed epidemic of panic-buying has in fact been severely exaggerated and misrepresented. While clearly there have been some isolated incidences of rampant and despicable selfishness, they’re not the norm. Let’s cut each other a little bit of slack before we leap to conclusions and start tarring and feathering.
And that’s pretty much all we have to say on the subject. There’ll be plenty of time for the recriminations about how we got here and what we did about it and how we fix it when this is all over. For many it could be a chance to enjoy a rare slowing in the breakneck pace of life. It’s not even beyond the bounds of possibility that a much better society waits for us on the other side.
But for now, let’s just not kill ourselves.


An innocent man

Today a mostly-female jury drawn from the most Unionist city in Scotland and directed by a female judge delivered the only verdict it was credibly possible to reach on the ( total absence of ) evidence before it : that Alex Salmond was not guilty of any crime .
After two weeks hearing an assortment of lurid allegations from former friends and colleagues hidden behind cloaks of public anonymity , the jury – having been advised by the prosecuting counsel that they were the sole arbiters of fact – decided that there was no truth to them .
Since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were both matters of the accuser ’ s word against that of the accused , and the two parties gave completely irreconcilable accounts of the facts ( rather than competing interpretations of agreed events ) , it can only be the case that one side was lying absolutely , and the jury decided that it was the anonymous accusers who were doing so .
It remains to see whether there will be a legal reckoning for those lies .
But more than one sort of reckoning will surely follow from these events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yessers who considered the whole trial a Unionist conspiracy , it transpired that in fact every accusation had come from people who ’ d been on Alex Salmond ’ s own team – either his political colleagues or his staff .
The Scottish Government and the notionally-Scottish civil service had first colluded on a private investigation which was both so ham-fisted and so unlawfully biased that it collapsed in a shambles which has cost the Scottish taxpayer over £600,000 .
Even the Times – no cheerleader for Alex Salmond by a very long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagrant crookedness of the proceedings that it called for the head of Leslie Evans , permanent secretary to the Scottish Government and the most senior civil servant in Scotland .
Instead , the Scottish Government inexplicably chose to not only uphold but extend her contract – a decision which is ultimately made by the First Minister of Scotland .
It is at Nicola Sturgeon ’ s personal discretion that Leslie Evans remained in her post and indeed received a further endorsement , leading to widespread mutterings that Evans , in the common parlance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies are buried ” .
The fact that Evans ’ catastrophically botched and dishonest inquiry did not , in the end , bring about the imprisoning of an innocent man for perhaps the rest of his life is one of the few meagre positives of this entire fiasco .
But the ordeal which Alex Salmond has been forced through for the last several years is one which someone , or several someones , ought in any fair society to be made answerable for .
That this trial ever reached a court is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual assault must always be taken seriously and investigated fully , but what the trial revealed is that not a shred of evidence supported any of the charges in the case .
Scots law uniquely requires corroboration , and despite several of the alleged offences supposedly occurring in full public view in locations thronged with people , not a solitary witness observed any of them .
The Crown ’ s only hope of securing a prosecution was therefore to rely on the enormously disturbing “ Moorov doctrine ” , a 90-year-old facet of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unproven innuendos together somehow magically transforms them into solid evidence .
In order to avail itself of this sorcery , the prosecution trawled three decades of Alex Salmond ’ s political life at both Westminster and Holyrood , interviewing close to 400 people , and managed to scrape up a derisory handful of allegations – all but one from a four-year period between 2010 and 2014 , the exception being from 2008 – of such startling triviality that many observers found themselves unable to believe such things could ever be considered crimes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as far as the court , with several – including some which had been the subject of prominent media coverage – being quietly dropped prior to or during the trial , presumably on the grounds of being too laughable .
But jurors were asked to believe that women Alex Salmond had known for many years , and who occupied senior roles in politics , were too terrified to object when he touched their leg in a car during a 30-second journey ( despite there being a large fixed armrest between them which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it being very obvious to the other people in the car ) .
They were also asked to accept that it amounted to criminal behaviour corroborating an attempted-rape charge to recount to an adult woman an anecdote about the sexual misadventures of a well-known Scottish political journalist from the Herald newspaper , even though the “ victim ” had by all accounts gleefully repeated the same story to her own colleagues the next day .
Jurors were also asked to believe that a string of women who ’ d had a powerful man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected not to report this extremely serious matter to the police , but to get together with senior SNP officials and store up the allegations for use in case Salmond ever attempted to return to politics .
And by a remarkable coincidence the allegations duly came to light in August 2018 – shortly after he ’ d signalled that intent , in May of the same year : It wasn ’ t until Alex Salmond successfully sued the Scottish Government over Leslie Evans ’ shambolic inquiry that the police were informed of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers might interpret as less a cry for justice than an attempt to deflect attention from the collapse of the inquiry and its crooked nature .
Remarkably , despite Alex Salmond having been a politician for over 20 years and First Minister for more than seven , there wasn ’ t a single allegation from all his time at Westminster .
There wasn ’ t one allegation from a member of the public , nor from any of the many female journalists who ’ d interviewed him alone in hotel rooms and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very small circle within the SNP , or civil servants very closely connected to that circle – a circle at whose centre sit Nicola Sturgeon and Leslie Evans .
We must note that no evidence directly links the First Minister to the events of the case , just as no German government document from 1939 to 1945 exists which explicitly connects Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust .
Readers may or may not draw their own conclusion from those facts .
The Scottish media , it probably goes without saying , covered itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the courtroom were extraordinarily selective , and always selective in favour of the same side .
This site was fortunate in having sources very close to the case to relate what had really happened and what the media had left out .
Observers suspected of harbouring sympathies for the defence side rather than the prosecution side were simply excluded from the court for most of the proceedings .
Fortunately the jury heard what the Scottish public were not told .
This included details of the most unfathomable and worrying occurrence of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present at a Bute House dinner on the evening of the most serious charge , the attempted rape of Woman H. The media reported that the celebrity remembered Woman H being at the dinner , based on video of a police interview with him during the investigation .
The reality was that his recollection was far more vague and equivocal ( and also contradicted Woman H ’ s evidence in several ways ) , but he was not called as a witness to be cross-examined by the defence .
This site finds it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially key evidence should be ruled admissible without the possibility of scrutiny , and is yet to hear any explanation of why that would be the case .
The fact that the celebrity is in isolation over the coronavirus would not prevent evidence by video link , for example .
But if such an arrangement is not possible then it seems wildly improper that the evidence would be allowed to stand , particularly given that a witness who said Woman H was NOT at the dinner – flatly contradicting the celebrity ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross-examined and had her evidence challenged .
We could spend several thousand words going over the holes in each of the individual charges , and the facts revealed about them in court which were never conveyed to the public by a media more intent on keeping up a constant stream of shock-horror headlines covered by the tiny figleaf of quotemarks .
There are additional deeply concerning facts about the case which even now we ’ re not certain we ’ re at liberty to reveal .
We ’ ll tell you whatever we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
Either way more details are likely to emerge in the coming days , weeks and months , though perhaps the coronavirus crisis will serve as a grim distraction to spare some blushes .
But let there be no mistake – while justice was done in the end , the events surrounding the trial of Alex Salmond are murky and dirty and suspicious in the extreme , from the highest levels all the way down , and it will be the gravest injustice imaginable if nobody pays a price for them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the case .
What we know for sure is that Alex Salmond walks away from the court a free man without a stain on his character , found innocent of even the least of the accusations against him .
What he chooses to do next with that freedom is something this site will watch with very keen interest .

Today a mostly-female jury drawn from the most Unionist city in Scotland and directed by a female judge delivered the only verdict it was credibly possible to reach on the (total absence of) evidence before it: that Alex Salmond was not guilty of any crime.
After two weeks hearing an assortment of lurid allegations from former friends and colleagues hidden behind cloaks of public anonymity, the jury – having been advised by the prosecuting counsel that they were the sole arbiters of fact – decided that there was no truth to them.
Since the two most serious charges, in particular, were both matters of the accuser’s word against that of the accused, and the two parties gave completely irreconcilable accounts of the facts (rather than competing interpretations of agreed events), it can only be the case that one side was lying absolutely, and the jury decided that it was the anonymous accusers who were doing so.
It remains to see whether there will be a legal reckoning for those lies. But more than one sort of reckoning will surely follow from these events.
Because to the surprise of many Yessers who considered the whole trial a Unionist conspiracy, it transpired that in fact every accusation had come from people who’d been on Alex Salmond’s own team – either his political colleagues or his staff.
The Scottish Government and the notionally-Scottish civil service had first colluded on a private investigation which was both so ham-fisted and so unlawfully biased that it collapsed in a shambles which has cost the Scottish taxpayer over £600,000.
Even the Times – no cheerleader for Alex Salmond by a very long chalk – was so appalled at the flagrant crookedness of the proceedings that it called for the head of Leslie Evans, permanent secretary to the Scottish Government and the most senior civil servant in Scotland.
Instead, the Scottish Government inexplicably chose to not only uphold but extend her contract – a decision which is ultimately made by the First Minister of Scotland.
It is at Nicola Sturgeon’s personal discretion that Leslie Evans remained in her post and indeed received a further endorsement, leading to widespread mutterings that Evans, in the common parlance, must surely “know where the bodies are buried”.
The fact that Evans’ catastrophically botched and dishonest inquiry did not, in the end, bring about the imprisoning of an innocent man for perhaps the rest of his life is one of the few meagre positives of this entire fiasco. But the ordeal which Alex Salmond has been forced through for the last several years is one which someone, or several someones, ought in any fair society to be made answerable for.
(I have some small sense myself of the stresses both of a high-profile and terrifyingly expensive court case and of being wrongfully arrested on wholly fictional harassment allegations, and what Alex Salmond has endured is orders of magnitude greater, so I both empathise and admire his fortitude. Costs are not awarded in criminal trials so even as a completely innocent man he stands financially ruined by his enormous legal bill, certain to be hundreds of thousands of pounds.)
That this trial ever reached a court is a gravely worrying matter. Allegations of serious sexual assault must always be taken seriously and investigated fully, but what the trial revealed is that not a shred of evidence supported any of the charges in the case.
Scots law uniquely requires corroboration, and despite several of the alleged offences supposedly occurring in full public view in locations thronged with people, not a solitary witness observed any of them. The Crown’s only hope of securing a prosecution was therefore to rely on the enormously disturbing “Moorov doctrine”, a 90-year-old facet of Scots law whereby the prosecution collecting sufficient unproven innuendos together somehow magically transforms them into solid evidence.
In order to avail itself of this sorcery, the prosecution trawled three decades of Alex Salmond’s political life at both Westminster and Holyrood, interviewing close to 400 people, and managed to scrape up a derisory handful of allegations – all but one from a four-year period between 2010 and 2014, the exception being from 2008 – of such startling triviality that many observers found themselves unable to believe such things could ever be considered crimes.
(The nadir being the claim that Salmond had “pinged” a colleague’s curly hair in a lift, in the presence of at least one other person.)
Not all of the allegations made it as far as the court, with several – including some which had been the subject of prominent media coverage – being quietly dropped prior to or during the trial, presumably on the grounds of being too laughable.
But jurors were asked to believe that women Alex Salmond had known for many years, and who occupied senior roles in politics, were too terrified to object when he touched their leg in a car during a 30-second journey (despite there being a large fixed armrest between them which would have made such an act impossible without it being very obvious to the other people in the car).
They were also asked to accept that it amounted to criminal behaviour corroborating an attempted-rape charge to recount to an adult woman an anecdote about the sexual misadventures of a well-known Scottish political journalist from the Herald newspaper, even though the “victim” had by all accounts gleefully repeated the same story to her own colleagues the next day.
Jurors were also asked to believe that a string of women who’d had a powerful man sexually assault or attempt to rape them elected not to report this extremely serious matter to the police, but to get together with some senior SNP officials and store up the allegations for use in case Salmond ever attempted to return to politics.
And by a remarkable coincidence the allegations duly came to light in August 2018 – shortly after he’d signalled that intent, in May of the same year:
It wasn’t until Alex Salmond successfully sued the Scottish Government over Leslie Evans’ shambolic inquiry that the police were informed of the claims and became involved, which cynical readers might interpret as less a cry for justice than an attempt to deflect attention from the collapse of the inquiry and its crooked nature.
Remarkably, despite Alex Salmond having been a politician for over 20 years and First Minister for more than seven, there wasn’t a single allegation from all his time at Westminster. There wasn’t one allegation from a member of the public, nor from any of the many female journalists who’d interviewed him alone in hotel rooms and the like.
Every single accuser came from a very small circle within the SNP, or civil servants very closely connected to that circle – a circle at whose centre sit Nicola Sturgeon and Leslie Evans. We must note that no evidence directly links the First Minister to the events of the case, just as no German government document from 1939 to 1945 exists which explicitly connects Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust.
Readers may or may not draw their own conclusion from those facts.
The Scottish media, it probably goes without saying, covered itself in disgrace during the trial. Reports from the courtroom were extraordinarily selective, and always selective in favour of the same side. This site was fortunate in having sources very close to the case to relate what had really happened and what the media had left out.
(Again I can confirm from my own personal experience during the Kezia Dugdale case that this is a modus operandi for the Scottish press rather than a coincidence.)
Observers suspected of harbouring sympathies for the defence side rather than the prosecution side were simply excluded from the court for most of the proceedings. Fortunately the jury heard what the Scottish public were not told.
This included details of the most unfathomable and worrying occurrence of the trial – the evidence of a celebrity present at a Bute House dinner on the evening of the most serious charge, the attempted rape of Woman H.
The media reported that the celebrity remembered Woman H being at the dinner, based on video of a police interview with him during the investigation.
The reality was that his recollection was far more vague and equivocal (and also contradicted Woman H’s evidence in several ways), but he was not called as a witness to be cross-examined by the defence. This site finds it quite extraordinary that such a piece of potentially key evidence should be ruled admissible without the possibility of scrutiny, and is yet to hear any explanation of why that would be the case.
The fact that the celebrity is in isolation over the coronavirus would not prevent evidence by video link, for example. But if such an arrangement is not possible then it seems wildly improper that the evidence would be allowed to stand, particularly given that a witness who said Woman H was NOT at the dinner – flatly contradicting the celebrity’s supposed account – WAS robustly and extensively cross-examined and had her evidence challenged.
We could spend several thousand words going over the holes in each of the individual charges, and the facts revealed about them in court which were never conveyed to the public by a media more intent on keeping up a constant stream of shock-horror headlines covered by the tiny figleaf of quotemarks.
There are additional deeply concerning facts about the case which even now we’re not certain we’re at liberty to reveal. We’ll tell you whatever we can establish we’re legally able to. Either way more details are likely to emerge in the coming days, weeks and months, though perhaps the coronavirus crisis will serve as a grim distraction to spare some blushes.
But let there be no mistake – while justice was done in the end, the events surrounding the trial of Alex Salmond are murky and dirty and suspicious in the extreme, from the highest levels all the way down, and it will be the gravest injustice imaginable if nobody pays a price for them. Only time will tell if that’s the case.
What we know for sure is that Alex Salmond walks away from the court a free man without a stain on his character, found innocent of even the least of the accusations against him. What he chooses to do next with that freedom is something this site will watch with very keen interest.


wingsoverscotland--2020-03-21--Bolted from the blue

Bolted from the blue


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-07--From the archives #12

From the archives #12

Over the last few days , for want of anything more interesting happening in Scottish politics , we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ entertainingly fluid criteria by which Unionist politicians used to assert that Scotland could supposedly achieve @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seen this one before : A view apparently “ almost universally shared among @ @ @ @ @ in the late 1980s was that independence could be won by the SNP securing a @ @ @ @ @ not one but two successive UK general elections .
Given that that line has now @ @ @ @ @ elections in a row , we ’ re all agog to find where Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ in his keenly-awaited response to the Scottish Government ’ s second Section 30 request , @ @ @ @ @ to deliver any minute now .

Over the last few days, for want of anything more interesting happening in Scottish politics, we’ve been reviewing some of the entertainingly fluid criteria by which Unionist politicians used to assert that Scotland could supposedly achieve independence. But we hadn’t seen this one before:
A view apparently “almost universally shared among English Tory backbenchers” back in the late 1980s was that independence could be won by the SNP securing a majority of Scottish MPs at not one but two successive UK general elections.
Given that that line has now been crossed in THREE Westminster elections in a row, we’re all agog to find where Boris Johnson will move the goalposts to in his keenly-awaited response to the Scottish Government’s second Section 30 request, which he’s due to deliver any minute now.


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-06--From the archives #11

From the archives #11

We ’ ve never been able to actually confirm the oft-cited “ quote ” from Margaret Thatcher suggesting that the @ @ @ @ @ Scottish seats at a UK election would constitute a mandate for independence , but here @ @ @ @ @ recent one from a then-serving Conservative PM .
“ [ John ] Major has made @ @ @ @ @ of SNP MPs after an election would serve as a mandate to begin negotiations for @ @ @ @ @ plans to hold a referendum ” , said former Thatcher minister and party chairman Norman @ @ @ @ @ the 1997 election .
It was a position the Tories held right up to 2010 @ @ @ @ @ which the SNP didn ’ t win a majority of Scottish seats , at which @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , of course , the rule is that a majority of MPs doesn @ @ @ @ @ you also can ’ t have a referendum .
Scotland is a prisoner without hope @ @ @ @ @ a breakout .

We’ve never been able to actually confirm the oft-cited “quote” from Margaret Thatcher suggesting that the SNP winning a majority of Scottish seats at a UK election would constitute a mandate for independence, but here’s a verified more recent one from a then-serving Conservative PM.
“[John] Major has made it clear that a majority of SNP MPs after an election would serve as a mandate to begin negotiations for separation. There are no plans to hold a referendum”, said former Thatcher minister and party chairman Norman Tebbit a few months before the 1997 election.
It was a position the Tories held right up to 2010 – the last election at which the SNP didn’t win a majority of Scottish seats, at which point the goalposts magically shifted. Now, of course, the rule is that a majority of MPs doesn’t count, but you also can’t have a referendum.
Scotland is a prisoner without hope of parole. Time for a breakout.


The success story

We couldn ’ t help but raise a quizzical eyebrow at this assertion from SNP MP Pete Wishart in today ’ s Sunday National .
It was said in the specific context of securing a second indyref in 2020 , and since such a referendum has NOT in fact been secured – and looks extremely unlikely to be – we wondered which other definition of “ success ” might be being used to justify the claim .
Logically the only one left would be an increase in support for independence .
So we checked the figures .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the UK voted to leave the EU and to take Scotland with it against Scotland ’ s clearly-expressed will , during which time the UK has seen what by widespread consensus has been the worst government and opposition of all time , support for independence has rocketed by , er… 0.6 % .
Now , to be fair to Wishart , on an annual basis that IS an “ all-time record high ” .
But the standard margin of error in a 1000-sample opinion poll is 3 % , and that margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 45.2-48.5 ) over those four years .
In other words , it ’ s not actually definitively possible to state whether support for independence has increased or decreased since June 2016 at all .
But what we CAN say is that if it ’ s moved at all , it ’ s been by so little that it ’ s barely perceptible without a microscope .
It seems safe to say that in the absence of an actual campaign for an actual referendum , the Scottish people have remained extremely unmoved on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events that we were repeatedly assured would be gamechangers .
It does , on the positive side , look like 2019 saw a decent 3 % growth from 2018 .
But again , that ’ s within the margin of error and covers up a lot of fluctuation .
If we take a fixed comparison point and count only the polls from December each year , we get this : The conclusion is extremely hard to avoid : if the “ strategy ” is to build support for independence over time to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically irresistible ( which in itself makes a hugely questionable political assumption ) , then the strategy is not working .
The figure of 60 % is often used to illustrate a tipping point when the UK government will , for some unexplained reason , be forced to give in .
At the current rate of progress , assuming no setbacks , we ’ ll reach that point in around 26 years .
So , y ’ know , settle in for a wait , folks .

We couldn’t help but raise a quizzical eyebrow at this assertion from SNP MP Pete Wishart in today’s Sunday National.
It was said in the specific context of securing a second indyref in 2020, and since such a referendum has NOT in fact been secured – and looks extremely unlikely to be – we wondered which other definition of “success” might be being used to justify the claim.
Logically the only one left would be an increase in support for independence. So we checked the figures.
They’re… not exactly spectacular.
In fact, in the three and a half years since the UK voted to leave the EU and to take Scotland with it against Scotland’s clearly-expressed will, during which time the UK has seen what by widespread consensus has been the worst government and opposition of all time, support for independence has rocketed by, er… 0.6%.
Now, to be fair to Wishart, on an annual basis that IS an “all-time record high”. But the standard margin of error in a 1000-sample opinion poll is 3%, and that margin covers almost the entire range in polling (45.2-48.5) over those four years.
In other words, it’s not actually definitively possible to state whether support for independence has increased or decreased since June 2016 at all.
But what we CAN say is that if it’s moved at all, it’s been by so little that it’s barely perceptible without a microscope. It seems safe to say that in the absence of an actual campaign for an actual referendum, the Scottish people have remained extremely unmoved on the subject, despite a string of events that we were repeatedly assured would be gamechangers.
It does, on the positive side, look like 2019 saw a decent 3% growth from 2018. But again, that’s within the margin of error and covers up a lot of fluctuation. If we take a fixed comparison point and count only the polls from December each year, we get this:
The conclusion is extremely hard to avoid: if the “strategy” is to build support for independence over time to a point where a second referendum will be politically irresistible (which in itself makes a hugely questionable political assumption), then the strategy is not working.
The figure of 60% is often used to illustrate a tipping point when the UK government will, for some unexplained reason, be forced to give in. At the current rate of progress, assuming no setbacks, we’ll reach that point in around 26 years.
So, y’know, settle in for a wait, folks.


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-04--What it is to burn

What it is to burn


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-03--From the archives #10

From the archives #10

From less than 10 years ago:
A plebiscitary election? Now there’s an idea you don’t hear much any more.


Crossover content

Have a great 2020 , readers .
We ’ re still in the UK , for now .

Have a great 2020, readers. We’re still in the UK, for now.
(Pic by Rafal Miazga, from Woot! 2019 tape magazine for the ZX Spectrum.)


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-09--The Toady And The Trap

The Toady And The Trap

Anyone who ’ s followed the UK political media over the last decade or so with specific reference to Scotland will know that in a very crowded field , the standout poster boy for arrogant , condescending metropolitan cluelessness is the Independent ’ s chief political commentator John Rentoul .
For reasons which escape us , Rentoul – who was born in India and as far as we know has spent not a single day of his life resident in Scotland – identifies as Scottish .
And yet he doesn ’ t appear to even recognise the concept of Scotland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he demonstrated that fact in a manner so stark and striking that it ’ s worth recording for posterity .
“ Parliamentary democracy ” is a REALLY interesting pitch to refuse Scotland ’ s right to self-determination from .
What it means , of course , is a system whereby the share of votes a party gets in an election is completely irrelevant – the only thing that counts is the number of votes in Parliament they get , ie the number of seats .
Parliamentary democracy is the system by which UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and absolute power on a minority of the popular vote .
Labour , for example , achieved a comfortable majority of over 60 seats in 2005 on just 35 % of the votes cast .
Even rather slow-witted children , therefore , would immediately be able to observe that if a party were to achieve not just a majority of seats but an overwhelming majority , outnumbering every other party combined by four to one , they would clearly have an indisputable mandate specifically under the system of Parliamentary democracy for whatever policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as soon as his own rules work against him , Rentoul pulls a U-turn .
All of a sudden , the number of seats won – which is the sole determinant of success in a Parliamentary democracy – count for nothing .
When it suits Rentoul , magically it all becomes about vote share .
But that doesn ’ t work either , because in 2015 pro-independence parties DID get a majority of Scottish votes in a UK election .
The SNP got 49.97 % and the Greens got 1.35 % for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of votes and a breathtaking 95 % of seats , the SNP could simply have declared independence there and then under Rentoul ’ s rules , without even a referendum .
Yet independence did not follow .
How , then , might Scotland seek to democratically extract itself from the Union , given that it can never achieve a majority of seats at Westminster even if it got 100 % of Scottish votes , and neither a majority of Scottish seats nor a majority of Scottish votes counts ?
We must surely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But hold on – there already IS a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament .
In the 2016 election pro-independence parties won 53.5 % of the seats , and indeed went so far as to successfully pass a vote calling for a second referendum – the very definition of how a “ Parliamentary democracy ” operates .
But wait !
Apparently that vote must be disqualified on the grounds of what someone is supposed to have said in 2014 , even though one of the core founding principles of the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absence of any written constitution , is that no government can bind the hands of its successor .
Any individual Parliament ’ s sovereignty in the UK is inviolate other than at the hands of the monarch .
So even if Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon HAD been making a pledge when they used the words “ once in a generation ” – which of course they weren ’ t , any more than when a football manager says a cup final is a “ once in a lifetime ” opportunity but then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – that pledge was rendered completely irrelevant by the 2015 and 2016 elections .
No new Parliament is beholden to the old dead one , or to a First Minister who stepped down more than five years ago .
If not , we ’ d be intrigued to hear which other pronouncements of Alex Salmond several years ago Rentoul considers to be binding on Scottish politics for the next 20 years .
Indeed , if “ whatever Alex Salmond said in 2014 goes ” is the rule , why bother even HAVING elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we just have to do whatever he wanted ?
Rentoul does indeed appear to hold the view that democracy was suspended in 2014 , for a period to be determined by him .
Because in an actual Parliamentary democracy , the straightforward answer to his question below is “ However often Parliament votes for one , even if it votes to have one twice a year and three times in leap years until it either gets the result it wants or gets thrown out by the electorate at an election.
” If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you don ’ t believe in Parliamentary democracy .
– Scotland can not escape the Union by electing a majority of pro-independence MPs to Westminster , because it ’ s vote share that counts , not number of seats .
– Scotland can not escape the Union by a majority of its voters voting for pro-independence parties in a UK election , because it ’ s number of seats that counts , not vote share , and Scottish MPs are outnumbered 10 to 1 at Westminster .
– Scotland can not escape the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSPs to its own Parliament , because it did that in 2016 and Westminster simply ignored what those MSPs voted for .
– Scotland can not escape the Union by having a majority vote for independence in a referendum , because it had a vote on that in the past and apparently that vote ended the very concept of Parliamentary democracy for decades to come , seemingly to be replaced by the eternal will of [ a deliberate misrepresentation of ] Alex Salmond .
These rules require the UK to be governed both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , defined by whichever one would deny Scots the right to decide their own future at any given moment .
The UK is Schrodinger ’ s Democracy .
And fittingly , this impossible and inescapable Catch-22 is defended and advocated by someone who is somehow both Scottish ( by his own assertion ) and not Scottish ( by any other definable criteria ) at the same time .
Rentoul , like so many of his ilk , is nothing more than a bully ’ s lackey , holding down the victim to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money by a gang of bigger kids , all the while sneering “ Why don ’ t you just get up and walk away ?
” It ’ s a mentality typical of the privileged but cruel private-school education that formed him , though the glaring intellectual feebleness of his argument would surely shame his Cambridge alma mater .
But more to the point , it demonstrates how independence will never be won by playing “ fair and square ” with the British establishment , with its endless history of moving the goalposts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a fight .

Anyone who’s followed the UK political media over the last decade or so with specific reference to Scotland will know that in a very crowded field, the standout poster boy for arrogant, condescending metropolitan cluelessness is the Independent’s chief political commentator John Rentoul.
For reasons which escape us, Rentoul – who was born in India and as far as we know has spent not a single day of his life resident in Scotland – identifies as Scottish. And yet he doesn’t appear to even recognise the concept of Scotland as a political entity, and today he demonstrated that fact in a manner so stark and striking that it’s worth recording for posterity.
“Parliamentary democracy” is a REALLY interesting pitch to refuse Scotland’s right to self-determination from. What it means, of course, is a system whereby the share of votes a party gets in an election is completely irrelevant – the only thing that counts is the number of votes in Parliament they get, ie the number of seats.
Parliamentary democracy is the system by which UK parties are able to achieve large majorities and absolute power on a minority of the popular vote. Labour, for example, achieved a comfortable majority of over 60 seats in 2005 on just 35% of the votes cast.
Even rather slow-witted children, therefore, would immediately be able to observe that if a party were to achieve not just a majority of seats but an overwhelming majority, outnumbering every other party combined by four to one, they would clearly have an indisputable mandate specifically under the system of Parliamentary democracy for whatever policies they’d campaigned on.
(Or indeed hadn’t – Parliamentary democracy places no relevance whatsoever on the contents of a party’s manifesto. Power is all. The sole mechanism for holding parties to account should they act outwith the contents of their manifesto is the next election.)
But as soon as his own rules work against him, Rentoul pulls a U-turn.
All of a sudden, the number of seats won – which is the sole determinant of success in a Parliamentary democracy – count for nothing. When it suits Rentoul, magically it all becomes about vote share.
(Interestingly, and perhaps because it would involve making an overt statement that Scotland is a prisoner in the UK, Rentoul doesn’t use the SNP’s actual UK vote share in the UK election – 4% – but its share in Scotland.)
But that doesn’t work either, because in 2015 pro-independence parties DID get a majority of Scottish votes in a UK election. The SNP got 49.97% and the Greens got 1.35% for a total of 51.32%. With a majority of votes and a breathtaking 95% of seats, the SNP could simply have declared independence there and then under Rentoul’s rules, without even a referendum. Yet independence did not follow.
How, then, might Scotland seek to democratically extract itself from the Union, given that it can never achieve a majority of seats at Westminster even if it got 100% of Scottish votes, and neither a majority of Scottish seats nor a majority of Scottish votes counts? We must surely conclude that Holyrood is the determining arena.
And initially Rentoul appears to agree:
But hold on – there already IS a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament. In the 2016 election pro-independence parties won 53.5% of the seats, and indeed went so far as to successfully pass a vote calling for a second referendum – the very definition of how a “Parliamentary democracy” operates.
But wait! Apparently that vote must be disqualified on the grounds of what someone is supposed to have said in 2014, even though one of the core founding principles of the UK’s Parliamentary democracy, with its absence of any written constitution, is that no government can bind the hands of its successor. Any individual Parliament’s sovereignty in the UK is inviolate other than at the hands of the monarch.
So even if Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon HAD been making a pledge when they used the words “once in a generation” – which of course they weren’t, any more than when a football manager says a cup final is a “once in a lifetime” opportunity but then enters the competition again the next year – that pledge was rendered completely irrelevant by the 2015 and 2016 elections. No new Parliament is beholden to the old dead one, or to a First Minister who stepped down more than five years ago.
If not, we’d be intrigued to hear which other pronouncements of Alex Salmond several years ago Rentoul considers to be binding on Scottish politics for the next 20 years. Indeed, if “whatever Alex Salmond said in 2014 goes” is the rule, why bother even HAVING elections again before 2039? Don’t we just have to do whatever he wanted?
Rentoul does indeed appear to hold the view that democracy was suspended in 2014, for a period to be determined by him. Because in an actual Parliamentary democracy, the straightforward answer to this question:
is “However often Parliament votes for one, even if it votes to have one twice a year and three times in leap years until it either gets the result it wants or gets thrown out by the electorate at an election.”
If you disagree with that, fine, but you don’t believe in Parliamentary democracy. You believe in something entirely different and fluid that has no definable rules other than those you arbitrarily make up on the spot to deliver your own preferred outcomes. The usual name we use for that system of governance is “dictatorship”.
(If Rentoul IS questioning the supremacy of each new Parliament to act without regard to the wishes of its predecessors, that opens up a whole new fun can of worms.)
So let’s recap:
– Scotland cannot leave the Union by electing a majority of pro-independence MPs to Westminster, as it’s vote share that counts, not number of seats.
– Scotland also cannot leave the Union by a majority of its voters voting for pro-indy parties in a UK election, because magically it’s then number of seats that counts, not vote share, and Scottish MPs are always outnumbered 10 to 1.
– Scotland cannot escape the Union by electing a majority of pro-independence MSPs to its own Parliament, because it did that in 2016 and Westminster simply ignored what those MSPs voted for and said it didn’t count.
– Scotland cannot escape the Union by having a majority vote for independence in a referendum, because it had a vote on that in the past and apparently that vote ended the very concept of Parliamentary democracy for decades to come, seemingly to be replaced by the eternal will of [a deliberate misrepresentation of] Alex Salmond.
These rules require the UK to be governed both by Parliamentary democracy and NOT by Parliamentary democracy, defined by whichever one would deny Scots the right to decide their own future at any given moment. So far as Scotland is concerned, the UK is Schrodinger’s Democracy, except our cat is always dead.
And fittingly, this impossible and inescapable Catch-22 is defended and advocated by someone who is somehow both Scottish (by his own assertion) and not Scottish (by any other definable criteria) at the same time.
Rentoul, like so many of his ilk, is nothing more than a bully’s lackey, holding down the victim to be punched and robbed of their pocket money by a gang of bigger kids, all the while sneering “Why don’t you just get up and walk away?”
It’s a mentality typical of the privileged but cruel private-school education that formed him, though the glaring intellectual feebleness of his argument would surely shame his Cambridge alma mater, not to mention the near-heroic lack of self-awareness.
But more to the point, it demonstrates how independence will never be won by playing “fair and square” with the British establishment, with its endless history of moving the goalposts to ensure it can never lose. It really is time we got in a fight.


Her Loyal Subject


wingsoverscotland--2020-01-14--There Is No Plan A

There Is No Plan A

So it ’ s finally official : Boris Says No .
He ’ s formally done the thing that we @ @ @ @ @ was going to do ever since he became UK Prime Minister last July .
So @ @ @ @ @ , game-changing counter-response we ’ ve got for him , having known for six months @ @ @ @ @ ’ d say and had all that time to prepare for it ?
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ genius that all those SNP loyalists insisted we had up our sleeve and just weren @ @ @ @ @ key moment ?
“ We ’ re going to wait for however long it takes @ @ @ @ @ accept that another referendum is inevitable.
” Brilliant .
What a plan .
To the @ @ @ @

So it’s finally official: Boris Says No. He’s formally done the thing that we’ve all known he was going to do ever since he became UK Prime Minister last July.
So what’s the stunning, game-changing counter-response we’ve got for him, having known for six months that this was what he’d say and had all that time to prepare for it? What’s the stroke of strategic genius that all those SNP loyalists insisted we had up our sleeve and just weren’t revealing until the key moment?
“We’re going to wait for however long it takes for the Westminster establishment to accept that another referendum is inevitable.”
Brilliant. What a plan. To the barricades, everyone.