wingsoverscotland--2020-06-09--Just over the next hill

Just over the next hill

Good news , everyone – there ’ s been another surge .
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for indyref2 !
Yes , again .
Because we ’ ve been here before , haven ’ t we ?
The latest polls have seen Yes support “ surge ” to , um , two points lower than it was four years ago in the immediate wake of the Brexit vote .
Except it ’ s arguably rather worse that that , because another poll that same weekend actually had Yes at a dazzling 59 % .
But let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll as an outlier – it was by ScotPulse , not one of the usual British Polling Council pollsters , and nothing else has ever come close to it .
Let ’ s stick with 54 % as the true position after the EU referendum .
The following four years have by common consensus been the most shambolic , inept , chaotic , malicious , stupid , destructive and incompetent in the entire history of the governance of the United Kingdom .
The ( mis ) management of Brexit has by far eclipsed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satirists , let alone serious political commentators , and the only challenge to its clown crown has been the ham-fisted handling of a global pandemic which has seen the UK record by far the worst per-capita fatality rates of any country on the planet , with over 60,000 people dead , the economy wrecked and no end in sight .
And yet faced with the greatest living argument of all time for Scottish independence , the SNP , at the de facto head of the Yes movement , has somehow contrived to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two points in the polls , halving the lead from eight points to just four .
And that ’ s still the highest it ’ s been since 2016 .
But we ’ re constantly enjoined to celebrate this fact as evidence of the war against the Union being within measurable distance of its end , like the hapless citizens of Oceania in “ 1984 ” rejoicing at the increase in their chocolate rations to 20g a week .
It ’ s difficult to understand how this has happened , given how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those four years .
Extra-specially alert readers will recall , for example , the “ breathtaking transformation ” of March 2017 , and how “ astonishingly far ” Yes had at that point come since the indyref .
That was for a poll with Yes at 50.5 % , four points DOWN on the Survation figures from nine months before .
Two separate polls a week later both gave No leads of 11 points , exactly where it had been on referendum day Luckily just a few days later , support was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question , the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey ( which offers multiple options including the status quo and the total dissolution of Holyrood , and is only comparable to itself ) , had actually recorded support for independence at 46 % , which was indeed a record high for the SSAS but still a minority and only one point above the 2014 result .
The real upside , though , was learning that WE , not the Tories at Westminster , would be choosing the best date for a second referendum to capitalise on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too sure what happened to that promise .
But excitingly , within a couple of months things got even better .
In May 2017 the polls had surged from 50.5 % to 51 % , which the National described as the “ highest since [ the ] EU referendum ” , even though we ’ re pretty sure 51 is less than 54 .
And only a year later – two years ago today – it was almost time to pounce .
Because there was yet another surge to come .
So in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snap UK general election in which Theresa May had lost her majority and even the SNP ’ s trimmed-down cohort of 35 MPs now held considerable arithmetical leverage in the Commons , we were back – sort of , with the benefit of a slightly loaded question – at the dizzy heights of 52 % , again a mere two points down on where we ’ d been two years previously .
But happily there was no end in sight to the unstoppable momentum of progress , as we ’ d discover in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August 2019 , a Lord Ashcroft poll found that support had once again surged – from that 52 % to , um , 52 % ( excl .
DKs ) .
Surely it could surge no further ?
But wait !
Just six months later , another “ massive surge ” took support from a lowly 52 % to a stratospheric , dizzying 52 % .
By February this year , after so many huge surges and breathtaking transformations , we were back within just two points of where we ’ d been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the glorious and bold leadership of Big Sister .
And last week , four months on , we surged further still , to a mighty 52 % .
[ SUB PLEASE CHECK NUMBERS SOMETHING DOESN ’ T LOOK RIGHT HERE . ]
The reality , as readers with an alert eye for sarcasm may have spotted , is that Yes support – measured by the most generous criteria at the bounds of credibility – hasn ’ t moved an inch since the days following the Brexit vote .
We ’ ve fluctuated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling margin of error , with each fluctuation downwards being quietly glossed over and each corresponding uptick hailed as a revolution and the beginning of the tidal wave sweeping away Westminster rule forever .
Given the astonishing , calamitous circumstances of those four years for Scotland as a part of the UK , that ’ s a political and strategic failure on an epic scale .
The average Yes vote , excluding DKs , in the 76 polls since that 54 % in June 2016 is… 46.6 % .
For comparison , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion polls before the 2014 referendum excluding DKs was 48.2 % .
That ’ s the “ breathtaking transformation ” and how “ astonishingly far ” we ’ ve come – after the biggest mess the UK could make , we ’ re now down 1.6 points on where we were before we lost .
Yes has led in just eight of the 76 post-Brexit polls .
( Or five out of 73 since Theresa May became Prime Minister . )
The positive news is that four of those leads have come since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little under a year ago , but it ’ s still only four out of the 17 polls conducted in that period – less than a quarter .
Of those 17 polls , the four with a Yes lead have had an average margin of 2.5 points .
Three have been tied .
The remaining 10 have had an average No lead of 5.1 points .
Only once since Theresa May walked into 10 Downing Street in July 2016 after the Brexit vote have there been two polls in a row showing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each other at the end of this January , immediately before the UK formally left the EU , recording leads of 1 % and 3 % . )
Even if the SNP had a plan to secure a second referendum – which we know they don ’ t , which they can ’ t afford and which they ’ re already briefing against – that ’ s a very long way short of an irresistible march to an inevitable outcome .
Getting two margin-of-error Yes majorities in a row ONCE in four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a “ settled will ” , no matter how rose-tinted your indy spectacles .
Readers , we ’ re going nowhere fast .
We need someone at the wheel who knows where the accelerator pedal is , before we run out of road .

Good news, everyone – there’s been another surge.
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for indyref2! Yes, again.
Because we’ve been here before, haven’t we?
The latest polls have seen Yes support “surge” to, um, two points lower than it was four years ago in the immediate wake of the Brexit vote.
Except it’s arguably rather worse that that, because another poll that same weekend actually had Yes at a dazzling 59%.
(This was a 10-point advance on nine months earlier, when we’d been “a whisker away from independence” on 49% with the Brexit vote still to come.)
But let’s be generous and discount that 59% poll as an outlier – it was by ScotPulse, not one of the usual British Polling Council pollsters, and nothing else has ever come close to it. Let’s stick with 54% as the true position after the EU referendum.
The following four years have by common consensus been the most shambolic, inept, chaotic, malicious, stupid, destructive and incompetent in the entire history of the governance of the United Kingdom.
The (mis)management of Brexit has by far eclipsed even the most apocalyptic comic predictions of satirists, let alone serious political commentators, and the only challenge to its clown crown has been the ham-fisted handling of a global pandemic which has seen the UK record by far the worst per-capita fatality rates of any country on the planet, with over 60,000 people dead, the economy wrecked and no end in sight.
And yet faced with the greatest living argument of all time for Scottish independence, the SNP, at the de facto head of the Yes movement, has somehow contrived to see support for its primary goal fall backwards two points in the polls, halving the lead from eight points to just four. And that’s still the highest it’s been since 2016.
But we’re constantly enjoined to celebrate this fact as evidence of the war against the Union being within measurable distance of its end, like the hapless citizens of Oceania in “1984” rejoicing at the increase in their chocolate rations to 20g a week.
It’s difficult to understand how this has happened, given how many times support has “surged” in those four years. Extra-specially alert readers will recall, for example, the “breathtaking transformation” of March 2017, and how “astonishingly far” Yes had at that point come since the indyref.
That was for a poll with Yes at 50.5%, four points DOWN on the Survation figures from nine months before. Two separate polls a week later both gave No leads of 11 points, exactly where it had been on referendum day
Luckily just a few days later, support was “soaring” again.
The poll in question, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (which offers multiple options including the status quo and the total dissolution of Holyrood, and is only comparable to itself), had actually recorded support for independence at 46%, which was indeed a record high for the SSAS but still a minority and only one point above the 2014 result.
The real upside, though, was learning that WE, not the Tories at Westminster, would be choosing the best date for a second referendum to capitalise on these figures.
We’re not too sure what happened to that promise. But excitingly, within a couple of months things got even better.
In May 2017 the polls had surged from 50.5% to 51%, which the National described as the “highest since [the] EU referendum”, even though we’re pretty sure 51 is less than 54. And only a year later – two years ago today – it was almost time to pounce.
Because there was yet another surge to come.
(That figure was for a non-standard question contrasting independence to a post-Brexit UK. The numbers for the more conventional standalone independence question in the same poll were 49% Yes, 51% No.)
So in September 2018, 15 months after a snap UK general election in which Theresa May had lost her majority and even the SNP’s trimmed-down cohort of 35 MPs now held considerable arithmetical leverage in the Commons, we were back – sort of, with the benefit of a slightly loaded question – at the dizzy heights of 52%, again a mere two points down on where we’d been two years previously.
But happily there was no end in sight to the unstoppable momentum of progress, as we’d discover in just under a year. Because by August 2019, a Lord Ashcroft poll found that support had once again surged – from that 52% to, um, 52% (excl. DKs).
Surely it could surge no further? But wait!
Just six months later, another “massive surge” took support from a lowly 52% to a stratospheric, dizzying 52%. By February this year, after so many huge surges and breathtaking transformations, we were back within just two points of where we’d been in June 2016, all thanks to the glorious and bold leadership of Big Sister. And last week, four months on, we surged further still, to a mighty 52%.
[SUB PLEASE CHECK NUMBERS SOMETHING DOESN’T LOOK RIGHT HERE.]
The reality, as readers with an alert eye for sarcasm may have spotted, is that Yes support – measured by the most generous criteria at the bounds of credibility – hasn’t moved an inch since the days following the Brexit vote. We’ve fluctuated a few points both ways within the standard polling margin of error, with each fluctuation downwards being quietly glossed over and each corresponding uptick hailed as a revolution and the beginning of the tidal wave sweeping away Westminster rule forever.
Given the astonishing, calamitous circumstances of those four years for Scotland as a part of the UK, that’s a political and strategic failure on an epic scale. The average Yes vote, excluding DKs, in the 76 polls since that 54% in June 2016 is… 46.6%.
For comparison, the average Yes vote of the last 20 opinion polls before the 2014 referendum excluding DKs was 48.2%. That’s the “breathtaking transformation” and how “astonishingly far” we’ve come – after the biggest mess the UK could make, we’re now down 1.6 points on where we were before we lost.
(If you include the entire official campaign period, which ran from May to September of 2014 and encompasses 39 polls, the Yes average was 46%. So yay, we’re up 0.6%.)
Yes has led in just eight of the 76 post-Brexit polls. (Or five out of 73 since Theresa May became Prime Minister.) The positive news is that four of those leads have come since Boris Johnson took over as PM a little under a year ago, but it’s still only four out of the 17 polls conducted in that period – less than a quarter.
Of those 17 polls, the four with a Yes lead have had an average margin of 2.5 points. Three have been tied. The remaining 10 have had an average No lead of 5.1 points.
Only once since Theresa May walked into 10 Downing Street in July 2016 after the Brexit vote have there been two polls in a row showing a Yes lead. (Conducted within days of each other at the end of this January, immediately before the UK formally left the EU, recording leads of 1% and 3%.)
Even if the SNP had a plan to secure a second referendum – which we know they don’t, which they can’t afford and which they’re already briefing against – that’s a very long way short of an irresistible march to an inevitable outcome.
Getting two margin-of-error Yes majorities in a row ONCE in four years is plainly not even remotely close to a “settled will”, no matter how rose-tinted your indy spectacles.
Readers, we’re going nowhere fast. We need someone at the wheel who knows where the accelerator pedal is, before we run out of road.


wingsoverscotland--2020-06-09--The comfort of lies

The comfort of lies

Why is it untrue ?
Because this was the actual question people were asked : But what ’ s wrong with “ should consider ” ?
Considering stuff is good , no ?
Well , let ’ s ask someone who has VERY strong feelings about poll questions with the word “ consider ” in them – Mr James Kelly of Scot Goes Pop .
Despite that rant ( one of around 30 abusive diatribes Kelly has furiously spewed out against the idea of any new list party , not just a Wings one ) , there ’ s actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider ” , so long as you don ’ t then present your findings as something they ’ re not .
We didn ’ t do that with our poll , making abundantly and repeatedly clear that all we ’ d found were people willing to CONSIDER a proposition : But unfortunately it ’ s exactly what Kelly does in his reporting of the SGP one , stating as a fact that voters want the plan definitely done , not just thought about .
“ The SNP and Scottish Greens should CONSIDER a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ categorically not the same finding as “ The SNP and Scottish Greens SHOULD CONDUCT a plebiscitary election if X happens ” , and it ’ s just stupefyingly dishonest – leaving aside the comical hypocrisy – to pretend that ’ s what the poll found .
Of course political parties should at all times be considering all possible strategies in pursuit of their goals .
That ’ s such staggeringly obvious basic common sense it ’ s idiotic to even ask the question .
It ’ s a HUGE leap from there to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implement any particular policy .
We have no hope of ever achieving independence if we ’ re not honest with ourselves about where we are .
Continually telling ourselves that victory is inevitable and just around the corner is an abdication of the responsibility to actually get off our backsides and do what it takes to make it happen .
The only value of the SNP winning elections is if they ’ re prepared to use the power so gained to move forwards in pursuit of independence .
If not , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get into this just to keep the SNP in ministerial cars and baubles .
The 2016 victory has delivered precisely no progress whatsoever , and at this rate the next one will do exactly the same .
Lying to ourselves and each other will get us nothing .

More great news, right?
Except, sadly, it’s completely untrue.
Why is it untrue? Because this was the actual question people were asked:
But what’s wrong with “should consider”? Considering stuff is good, no? Well, let’s ask someone who has VERY strong feelings about poll questions with the word “consider” in them – Mr James Kelly of Scot Goes Pop.
Despite that rant (one of around 30 abusive diatribes Kelly has furiously spewed out against the idea of any new list party, not just a Wings one), there’s actually nothing wrong with using the word “consider”, so long as you don’t then present your findings as something they’re not.
We didn’t do that with our poll, making abundantly and repeatedly clear that all we’d found were people willing to CONSIDER a proposition:
But unfortunately it’s exactly what Kelly does in his reporting of the SGP one, stating as a fact that voters want the plan definitely done, not just thought about.
“The SNP and Scottish Greens should CONSIDER a plebiscitary election if X happens” is categorically not the same finding as “The SNP and Scottish Greens SHOULD CONDUCT a plebiscitary election if X happens”, and it’s just stupefyingly dishonest – leaving aside the comical hypocrisy – to pretend that’s what the poll found.
Of course political parties should at all times be considering all possible strategies in pursuit of their goals. That’s such staggeringly obvious basic common sense it’s idiotic to even ask the question. It’s a HUGE leap from there to say that respondents have demanded they should implement any particular policy.
We have no hope of ever achieving independence if we’re not honest with ourselves about where we are. Continually telling ourselves that victory is inevitable and just around the corner is an abdication of the responsibility to actually get off our backsides and do what it takes to make it happen.
The only value of the SNP winning elections is if they’re prepared to use the power so gained to move forwards in pursuit of independence. If not, they’re of no worth. We didn’t get into this just to keep the SNP in ministerial cars and baubles. The 2016 victory has delivered precisely no progress whatsoever, and at this rate the next one will do exactly the same. Lying to ourselves and each other will get us nothing.


Stealing a wage

We ’ ve often said on Wings Over Scotland that we really don ’ t mind if journalists are biased .
Everyone is biased , including us – we ’ d just rather people stopped pretending to be impartial when they weren ’ t .
But what we do really hate about the Scottish media is just how astonishingly bad at its job it is .
Pretty much every newspaper and broadcaster in the country carried the sad story of former Labour MP Paul Sweeney ‘ s fall from besuited lawmaker to skint benefits claimant .
And yet not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that literally every single reader of the story would have been shouting at their screen .
Sweeney was an MP from June 2017 to December 2019 – two and a half years .
When he was elected the basic salary for an ordinary member had just gone up to £76,011 .
The following year it went up to £77,379 and from 1 April 2019 it went up to £79,468 .
On being defeated in the December election Sweeney also received a generous redundancy package , the average being around £18,000 .
What that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Paul Sweeney was paid a grand total of around £210,000 by the taxpayer as a basic wage .
Unlike most employees , his travel to work and London accommodation expenses were also picked up by Joe Public , and he enjoyed the benefits of heavily subsidised workplace restaurants and bars .
According to the income tax calculator on MoneySavingExpert.com , he ’ d have paid a total of 33 % of that salary in tax and National Insurance .
Which means that including the redundancy package Sweeney would have trousered just over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an MP , which is actually around £4,600 a month .
The most money you ’ re allowed to have in the bank and still be eligible for Universal Credit is £16,000 .
That means Sweeney must have less than that much left , so he ’ s spent at least £124,000 in those two and a half years – all while working long hours as an MP and jetting constantly between London and Glasgow .
Quite frankly we ’ re impressed he found the time .
And yet not one single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Craig Murray ’ s house to see how fancy it was when he dared solicit donations to fight his prosecution for contempt of court – apparently thought to ask : But that ’ s not even what we really wanted to talk about .
Today ’ s Times carries a story about SNP finances – which apparently took two people to write – which is such an atrocious piece of mendacious fluff that we suspect it actually came direct from SNP HQ .
Maybe someone was owed a favour .
Audaciously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sizeable donations to the party over the last three years as a positive .
But it ’ s hard to know where to start with the complete cobblers in the above paragraph .
The supposed “ December 2019 ” membership figure of 125,482 is in fact a number from a House Of Commons Library briefing paper a year earlier : And as previously documented on this site , SNP membership income , as recorded in the party ’ s annual accounts , has in fact been in steady decline since 2015 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % ) lower than its peak that year .
The party , which always liked to regularly trumpet its soaring membership figures , hasn ’ t released any new official numbers in the best part of two years , which suggests that the direction of travel may not be upwards .
Meanwhile , costs have skyrocketed .
Two unscheduled UK general elections in 2017 ( £1.6m ) and 2019 ( no figures available yet ) , plus the costs of the EU referendum , have taken big bites out of the bank balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breezily quotes an unnamed party source who asserts that not only can the declining membership income endlessly fill that hole , but can also build up reserves , and that past donors will dig deep into their pockets again should there ever be another indyref campaign on top of the usual electioneering .
But hold on .
We know that the SNP has already held not one but TWO indyref fundraising drives – supposedly to be ringfenced for a referendum campaign and NOT spent on normal party business .
And yet that money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first campaign in 2017 raised over £480,000 but the party ’ s total bank balance at the end of 2018 was just £411K .
A second indyref fundraiser launched just over a year ago – supposedly again ringfenced , this time for the “ specific project ” of producing and distributing a book for a future referendum called “ An Independent Scotland : Household Guide ” – has never published any figures for how much money it ’ s taken in .
That could of course be for one of many reasons : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the party ’ s keeping it a secret for a big triumphant reveal , or because it simply doesn ’ t want to answer any awkward questions about where all the money ’ s gone when it publishes its 2019 accounts in August .
Luckily , thanks to the incurious incompetence of a Scottish media which has recently turned into Nicola Sturgeon ’ s most devoted bodyguard , awkward questions doesn ’ t seem to be much of a danger .

We’ve often said on Wings Over Scotland that we really don’t mind if journalists are biased. Everyone is biased, including us – we’d just rather people stopped pretending to be impartial when they weren’t. But what we do really hate about the Scottish media is just how astonishingly bad at its job it is.
A particularly striking example arose recently.
Pretty much every newspaper and broadcaster in the country carried the sad story of former Labour MP Paul Sweeney‘s fall from besuited lawmaker to skint benefits claimant. And yet not a single one of them asked the question that literally every single reader of the story would have been shouting at their screen.
Sweeney was an MP from June 2017 to December 2019 – two and a half years. When he was elected the basic salary for an ordinary member had just gone up to £76,011. The following year it went up to £77,379 and from 1 April 2019 it went up to £79,468.
On being defeated in the December election Sweeney also received a generous redundancy package, the average being around £18,000.
What that means is that in just 30 months, Paul Sweeney was paid a grand total of around £210,000 by the taxpayer as a basic wage. Unlike most employees, his travel to work and London accommodation expenses were also picked up by Joe Public, and he enjoyed the benefits of heavily subsidised workplace restaurants and bars.
According to the income tax calculator on MoneySavingExpert.com, he’d have paid a total of 33% of that salary in tax and National Insurance.
Which means that including the redundancy package Sweeney would have trousered just over £140,000 in take-home pay during his time as an MP, about £4,600 a month.
(According to the same website the National Living Wage – the amount set by MPs for everyone else to live on – is £1,251 a month after tax/NI, so Sweeney was pocketing almost four times as much as a typical worker.)
The most money you’re allowed to have in the bank and still be eligible for Universal Credit is £16,000. That means Sweeney must have less than that much left, so he’s spent at least £124,000 in those two and a half years – all while working long hours as an MP and jetting constantly between London and Glasgow. Quite frankly we’re kinda impressed that a committed socialist found the time to blow so much dough.
(All this assumes he started off broke. His previous job was in fact in management with BAE Systems, who aren’t known for paying poverty wages.)
And yet not one single solitary Scottish journalist – people who raced to Craig Murray’s house to see how fancy it was when he dared solicit donations to fight his prosecution for contempt of court – apparently thought to ask:
“Hey Paul, really sad that you’re on the dole now, but did you really blow 124 grand while you were an MP? Didn’t it occur to you to put a few quid away for a rainy day, given how precarious an MP’s job can be, especially when the government doesn’t have a majority?”
But that’s not even what we really wanted to talk about.
Today’s Times carries a story about SNP finances – which apparently took two people to write – which is such an atrocious piece of mendacious content-free fluff that we suspect it actually came direct from SNP HQ. Maybe someone was owed a favour.
Audaciously, it attempts to portray the complete drying-up of sizeable donations to the party over the last three years as a positive.
But it’s hard to know where to start with the complete cobblers in the above paragraph. The supposed “December 2019” membership figure of 125,482 is in itself a slightly questionable number (“based on its annual accounts”) from a House Of Commons Library briefing paper, but more to the point is actually from a year earlier:
And as previously documented on this site, SNP membership income, as recorded in the party’s annual accounts, has in fact been in steady decline since 2015, and is now £500,000 (almost 20%) lower than its peak that year.
(Quick links: 2015 accounts, 2016, 2017, 2018.)
The party, which always liked to regularly trumpet its soaring membership figures, hasn’t released any new official numbers in the best part of two years, which suggests that the direction of travel may not be upwards.
Meanwhile, costs have skyrocketed. Two unscheduled UK general elections in 2017 (£1.6m) and 2019 (no figures available yet), plus the costs of the EU referendum, have taken big bites out of the bank balance.
(Even at the budget-price £91,000 they spent fighting Brexit – less than the £100,000 that was poured into an unsuccessful and arithmetically pointless attempt to capture a single Holyrood seat in Shetland. The Lib Dems easily held on to win by a margin of almost 16 points.)
The Times piece, however, breezily quotes an unnamed party source who asserts that not only can the declining membership income endlessly fill that hole, but can also build up reserves, and that past donors will dig deep into their pockets again should there ever be another indyref campaign on top of the usual electioneering.
But hold on a minute. We know that the SNP has already held not one but TWO such indyref fundraising drives – supposedly to be ringfenced for a referendum campaign and NOT spent on normal party business, so they’d already be available to spend at a moment’s notice in the highly unlikely event of an indyref happening.
And yet that money has vanished into the ether. The first campaign in 2017 raised over £480,000 but the party’s total bank balance at the end of 2018 was just £411K.
A second indyref fundraiser launched just over a year ago – supposedly once again ringfenced, this time for the “specific project” of producing and distributing a book for a future referendum called “An Independent Scotland: Household Guide” – has never published any figures for how much money it’s taken in.
That could of course be for one of many reasons: because the total is disappointing, or because the party’s keeping it a secret for a big triumphant reveal, or because it simply doesn’t want to answer any awkward questions about where all the money’s gone when it publishes its 2019 accounts in August.
(Which from that 2018 starting balance of £411,000 will have had to be raided for the European elections and the general election, likely to be somewhere in the region of £2m combined. And a Holyrood election, which is usually the SNP’s biggest spending ticket of all – 2016’s cost almost £1.5m – looms on the horizon less than a year away.)
Luckily, thanks to the incurious incompetence of a Scottish media which has recently turned into Nicola Sturgeon’s most devoted bodyguard, awkward questions don’t seem to be much of a danger.


Upside-down times

I still don ’ t like JK Rowling , for reasons I set out earlier this week .
I certainly @ @ @ @ @ imagined I ’ d ever find myself in a position where I respected her 50 @ @ @ @ @ Nicola Sturgeon .
And yet , here we are .
If the First Minister , @ @ @ @ @ the monumentally imbecilic Kirsty Blackman , have the courage or the humanity to properly address @ @ @ @ @ ll buy everyone a new hat .

I still don’t like JK Rowling, for reasons I set out earlier this week. I certainly never in a million years imagined I’d ever find myself in a position where I respected her 50 times more than I do Nicola Sturgeon.
And yet, here we are.
If the First Minister, or Shirley-Anne Somerville, or the monumentally imbecilic Kirsty Blackman, have the courage or the humanity to properly address that letter, I’ll buy everyone a new hat.


Unbonnie Dundas

`` 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--2020-06-14--From the archives #13

From the archives #13

We ’ ve noticed a fair few Unionists this week proudly claiming that an independent Scotland would have been too @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
They might not listen to our many and comprehensive rebuttals , but maybe @ @ @ @ @ words of Tony Blair , from way back in October 1987 : The sliding doors @ @ @ @ @ readers .
When Unionists tell you Scotland is feeble , remember who made it that @ @ @ @ @ how it could have been .

We’ve noticed a fair few Unionists this week proudly claiming that an independent Scotland would have been too broke to survive the coronavirus pandemic. They might not listen to our many and comprehensive rebuttals, but maybe they’d heed the words of Tony Blair, from way back in October 1987:
The sliding doors of history, there, readers. When Unionists tell you Scotland is feeble, remember who made it that way, and never forget how it could have been.


wingsoverscotland--2020-06-18--Letting the days go by

Letting the days go by

BBC Scotland , then and now .
We ’ re pretty sure they used the same “ separating rival groups @ @ @ @ @ too , but we ’ d have to go and check .
Meanwhile , here @ @ @ @ @ .

BBC Scotland, then and now.
We’re pretty sure they used the same “separating rival groups” phrasing at Tianenmen Square too, but we’d have to go and check. Meanwhile, here’s what really happened.


The Deadest Duck

We had a little mini-poll out with Panelbase this week , readers .
Given that the SNP are currently still insisting that they need ANOTHER mandate at the ballot box to secure a second independence referendum ( by our count that would be the tenth ) , we thought we ’ d see how many people believed this cunning plan would work .
The results , we suspect , will not amaze you .
Barely over a quarter of voters thought that the result of next year ’ s Holyrood election would have any impact on the UK government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 order .
And it wasn ’ t even washing with the SNP ’ s own voters , who by almost two to one thought we ’ d simply get told to scuttle off again even if more than 50 % of Scots voted for pro-indy parties .
Plan A is dead , folks .
It ’ s turned up its toes .
It is an ex-plan .
It has ceased to be .
It ’ s pining for the fjords .
And we ’ re gon na need a bigger boat .

We had a little mini-poll out with Panelbase this week, readers. Given that the SNP are currently still insisting that they need ANOTHER mandate at the ballot box to secure a second independence referendum (by our count that would be the tenth), we thought we’d see how many people believed this cunning plan would work.
The results, we suspect, will not amaze you.
Scottish voters, it turns out, aren’t completely stupid.
Barely over a quarter of voters thought that the result of next year’s Holyrood election would have any impact on the UK government’s refusal to grant a new Section 30 order. And it wasn’t even washing with the SNP’s own voters, who by almost two to one thought we’d simply get told to scuttle off again even if more than 50% of Scots voted for pro-indy parties.
Plan A is dead, folks. It’s turned up its toes. It is an ex-plan. It has ceased to be. It’s pining for the fjords. And we’re gonna need a bigger boat.


Appocalypse now


Down with democracy

So , the good news today is that independence polling is finally back to where it was almost exactly four years ago – 26 June 2016 , to be precise .
Although we couldn ’ t help notice that The National ’ s front-page splash on the latest ( re ) surge was taking second billing in its readership stats to a day-old story about the First Minister ’ s haircut .
Now , as we noted earlier this month , that might just be down to people getting weary of false dawns .
But it might also indicate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dawn on the Yes movement about the lack of connection between nice poll numbers and actually securing another referendum .
Westminster fixture Pete Wishart MP was quick with his usual insistence that growing support in polls will somehow magically translate to the UK government giving in .
When challenged about the subject on Twitter by people quite reasonably pointing out that the “ Just say No ” tactic seems to have been working pretty well for the Tories since 2016 , Wishart never actually explains how this supposedly “ coming ” referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rather uncharacteristic outbreak of morality on Boris Johnson ’ s part .
But try as we might , we can not think of a single reason why Johnson would – or indeed , from his perspective , should – do such a thing .
And to try to understand that , we asked a couple of questions of our own in the same poll .
We already know that hardly anyone believes Wishart ’ s view that next year ’ s Holyrood election will provoke a U-turn from London , no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it suggests there ’ s NO democratic route available to Scottish voters to bring about another indyref .
And in our last poll , just a few weeks ago , we discovered a finding that seemed to back that up , contradicting numerous previous polls that suggested people thought it should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide .
Only 41 % ( 22+19 ) of respondents apparently believing there should be a democratic route to another vote disturbed us , so we asked the old question again : Well , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if asked directly whose decision a second indyref should be , a hefty 24-point majority of Scots ( the same as the Remain vote in the Brexit referendum ) think it should be up to Holyrood .
Yet we also know that they don ’ t think a majority of seats OR a majority of votes in that Parliament should be enough for it to actually happen .
So in an attempt to dig deeper into this apparent paradox , we decided to do something we hadn ’ t done before – probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who don ’ t want Scottish decisions to be taken in or by Scotland .
What ’ s actually going on in their minds ?
Now , our bias might have been showing a little bit in the wording of those options , but we can ’ t think how else to express the bizarre desire to have another country run your affairs for you .
( We did ask a few neutral people if they could think of an option we ’ d missed out , but nobody came up with anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a democratic answer is the second-last one , which got just 5 % . )
Nevertheless , the outcome was overwhelming – almost 70 % of people who wanted to leave the decision at Westminster were willing to openly and explicitly admit that it was because they wanted democracy to be over with forever so far as Scotland ’ s constitutional question was concerned .
And we did quite deliberately phrase that option very bluntly and starkly – “ no matter what Scotland votes for or what future circumstances might be ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asteroid strike ?
A full-on military coup led by Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson ?
Nope – for the vast majority of Unionists , NOTHING can ever be permitted to give Scotland a second shot at choosing independence .
No matter what .
And that ’ s the mindset we have to address when considering what Boris Johnson , or any other Prime Minister , might do when faced with a consistent Yes poll lead .
The group of people Johnson is chiefly beholden to is Tory voters .
Tories in Scotland have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by dint of taking an ultra-hardline stance on independence ( to the extent of basically having no other policies at all ) while Labour have flapped and vacillated .
In so far as they have anything meaningful to lose , backing down on it would be suicidal to the party ’ s electoral prospects north of the border , and do it no favours in England either .
Simply , clearly , obviously , Johnson has everything to lose and nothing to gain from conceding another referendum in Scotland .
Denying one strengthens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position , it doesn ’ t weaken it .
Nobody that matters to him is going to be the least bit offended that it ’ s “ undemocratic ” .
Indeed , the exact opposite is true .
Labour are signalling their own intention to go even more super-ultra-Unionist in an attempt to win back the votes they ’ ve lost to the Tories – apparently having given up on the far larger number they ’ ve lost to the SNP , because the one thing we must always keep in mind when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are absolutely mindbogglingly , almost inconceivably stupid and hate-blinded .
Any retreat by Johnson would simply throw Labour a lifebelt and turn his own supporters against him .
But nobody should be fainting with surprise at this development .
Unionist politicians on all sides have been saying it increasingly openly for some time .
Ian Murray perhaps put it most explicitly this January : But he was only echoing a position Unionist leaders have been making clear to anyone who ’ d actually listen for years .
The conclusion has long been inescapable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Scottish constitution .
The idea that a string of opinion polls showing that the exact outcome they most fear would come about will change their minds has never been more farcical .
It ’ s beginning to look like a majority of Scots really do want independence .
But turning that into actual independence is no small matter .
What we can say with something close to absolute certainty , from these and all other polls , is that Plan A will never work .
Anyone telling you it will is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a fool .

So, the good news today is that independence polling is finally back to where it was almost exactly four years ago – 26 June 2016, to be precise. Although we couldn’t help notice that The National’s front-page splash on the latest (re)surge was taking second billing in its readership stats to a day-old story about the First Minister’s haircut.
Now, as we noted earlier this month, that might just be down to people getting weary of false dawns. But it might also indicate that a measure of realism is belatedly beginning to dawn on the Yes movement about the lack of connection between nice poll numbers and actually securing another referendum.
Westminster fixture Pete Wishart MP was quick with his usual insistence that growing support in polls will somehow magically translate to the UK government giving in.
When challenged about the subject on Twitter by people quite reasonably pointing out that the “Just say No” tactic seems to have been working pretty well for the Tories since 2016, Wishart never actually explains how this supposedly “coming” referendum will transpire, other than a sudden and rather uncharacteristic outbreak of morality on Boris Johnson’s part. (Usually he just blocks them.)
But try as we might, we cannot think of a single reason why Johnson would – or indeed, from his perspective, should – do such a thing. And to try to understand that, we asked a couple of questions of our own in the same poll.
We already know that hardly anyone believes Wishart’s view that next year’s Holyrood election will provoke a U-turn from London, no matter the outcome.
That’s worrying because it suggests there’s NO democratic route available to Scottish voters to bring about another indyref. And in our last poll, just a few weeks ago, we discovered a finding that seemed to back that up, contradicting numerous previous polls that suggested people thought it should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide.
Only 36% of respondents apparently believing there should be a democratic route to another vote, with 45% against, disturbed us, so we asked the old question again:
Well, that’s confusing. Once again, if asked directly whose decision a second indyref should be, a hefty 24-point majority of Scots (the same as the Remain vote in the Brexit referendum) think it should be up to Holyrood. Yet we also know that they don’t think a majority of seats OR a majority of votes in that Parliament should be enough for it to actually happen.
So in an attempt to dig deeper into this apparent paradox, we decided to do something we hadn’t done before – probe a little deeper into that 38% who don’t want Scottish decisions to be taken in or by Scotland. What’s actually going on in their minds?
The results were eye-opening.
Now, our bias might have been showing a little bit in the wording of those options, but we can’t think how else to express the bizarre desire to have another country run your affairs for you. (We did ask a few neutral people if they could think of an option we’d missed out, but nobody came up with anything. The one that’s closest to a democratic answer is the second-last one, which got just 5%.)
Nevertheless, the outcome was overwhelming – almost 70% of people who wanted to leave the decision at Westminster were willing to openly and explicitly admit that it was because they wanted democracy to be over with forever so far as Scotland’s constitutional question was concerned.
And we did quite deliberately phrase that option very bluntly and starkly – “no matter what Scotland votes for or what future circumstances might be”. Russian invasion? Zombie plague? Asteroid strike? A full-on military coup led by Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson? Nope – for the vast majority of Unionists, NOTHING can ever be permitted to give Scotland a second shot at choosing independence. No matter what.
And that’s the mindset we have to address when considering what Boris Johnson, or any other Prime Minister, might do when faced with a consistent Yes poll lead.
The group of people Johnson is chiefly beholden to is Tory voters. Tories in Scotland have risen to a firmly consolidated second place by dint of taking an ultra-hardline stance on independence (to the extent of basically having no other policies at all) while Labour have flapped and vacillated. In so far as they have anything meaningful to lose, backing down on it would be suicidal to the party’s electoral prospects north of the border, and do it no favours in England either.
Simply, clearly, obviously, Johnson has everything to lose and nothing to gain from conceding another referendum in Scotland. Refusal strengthens his own and his party’s position, it doesn’t weaken it. Nobody that matters to him is going to be the least bit offended that it’s “undemocratic”. Indeed, the exact opposite is true.
Labour are signalling their own intention to go even more super-ultra-Unionist in an attempt to win back the votes they’ve lost to the Tories – apparently having given up on the far larger number they’ve lost to the SNP, because the one thing we must always keep in mind when discussing these matters is that Scottish Labour are absolutely mindbogglingly, almost inconceivably stupid and hate-blinded. Any retreat by Johnson would simply throw Labour a lifebelt and turn his own supporters against him.
(Tory voters were the most vehement on both questions, and spectacularly so on the matter of which Parliament should have the decision. Strikingly, nearly 60% of Labour voters wanted it to be up to Holyrood, compared to just 12% of Tories.)
But nobody should be fainting with surprise at this development. Unionist politicians on all sides have been saying it increasingly openly for some time. Ian Murray perhaps put it most explicitly this January:
But he was only echoing a position Unionist leaders have been making clear to anyone who’d actually listen for years.
The conclusion has long been inescapable: Unionists do not believe democracy applies to the Scottish constitution. The idea that a string of opinion polls showing that the exact outcome they most fear would come about will change their minds has never been more farcical.
It’s beginning to look like a majority of Scots really do want independence. But turning that into actual independence is no small matter. What we can say with something close to absolute certainty, from these and all other polls, is that Plan A will never work. Anyone telling you it will is lying to you, and taking you for a fool.


Loving the jailer

On the face of it , this finding from our latest Panelbase poll isn ’ t very surprising : But then again , maybe it is .
Because we bet you wouldn ’ t have predicted this breakdown of the numbers : Because by a notable margin , it ’ s SNP voters and Yes voters who most want to use public money to bail out the very same newspapers who uniformly spend all their time bitterly attacking the SNP and independence .
We should note that both groups are still against the idea overall .
But for Yessers the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whereas No voters oppose it by a crushing 40 points .
And while SNP voters were the most in favour of the idea , by an even closer 12 points , it was Tories – the overwhelming main beneficiaries of UK and Scottish media bias – who were utterly against , by a huge 64 points .
It ’ s traditionally Unionists who get accused of Stockholm Syndrome in Scotland .
But SNP/Yes supporters ’ defence of the people who despise and mistreat them seems here to be edging from admirable fair-mindedness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the phrasing of the question has led them to reflexively and instinctively defend the actions of the Scottish Government .
And it could also be that the SNP ’ s pathological subservience to the mainstream press and reluctance to attack it has just rubbed off on voters .
We don ’ t know .
Readers can make of it what they will .

On the face of it, this finding from our latest Panelbase poll isn’t very surprising:
But then again, maybe it is.
Because we bet you wouldn’t have predicted this breakdown of the numbers:
Because by a notable margin, it’s SNP voters and Yes voters who most want to use public money to bail out the very same newspapers who uniformly spend all their time bitterly attacking the SNP and independence.
We should note that both groups are still against the idea overall. But for Yessers the margin is a fairly tight 16 points, whereas No voters oppose it by a crushing 40 points.
And while SNP voters were the most in favour of the idea, by an even closer 12 points, it was Tories – the overwhelming main beneficiaries of UK and Scottish media bias – who were utterly against, by a huge 64 points.
It’s traditionally Unionists who get accused of Stockholm Syndrome in Scotland. But SNP/Yes supporters’ defence of the people who despise and mistreat them seems here to be edging from admirable fair-mindedness towards plain self-harm.
It may be that the phrasing of the question has led them to reflexively and instinctively defend the actions of the Scottish Government. And it could also be that the SNP’s pathological subservience to the mainstream press and reluctance to attack it has just rubbed off on voters. We don’t know. Readers can make of it what they will.


wingsoverscotland--2020-06-23--The justice of blindness

The justice of blindness

The ramifications for Scottish politics of the failed stitch-up of Alex Salmond over false allegations of sexual abuse have hardly begun to be felt .
The Parliamentary inquiry into the affair , which formally began yesterday and is due to start interviewing people in August , looks set to be swamped in material – or at least , whatever material hasn ’ t been quietly and conveniently disposed of already – and nobody knows how long it ’ ll take to reach any sort of conclusion .
It seems a safe bet that the SNP leadership will be praying it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 Holyrood election , for all sorts of reasons – not least that it appears beyond any credible doubt that Nicola Sturgeon lied to Parliament about the investigation .
But while Salmond was found innocent on every charge , he continues to be attacked from behind a shield of anonymity by the accusers that the mainly-female jury declined to believe , supported and co-ordinated by organisations funded almost entirely by the Scottish Government and with very close personal links to it .
So when we were putting out our latest Panelbase poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the people of Scotland thought about it .
As recently as today , Brenna Jessie of Rape Crisis Scotland was continuing to attack and smear Salmond and anyone associated with him .
Rape Crisis Scotland , readers may recall , was behind the letter published in almost every Scottish newspaper just after the trial , which basically implied that Salmond was still guilty , and which was anonymously “ signed ” by all of the accusers .
Given that Salmond has alleged a conspiracy against him at the highest levels , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why Salmond wasn ’ t also given the benefit of anonymity before the verdict .
And as it turns out those concerns are widely shared .
We firstly asked about anonymity for the accusers : A large majority – over 4:1 – believed that the complainers should be protected before and during the trial .
But that number dropped sharply regarding the aftermath of the trial , regardless of the verdict .
From a margin of 62 points , the figures supporting continued anonymity after the trial for the complainers dropped to 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 22 points if they were found innocent .
While those are still clear majorities in favour , the size of the difference surprised us , as did the almost identical figures whether the defendant was found guilty or innocent .
And another outcome we weren ’ t expecting was that there was very little difference between men and women .
Counter-intuitively , women were MORE likely to want the complainers to stay anonymous if the defendant was acquitted than if they were guilty , whereas men were more logically the other way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men and women were consistently only a few percentage points apart .
We then asked if people thought the accused person should also have their identity kept secret , and the results were startling .
Very nearly as many people ( 75 % vs 81 % ) thought that Salmond should have been protected by anonymity as the accusers , which isn ’ t too surprising as it seems a basic principle of fairness and equality given the huge damage that can be done by false claims of sexual assault .
And an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have been maintained after the innocent verdict .
But what ’ s most striking about those figures is that significantly more people wanted Salmond ’ s identity to have been kept secret after the verdict than felt that way about the accusers .
Respondents wanted his anonymity to have been protected after he was cleared by a margin of 54 points – more than double the 24/22 points for the accusers .
And again , perhaps unexpectedly , that view was held very strongly by women ( a 48-point margin ) as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Scottish people appear to believe that Alex Salmond was done a serious injustice by being splashed all over the newspapers for months on end while innocent of any crime , often in articles which all but declared his guilt while picturing him alongside murderers , rapists and Nazi war criminals like Adolf Eichmann .
Salmond has also been left financially ruined by his defence , which ran to hundreds of thousands of pounds and which there ’ s no legal means to recoup .
We asked a question about that too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap .
Women thought he should have been able to recover his costs by a huge margin – two to one – but that figure was dwarfed by the almost 6:1 majority of men who felt the same way .
It ’ s abundantly obvious from these results that the continued vendetta being pursued against Alex Salmond by elements of the SNP and Scottish Government , and those paid by them , does not have the support of Scottish voters , whatever their sex .
But we suspect that ’ ll do nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the coming months .
The stakes are far too high for that .

The ramifications for Scottish politics of the failed stitch-up of Alex Salmond over false allegations of sexual abuse have hardly begun to be felt. The Parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which formally began yesterday and is due to start interviewing people in August, looks set to be swamped in material – or at least, whatever material hasn’t been quietly and conveniently disposed of already – and nobody knows how long it’ll take to reach any sort of conclusion.
It seems a safe bet that the SNP leadership will be praying it doesn’t do so before the 2021 Holyrood election, for all sorts of reasons – not least that it appears beyond any credible doubt that Nicola Sturgeon lied to Parliament about the investigation.
But while Salmond was found innocent on every charge, he continues to be attacked from behind a shield of anonymity by the accusers that the mainly-female jury declined to believe, supported and co-ordinated by organisations funded almost entirely by the Scottish Government and with very close personal links to it.
So when we were putting out our latest Panelbase poll, we thought we’d find out what the people of Scotland thought about it.
As recently as today, Brenna Jessie of Rape Crisis Scotland was continuing to attack and smear Salmond and anyone associated with him.
Rape Crisis Scotland, readers may recall, was behind the letter published in almost every Scottish newspaper just after the trial, which basically implied that Salmond was still guilty, and which was anonymously “signed” by all of the accusers.
Given that Salmond has alleged a conspiracy against him at the highest levels, such actions have given rise to questions about why Salmond wasn’t also given the benefit of anonymity before the verdict. And as it turns out those concerns are widely shared.
We firstly asked about anonymity for the accusers:
A large majority – over 4:1 – believed that the complainers should be protected before and during the trial. But that number dropped sharply regarding the aftermath of the trial, regardless of the verdict.
From a margin of 62 points, the figures supporting continued anonymity after the trial for the complainers dropped to 24 points if the accused was found guilty and 22 points if they were found innocent. While those are still clear majorities in favour, the size of the difference surprised us, as did the almost identical figures whether the defendant was found guilty or innocent.
And another outcome we weren’t expecting was that there was very little difference between men and women. Counter-intuitively, women were MORE likely to want the complainers to stay anonymous if the defendant was acquitted than if they were guilty, whereas men were more logically the other way round, but otherwise the numbers for men and women were consistently only a few percentage points apart.
We then asked if people thought the accused person should also have their identity kept secret, and the results were startling.
Very nearly as many people (75% vs 81%) thought that Salmond should have been protected by anonymity as the accusers, which isn’t too surprising as it seems a basic principle of fairness and equality given the huge damage that can be done by false claims of sexual assault. And an even higher number thought that that secrecy should have been maintained after the innocent verdict.
But what’s most striking about those figures is that significantly more people wanted Salmond’s identity to have been kept secret after the verdict than felt that way about the accusers.
Respondents wanted his anonymity to have been protected after he was cleared by a margin of 54 points – more than double the 24/22 points for the accusers. And again, perhaps unexpectedly, that view was held very strongly by women (a 48-point margin) as well as men (62 points).
The Scottish people appear to believe that Alex Salmond was done a serious injustice by being splashed all over the newspapers for months on end while innocent of any crime, often in articles which all but declared his guilt while picturing him alongside murderers, rapists and Nazi war criminals like Adolf Eichmann.
Salmond has also been left financially ruined by his defence, which ran to hundreds of thousands of pounds and which there’s no legal means to recoup. We asked a question about that too.
Here we found the biggest gender gap. Women thought he should have been able to recover his costs by a huge margin – two to one – but that figure was dwarfed by the almost 6:1 majority of men who felt the same way.
It’s abundantly obvious from these results that the continued vendetta being pursued against Alex Salmond by elements of the SNP and Scottish Government, and those paid by them, does not have the support of Scottish voters, whatever their sex.
(It also has interesting implications for the extremely one-sided prosecutions which are currently being conducted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service with regard to the anonymity of the accusers. We’ve had no response to our most recent letters on the subject for almost a month.)
But we suspect that’ll do nothing to rein the ongoing smear campaign back in the coming months. The stakes are far too high for that.


wingsoverscotland--2020-06-24--What is known as parklife

What is known as parklife

We ’ ve just been out for our evening constitutional in the relatively cool night air ( Bath sweltered at an oppressive 30C today and Bear Patrol was pretty gruelling ) , and we thought readers might be interested in what we saw .
The city has observed lockdown with great diligence , as we ’ ve previously documented , and to be honest we ’ re not sufficiently familiar with the latest rules to say it wasn ’ t still doing so tonight .
But a nearby park , around 9.30pm , was a disconcerting scene .
About half-a-dozen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amongst the crowd , and they were having extended conversations with various groups , but to no visible effect – we observed the scene for about 20 minutes and nobody got up and left , and we weren ’ t close enough to overhear what was being said .
But it seems abundantly clear to us that England ’ s approach to the coronavirus pandemic has played out like this : 1 .
The UK government ’ s first instinct , more or less openly stated , was to basically do nothing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ herd immunity ” to develop – writing off the deaths that would result , mainly among the elderly , as a price worth paying to avoid major economic damage .
2 .
Scientists warned that this would overwhelm the NHS and lead to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths , so a lockdown policy was introduced to “ flatten the curve ” , although too late to avoid thousands of probably needless casualties .
3 .
Despite the delay , the NHS was NOT overwhelmed .
A fleet of “ Nightingale ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we know barely saw a single patient .
Existing capacity was able to cope , albeit at a stretch and at a significant human cost .
The curve was flattened and while daily deaths in England are still in triple figures , new cases are far lower than when lockdown came in .
4 .
The government has therefore basically concluded that it can revert to its original policy of herd immunity .
Restrictions can be lifted as quickly as is plausibly decent , infections will rise again , but nothing need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous level .
The expensive furlough schemes can be dropped and “ business as usual ” can be resumed as far as possible , largely at the expense of the poor .
Scotland has belatedly begun to meaningfully diverge from English policy , but since London is refusing to maintain the furlough schemes for the other three UK nations it remains to be seen how long that divergence can be sustained .
People can ’ t survive without income .
If we were you , readers , we ’ d make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

We’ve just been out for our evening constitutional in the relatively cool night air (Bath sweltered at an oppressive 30C today and Bear Patrol was pretty gruelling), and we thought readers might be interested in what we saw.
The city has observed lockdown with great diligence, as we’ve previously documented, and to be honest we’re not sufficiently familiar with the latest rules to say it wasn’t still doing so tonight. But a nearby park, around 9.30pm, was a disconcerting scene.
About half-a-dozen cops and pretend-o-cops can be seen circulating amongst the crowd, and they were having extended conversations with various groups, but to no visible effect – we observed the scene for about 20 minutes and nobody got up and left, and we weren’t close enough to overhear what was being said.
But it seems abundantly clear to us that England’s approach to the coronavirus pandemic has played out like this:
1. The UK government’s first instinct, more or less openly stated, was to basically do nothing, let the virus run wild and allow “herd immunity” to develop – writing off the deaths that would result, mainly among the elderly, as a price worth paying to avoid major economic damage.
2. Scientists warned that this would overwhelm the NHS and lead to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, so a lockdown policy was introduced to “flatten the curve”, although too late to avoid thousands of probably needless casualties.
3. Despite the delay, the NHS was NOT overwhelmed. A fleet of “Nightingale” hospitals were hastily constructed but as far as we know barely saw a single patient. Existing capacity was able to cope, albeit at a stretch and at a significant human cost. The curve was flattened and while daily deaths in England are still in triple figures, new cases are far lower than when lockdown came in.
4. The government has therefore basically concluded that it can revert to its original policy of herd immunity. Restrictions can be lifted as quickly as is plausibly decent, infections will rise again, but nothing need be done unless and until they exceed the previous level. The expensive furlough schemes can be dropped and “business as usual” can be resumed as far as possible, largely at the expense of the poor.
(The Tory administration has already survived the world’s worst per-capita death rates AND Dominic Cumming’s round-Britain trip, so probably feels it can ride out anything else that might foreseeably happen.)
Scotland has belatedly begun to meaningfully diverge from English policy, but since London is refusing to maintain the furlough schemes for the other three UK nations it remains to be seen how long that divergence can be sustained. People can’t survive without income.
If we were you, readers, we’d make sure we had plenty loo roll in now.


The Shining


wingsoverscotland--2020-06-29--From the archives #14

From the archives #14

We were rummaging around semi-aimlessly in the vaults last night , readers , and we were rather startled to come across this : Shows what YOU lot know , eh ?
Wings , of course , is actually good at predicting stuff , so we DID see PM Boris coming , three years in advance : Unlike certain people we could mention .
In that June 2016 article we were warning that a factionally-divided Labour were in no danger of winning the next election , although we were a few months out on when that might be ( and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MPs who ’ d have the integrity to quit Labour over Corbyn and join a new party ) : So while we were on the subject of Labour being hopelessly unfit for office , it was fun to revisit another finding from the same May 2014 poll : Ten years is 2024 , which means that barring any dramatic unscheduled events , next year ’ s Holyrood election is Scottish Labour ’ s last chance to provide a First Minister before time runs out .
If you ’ ve got money on it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ braver person than us .

We were rummaging around semi-aimlessly in the vaults last night, readers, and we were rather startled to come across this:
Shows what YOU lot know, eh?
Wings, of course, is actually good at predicting stuff, so we DID see PM Boris coming, three years in advance:
Unlike certain people we could mention.
In that June 2016 article we were warning that a factionally-divided Labour were in no danger of winning the next election, although we were a few months out on when that might be (and to be fair we overestimated the number of MPs who’d have the integrity to quit Labour over Corbyn and join a new party):
So while we were on the subject of Labour being hopelessly unfit for office, it was fun to revisit another finding from the same May 2014 poll:
Ten years is 2024, which means that barring any dramatic unscheduled events, next year’s Holyrood election is Scottish Labour’s last chance to provide a First Minister before time runs out. If you’ve got money on it, folks, you’re a braver person than us.


Fannies by gaslight

So something quite interesting just happened , and we don ’ t mean this race : When we uploaded it in September last year , it was pulled within minutes by YouTube for copyright violation , as very often happens if you post even really short clips of any kind of current or current-ish sporting event for any reason .
So we filed a fair-use defence , but as those can take weeks to be resolved we tweeted the video on our now-banned Twitter account instead , where it got over 1.5m views .
We never got any notification about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted at some point and the video quietly went live again , long after the moment had passed , and we thought no more about it .
We can ’ t remember ever linking to it or mentioning it , though we might have embedded it in a post at some point .
Then today we noticed it had 2.3m views and 11,500 comments .
That outstrips by a margin of over 300 % the stats of our previous most-viewed video , the infamous Nick Robinson “ he didn ’ t answer ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times .
But it doesn ’ t explain why , because as far as we can tell nobody has actively linked to the athletics video .
What appears to have happened is that YouTube ’ s algorithms picked it out a couple of weeks ago and started putting it in people ’ s automated recommendations .
Almost all of the traffic dates from the middle of last month .
We suspect that might be because the title tied in with JK Rowling ’ s much-publicised comments around the same time about the existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no way to be sure .
But that ’ s not the interesting thing either .
Because anyone who ’ s been following the transgender debate even a little bit will at this point quite reasonably be presuming that those 12,000 comments are a toxic bin fire of hatred .
But ( while we haven ’ t by any means read all of them yet ) , it doesn ’ t seem to be the case .
In fact , there ’ s a distinct lack of rancour in them , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freakish .
This is YouTube .
This is the internet .
No rancour or hatred , especially on a usually highly controversial subject ?
What ?
Lots of people make videogames jokes , especially relating to Sonic The Hedgehog or Super Mario Kart .
Quaintly , some old-fashioned 1970s-style sexists show up to rather gently mock feminists for claiming women are equal to men because the video clearly shows that in an athletic context they ’ re not .
But there ’ s a very palpable shortage of people screaming “ BIGOT !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusing others of being literal murderers .
And we suspect the reason is that specifically because the video hasn ’ t been linked to by either side in the trans debate , the comments reflect what the general population thinks , not those actively involved in the fight .
And to the general public , it ’ s still almost farcically obvious that men aren ’ t women .
It simply doesn ’ t occur to most normal people that there ’ s even an argument to be had here .
Everyone knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex .
Everyone knows there aren ’ t really 178 different “ genders ” .
Everyone knows that taken as a class men are far stronger physically than women .
Everyone knows that women don ’ t have penises and men can ’ t be lesbians .
Normal people treat the idea that you can “ identify ” into or out of a biological fact as being so stupid as to not be even worthy of taking seriously .
That , of course , is partly why the transcult has been so successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulled , as Keyser Soze so memorably put it , was convincing the world he didn ’ t exist .
If you try to explain the madness of transgender ideology to normal people they look at you as if you were telling them the Earth was not only flat , but made of cheese by tiny goblins and carried through space by a giant purple armadillo .
People simply don ’ t believe what ’ s happening , which is why it ’ s able to happen .
As a topical case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominated this week by a ludicrous fantasy constructed by one of the SNP ’ s Twitler Youth .
The completely fictitious account of “ transphobic abuse ” suffered at a branch meeting in Bearsden – which neither of the male “ victims ” had complained about at the time or for four months afterwards – was treated as unquestioned gospel truth by a long string of SNP representatives , including MPs Hannah Bardell and Mhairi Black , backed up by Westminster leader Ian Blackford , to the absolutely extraordinary point where it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party .
To anyone with even the slightest command of either current affairs or their sanity , calling the SNP “ transphobic ” is akin to attacking the Pope for being “ too Protestant ” – a falsehood of such breathtaking magnitude and audacity as to be almost admirable .
The phenomenon is widely known as “ gaslighting ” , a term this site has always hated because it ’ s a terrible word whose meaning is completely opaque and impossible to discern from context unless you happen to have seen a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real world has heard of .
We ’ ve had the term explained to us 100 times and immediately forgot again every time – it ’ s taking a supreme effort of concentration to remember it now .
But what it basically means is telling people , over and over again , that the evidence they can clearly perceive with their own eyes and ears and know to be definitely true is in fact merely a sign that they ’ re insane and paranoid .
Gaslighting only works if you can isolate your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who might support them , and wear them down by relentlessly bombarding them with tried-and-tested brainwashing/grooming techniques until they crumble under the pressure .
It ’ s a tactic beloved of domestic abusers and cults , and is being increasingly aggressively and openly deployed on social media by trans-captured tech companies like Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and most recently Google .
The transcult works by leaping on things in a planned and organised way to make the extremist views of a tiny minority look like a groundswell of support , aided and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve whoever shouts the loudest .
But mob intimidation only works when the mob is aware something ’ s happening .
When our video was pushed into the public sphere by YouTube ’ s automated processes , they didn ’ t know about it , so they didn ’ t mobilise their online armies , and so the comments are full of the actual everyday public behaving normally , in all their great diversity , and largely saying the sort of obvious common-or-garden things that everyone knows are true without being screamed down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of abuse from the “ progressive ” left and “ the right side of history ” .
That public view is backed up by every opinion poll ever conducted on the subject .
But opinion poll findings regularly get shouted down too , dismissed as being manipulated by “ bigotry ” or “ leading questions ” – even when the question is asked by hyper-trans-friendly organisations like Pink News – or being “ meaningless ” because they typically only ask 1000 people .
So it ’ s always reassuring to see a completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , just in case ever you ’ re in danger of being gaslighted by a bunch of wee fannies .
Meghan Murphy ( Canadian feminist silenced by Twitter , also here ) 4th Wave Now ( US parents group silenced by Twitter ) Things that only happen to biological women Statistics on the advantages held by biological males in women ’ s sports The huge financial interests behind transgenderism Two collections of violent threats from TRAs to women

So something quite interesting just happened, and we don’t mean this race:
What’s interesting is specifically the video.
When we uploaded it in September last year, it was pulled within minutes by YouTube for copyright violation, as very often happens if you post even really short clips of any kind of current or current-ish sporting event for any reason.
So we filed a fair-use defence, but as those can take weeks to be resolved we tweeted the video on our now-banned Twitter account instead, where it got over 1.5m views.
We never got any notification about it, but clearly the defence was accepted at some point and the video quietly went live again, long after the moment had passed, and we thought no more about it. We can’t remember ever linking to it or mentioning it, though we might have embedded it in a post at some point.
Then today we noticed it had 2.3m views and almost 12,000 comments.
That outstrips by a margin of over 300% the stats of our previous most-viewed video, the infamous Nick Robinson “he didn’t answer” clip, which has been watched 522,000 times. But it doesn’t explain why, because as far as we can tell nobody has actively linked to the athletics video.
What appears to have happened is that YouTube’s algorithms picked it out a couple of weeks ago and started putting it in people’s automated recommendations. Almost all of the traffic dates from the middle of last month. We suspect that might be because the title of the clip tied in with JK Rowling’s much-publicised comments around the same time about the existence of biological sex, although there’s no way to be sure.
But that’s not the interesting thing either.
Because anyone who’s been following the transgender debate even a little bit will at this point quite reasonably be presuming that those 12,000 comments are a toxic bin fire of hatred. But (while we haven’t by any means read all of them yet), it doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, there’s a distinct lack of rancour in them, to the point where it’s almost freakish. This is YouTube. This is the internet. No rancour or hatred, especially on a usually highly controversial subject? What?
Lots of people make videogames jokes, especially relating to Sonic The Hedgehog or Super Mario Kart. Quaintly, some old-fashioned 1970s-style sexists show up to rather gently mock feminists for claiming women are equal to men because the video clearly shows that in an athletic context they’re not. But there’s a palpable shortage of people screaming “BIGOT!” and “NAZI!” and accusing others of being literal murderers.
And we suspect the reason is that specifically because the video hasn’t been linked to by either side in the trans debate, the comments reflect what the general population thinks, not those actively involved in the fight. And to the general public, it’s still almost farcically obvious that men aren’t women.
It simply doesn’t occur to most normal people that there’s even an argument to be had here. Everyone knows human beings can’t change their sex. Everyone knows there aren’t really 178 different “genders”. Everyone knows that taken as a class men are far stronger physically than women. Everyone knows that women don’t have penises and men can’t be lesbians. Normal people treat the idea that you can “identify” into or out of a biological fact as being so stupid as to not be even worthy of taking seriously.
That, of course, is partly why the transcult has been so successful. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, as Keyser Soze so memorably put it, was convincing the world he didn’t exist. If you try to explain the madness of transgender ideology to normal people they look at you as if you were telling them the Earth was not only flat, but made of cheese by tiny goblins and carried through space by a giant purple armadillo. People simply don’t believe what’s happening, which is why it’s able to happen.
As a topical case in point, Yes-movement social media has been dominated this week by a ludicrous fantasy constructed by one of the SNP’s Twitler Youth.
The completely fictitious account of “transphobic abuse” suffered at a branch meeting in Bearsden – which neither of the male “victims” had complained about at the time or for four months afterwards – was treated as unquestioned gospel truth by a long string of SNP representatives, including MPs Hannah Bardell and Mhairi Black, backed up by Westminster leader Ian Blackford, to the absolutely extraordinary point where it was used as evidence of institutional transphobia within the party.
(The trans advocates had tried to stop feminist branch members from hearing about or attending the event, in order to prevent any critical voices challenging their position and maintain the illusion that their view is shared universally in the party. Another then-member of the SNP’s trans youth wing, a male transwoman, cancelled his appearance at a similar event the same evening when he got wind of the fact that people with an opposing view might dare to also be present and raise their concerns. “Safety” in transcult-speak means “never being disagreed with”, and “flooded the branch” means “turned up to an event held by a party they’re members of and are entitled to attend”.)
To anyone with even the slightest command of either current affairs or their sanity, calling the SNP “transphobic” is akin to attacking the Pope for being “too Protestant” – a falsehood of such breathtaking magnitude and audacity as to be almost admirable.
The phenomenon is widely known as “gaslighting”, a term this site has always hated because it’s a terrible word whose meaning is completely opaque and impossible to discern from context unless you happen to have seen a particular 1930s movie that nobody in the real world has heard of. We’ve had the term explained to us 100 times and immediately forgot again every time – it’s taking a supreme effort of concentration to remember it now.
But what it basically means is telling people, over and over again, that the evidence they can clearly perceive with their own eyes and ears and know to be definitely true is in fact merely a sign that they’re insane and paranoid.
Gaslighting can only be effective if you isolate your intended victim, separating them from anyone who might support them, enabling you to wear them down by relentlessly bombarding them with tried-and-tested brainwashing/grooming techniques until they crumble under the pressure. It’s a tactic beloved of domestic abusers and cults, and is increasingly aggressively and openly deployed on social media by trans-captured tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube and most recently Google.
Such cults operate by leaping on things in a planned and organised way to make the extremist views of a tiny minority look like a groundswell of support, aided and abetted by pathologically weak politicians who basically serve whoever shouts the loudest.
(The UK government currently shows signs of possibly being an unusual exception to this rule, or maybe the feminists and reality fans just shouted louder.)
But mob intimidation only works when the mob is aware something’s happening. When our video was pushed into the public sphere by YouTube’s automated processes, they didn’t know about it, so they didn’t mobilise their online armies, and so the comments are full of the actual everyday public behaving normally, in all their great diversity, and largely saying the sort of obvious common-or-garden things that everyone knows are true without being screamed down and cowed into silence by unimaginable torrents of abuse from the “progressive” left and “the right side of history”.
That public view is backed up by every opinion poll ever conducted on the subject. But opinion poll findings regularly get shouted down too, dismissed as being manipulated by “bigotry” or “leading questions” – even when the questions are being asked by hyper-trans-friendly organisations like Pink News – or for being “meaningless” because they typically only ask 1000 or so people.
So it’s always reassuring to see a completely spontaneous illustration happen “in the wild”, just in case you’re ever in danger of being gaslighted by a bunch of wee fannies.
.
OTHER RESOURCES
Peak Trans
ForWomen.scot
Women And Girls In Scotland
Women Are Human
Claire Graham (intersex voice silenced by Twitter)
Miranda Yardley (dissenting transwoman silenced by Twitter)
Meghan Murphy (Canadian feminist silenced by Twitter, also here)
RadFem Rebecca (Feminist silenced by Twitter)
4th Wave Now (US parents group silenced by Twitter)
Trans Crime UK
The War On Women
Pronouns Are Rohypnol
List of gender-critical feminists suspended by Twitter
Things that only happen to biological women
Statistics on the advantages held by biological males in women’s sports
The huge financial interests behind transgenderism
The alarming culture of misogyny at social-media and tech firms
Two collections of violent threats from TRAs to women
A representative random selection of TRA quotes
Things men have pretended to be to gain malign access to women and children


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-01--Wildcat Pete And The Converts

Wildcat Pete And The Converts


wingsoverscotland--2020-07-02--The trail of breadcrumbs

The trail of breadcrumbs

Ladies and gentlemen , meet the new World Speed-Reading Champion : Almost 1200 words in 15 seconds is mighty impressive going in anyone ’ s book .
( Either that or it ’ s REALLY slow for a 12-word tweet . )
But we wondered if there might be any other reason why Mrs Angus Robertson wouldn ’ t want people reading that article .
Tom Gordon ’ s piece from last week ’ s Herald is in itself a pretty blindingly obvious and innoffensive statement of some uncontested facts – the Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for both the Scottish Government and the Scottish civil service , because the investigation has already been found to be so crooked that the government caved before it got to court , having first wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers ’ money .
But it did provide the missing jigsaw piece which finally answered a question that ’ s been bugging us for a long time .
We ’ d never understood the quite extraordinary over-reaction of the SNP to the events around MSP Mark McDonald .
McDonald was reported to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a case which amounted to his mobile phone autocorrecting the word “ dingied ” to the word “ fingered ” and him making a joke about it .
For that crime – no other allegation of misconduct , sexual or otherwise , was proven against him – he was the subject of page after page of absolutely excoriating media coverage over many weeks depicting him as something akin to Jack The Ripper , suspended and ostracised from the SNP while the inquiry took place , and eventually kicked out , suspended from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far from the sight other MSPs like some sort of leper .
He ’ s invariably been referred to ever since to as “ shamed MSP Mark McDonald ” , was ludicrously and disgracefully castigated by former colleagues as a risk to the safety of staff ( presumably those who are triggered to the point of suicide by spelling mistakes ) , and is widely expected to lose his seat at next year ’ s election .
We could never figure out why such an absurdly minor “ offence ” had attracted such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knifing from his own colleagues , until we read this passage from Tom Gordon ’ s column and all the dots suddenly turned into a straight line .
The wild extremity of the reaction to McDonald was necessary to ostensibly justify the creation of the new rules , without which no action could have been taken against Alex Salmond .
Mark McDonald , whose mobile phone ’ s spellcheck destroyed his career , was just the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time .
A farcical sequence of events then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and collusion heavily shot through with spectacular incompetence , at the end of which it ’ s already indisputably known that untold millions of pounds have been wasted on a failed fit-up , the integrity of the entire civil service and justice system have been placed under question , and a wholly innocent man has been smeared , tormented and almost bankrupted while his supporters too face vindictive and highly selective prosecution for which nobody will admit responsibility .
Jennifer Robertson , for reasons one can only speculate about , apparently thinks this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no consequences for anyone .
It ’ s an assessment with which we feel obliged to profoundly disagree .

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the new World Speed-Reading Champion:
Almost 1200 words in 15 seconds is mighty impressive going in anyone’s book. (Either that or it’s REALLY slow for a 12-word tweet.) But we wondered if there might be any other reason why Mrs Angus Robertson wouldn’t want people reading that article.
Tom Gordon’s piece from last week’s Herald is in itself a pretty blindingly obvious and innoffensive statement of some uncontested facts – the Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair is quite plainly going to be highly uncomfortable for both the Scottish Government and the Scottish civil service, because the investigation has already been found to be so crooked that the government caved before it got to court, having first wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
But it did provide the missing jigsaw piece which finally answered a question that’s been bugging us for a long time.
We’d never understood the quite extraordinary over-reaction of the SNP to the events around MSP Mark McDonald. McDonald was reported to the Standards Committee at Holyrood in 2017 for a case which amounted to his mobile phone autocorrecting the word “dingied” to the word “fingered” and him making a very innocuous joke about it.
For that crime – no other allegation of sexual or menacing misconduct was proven against him, and indeed much of the evidence was found to be total fantasy – he was the subject of page after page of absolutely excoriating media coverage over many weeks depicting him as something akin to Jack The Ripper crossed with Josef Fritzl, suspended and ostracised from the SNP while the inquiry took place, and eventually kicked out, suspended from Parliament and banished to a basement office far from the sight other MSPs like some sort of leper.
He’s invariably been referred to ever since to as “shamed MSP Mark McDonald”, was ludicrously and disgracefully castigated by former colleagues as a risk to the safety of staff (presumably those who are triggered to the point of suicide by spelling mistakes), and is widely expected to lose his seat at next year’s election.
We could never figure out why such an absurdly minor “offence” had attracted such brutally draconian sanctions and such a treacherous knifing from his own colleagues, until we read this passage from Tom Gordon’s column and all the dots suddenly turned into a straight line.
The wild extremity of the reaction to McDonald was necessary to ostensibly justify the creation of the new rules, without which no action could have been taken against Alex Salmond. Mark McDonald, whose mobile phone’s spellcheck destroyed his career, was just the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
A farcical sequence of events then followed – a trainwreck of apparent corruption and collusion heavily shot through with spectacular incompetence, at the end of which it’s already indisputably known that untold millions of pounds have been wasted on a failed fit-up, the integrity of the entire civil service and justice system have been placed under question, and a wholly innocent man has been smeared, tormented and almost bankrupted while his supporters too face vindictive and highly selective prosecution for which nobody will admit responsibility.
Jennifer Robertson, for reasons one can only speculate about, apparently thinks this is an uninteresting story which will have no consequences for anyone. It’s an assessment with which we feel obliged to profoundly disagree.


The indivisible kingdom

Holiday Boy is on holiday .
But this week we stumbled across a genuine thing that might explain a lot about the way Unionists think .
To mark the occasion of England lifting lockdown restrictions on pubs and restaurants during the coronavirus pandemic ( even with daily deaths still lingering around the 150 mark ) , we commissioned another Panelbase poll , touching on various border-related subjects , with samples of around 1000 people in both Scotland and England .
And the first finding was an astonishing one .
The still-hypothetical notion of closing the border as an anti-virus measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate in the past week , with Unionist politicians up in arms about the idea and levelling all sorts of accusations .
But it seems the Scottish public is very firmly behind the Scottish Government on this one .
A massive 73 % of Scottish voters either think that closing the border is a sensible policy to consider or that it should already have happened ( with a 50/50 split between the two options ) , with only 19 % opposed .
Only Tory voters reject the concept overall , and even then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % either want it done now or considered if future circumstances dictate , with 47 % set against .
Twice as many Labour voters want it done NOW as are opposed to the idea , as do an absolute majority of SNP voters , and less than a quarter of Lib Dems are prepared to rule it out .
If you combine the Unionist voters only , you get this : Possibly close the border in the future : 35 % Close the border now : 24 % Keep it open no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know : 9 % But what of those on the other side of the line ?
Startlingly , the figures from the English sample were almost identical .
A third of English voters wanted the border closed now , and another 41 % were willing to entertain it happening in future , with just 17 % adamant that the frontier must remain open .
Unionist politicians may be insisting that Scotland and England are one inseparable country , with the Prime Minister claiming that there isn ’ t a border at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a third of English people , want it closed right this minute , and similar numbers consider it a sensible contingency plan .
It may be an entirely academic point – the logistics , as far as we can see , are all but impossible .
But as a snapshot of the mindset of the nation ( s ) it ’ s a remarkable finding .

Holiday Boy is on holiday again. But this week we stumbled across a genuine piece of artwork that might explain a lot about the way Unionists think.
Happy Someone Else’s Independence Day, readers.
To mark the occasion of England lifting lockdown restrictions on pubs and restaurants during the coronavirus pandemic (even with daily deaths still lingering around the 150 mark, three times the toll of the 7/7 bombings), we commissioned another Panelbase poll, touching on various border-related subjects, with samples of around 1000 people in both Scotland and England. And the first finding was an astonishing one.
The still-hypothetical notion of closing the border as an anti-virus measure has been the subject of heated political debate in the past week, with Unionist politicians up in arms about the idea and levelling all sorts of accusations. But it seems the Scottish public is very firmly behind the Scottish Government on this one.
A massive 73% of Scottish voters either think that closing the border is a sensible policy to consider or that it should already have happened (with a 50/50 split between the two options), while only 19% are opposed.
Only Tory voters reject the concept overall, and even then by a very narrow margin – 45% either want it done now or considered if future circumstances dictate, with 47% set against. Twice as many Labour voters want it done NOW as are opposed to the idea, as do an absolute majority of SNP voters, and less than a quarter of Lib Dems are prepared to rule it out.
If you combine the Unionist voters only, you get this:
Possibly close the border in the future: 35%
Close the border now: 24%
Keep it open no matter what: 32%
Don’t know: 9%
But what of those on the other side of the line?
Startlingly, the figures from the English sample were almost identical. A third of English voters wanted the border closed now, and another 41% were willing to entertain it happening in future, with just 17% adamant that the frontier must remain open.
(There was little difference by region, although the areas bordering Scotland directly – the northwest and northeast – were the most opposed to putting up barricades, at 20% and 25% respectively. The least resistance to having barbed wire and watchtowers from Gretna to Berwick was found in the east and west Midlands, at 13% each.)
Unionist politicians may be insisting that Scotland and England are one inseparable country, with the Prime Minister claiming that there isn’t a border at all. But the largest proportion of Scots, and a third of English people, want it closed right this minute, and similar numbers consider it a sensible contingency plan.
It may be an entirely academic point – the logistics, as far as we can see, are all but impossible. But as a snapshot of the mindset of the nation(s) it’s a remarkable finding.