Wings Over Scotland

In relation to yesterday’s article, we’ve now filed the following with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

I request a review of this decision.

Firstly, I wish to note that since the response I received was a wholly generic one containing no reference or relevance to any of the specifics of my case, it should not have taken until the 28th day of the 28-day deadline to deliver. This appears to be a deliberate stalling tactic.

The information I sought did not involve the disclosure of any sensitive identities or data. It is in fact an attempt to establish the answer to an extremely basic question of first principles: why is LGBT Youth Scotland operating so far outwith its stated remit?

Since the fact that it IS doing so is not in any question – its own public statements declare that it is operating widely and openly in primary schools – it is a matter of plain and overwhelming public interest that this glaring anomaly be explained. The charity itself refuses to do so, or even to enter into any discussion of the matter, so it becomes a matter for its ostensible regulator.

Since the public is unable to ask the OSCR to speak on behalf of LGBTYS, the only remaining option to achieve transparency, accountability and public confidence is to seek the information requested and thereby discern the answer via the OSCR.

Particularly given LGBTYS’s unfortunate record of involvement with extremely serious child abuse, and its highly controversial position on matters such as “puberty blockers” – on which it is starkly at odds with the stated position of the Scottish Government – this matter cannot simply be swept under the carpet and the public ordered to mind its own business. Someone, somewhere, at some level of Scottish civic life, must answer the question:

Why is an organisation whose remit concerns intrinsically sexual matters and exclusively encompasses 13-25-year-olds being allowed to operate in primary (and indeed nursery) schools and discuss such sexual matters with children 10 years below its minimum stipulated age range?

Given LGBTYS’s refusal, that duty then lies with the OSCR, and it should not evade it. The public deserves to know both that OSCR has in fact complied with its own responsibilities and carried out a satisfactory investigation, and what the outcome of that investigation was, given that nothing has changed in respect of the charity’s actions since concerns were raised with the OSCR a year ago and LGBTYS continues to far exceed its stated brief.

There are in this case no redactions which would reveal any sort of information that would place anyone at risk. The identities of LGBTYS and/or OSCR employees could be safely redacted if appropriate, while the substance of the discussion remained visible. What matters is that the question was asked, and that the public be told the answer.

None of OSCR’s stated objections to answering the FOI request are pertinent to this particular enquiry. It has no valid excuse to refuse. We fully expect it to do so anyway, because nobody in Scotland is answerable for anything any more. But we’re required to give them another 28 days to waste everyone’s time before we approach the only person in Scotland who appears to still believe in their civic and professional duty: the Information Commissioner.

Barring a miracle, we’ll see you on the 15th of May, readers.

Alert readers will recall that Wings has for the past year been attempting to establish why controversial charity LGBT Youth Scotland is being allowed to operate in primary schools across Scotland, discussing sexual matters with children as young as four, despite only being supposed to deal with young people aged between 13 and 25.

Having received no response from multiple emails to the charity, we raised the matter with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator last year, and heard nothing from them about the results of their investigation – or indeed, come to that, about whether they’d actually conducted an investigation at all.

So a month ago we sent them a Freedom Of Information request to find out. At the last possible second before the deadline to reply expired, the OSCR have this morning deigned to grace us with their response, which you can read below.

Read the rest of this entry →

So here’s where we’re at.

Fat 20 grand pay rises for themselves, taking the salary of every minister and junior minister (which is almost half of SNP MSPs) over £100,000. Nice.

Read the rest of this entry →

…the more everything will stay the same.

The cash-strapped SNP might have slimmed down its staff roster lately, but it’s the same toxic blend of intolerance and incompetence it’s been for the last decade.

Read the rest of this entry →

Now, readers, we won’t pretend to you that our expectations were high.

But you may nevertheless wish to steel yourselves before you hear the “offer”.

Read the rest of this entry →

As he often does, Robin McAlpine has an interesting blog post up.

Now, as alert readers will know, we’ve been calling for that on Wings for at least the last couple of years. For sane people any credible hope of reforming the SNP is long gone, by the deliberate design of its leadership, and so has almost any real pretence at pursuing independence at all. The party now exists solely to milk another few years at the gravy trough off the backs of the hopelessly gullible.

But there’s a problem with the idea.

Read the rest of this entry →

So as promised, and having now spent 11 months trying to get answers any other way, this afternoon we had a live chat with controversial charity LGBT Youth Scotland.

Below is how it went.

Read the rest of this entry →

In April last year we wrote to LGBT Youth Scotland asking them to explain why they were conducting activities in primary schools (and even with pre-school children) about sexual matters despite only having a remit to work with young people aged 13-25.

We received no reply, so we contacted the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, who sent a rather sniffy acknowledgement saying:

“If your concern leads us to making inquiries with the charity, we are unable to update you on the status of those inquiries. For more information about what to expect after you submit a concern, read our guidance on how OSCR deals with concerns and inquiries.”

That link, you’ll be amazed to hear, leads to a dead page.

Read the rest of this entry →

You know what, Surrey Live, we think you’re probably right.

We DO think people will remember him.

Read the rest of this entry →

The Presiding Officer has finally reluctantly deigned to allow the Scottish Parliament to discuss the issues arising from Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife, in the shape of a debate taking place in the chamber this afternoon brought forward by the Scottish Tories.

We suspect that watching it will be profound waste of time and a grave danger to our monitor screens, but we’ll certainly at least tune in for the votes at the end, because which motion/amendment the Parliament puts its name to will be a revealing moment.

Let’s quickly run those through a translator.

Read the rest of this entry →

Some of our more alert readers may recall the events of four years ago this month, when a mob of SNP representatives all suddenly raged against the idea of (perfectly legally) “gaming” the Holyrood electoral system to produce a pro-indy supermajority.

Voters try to organise themselves to maximise their desired outcomes all the time (see various tactical-voting campaigns), and so do political parties – witness John Swinney’s current plans for a grand anti-Reform coalition. And of course, the SNP never objected to indy voters voting for a different party on the list if it was the Greens. The entire thing was just a poorly-disguised attack on Alba.

But even so, guess what? The rules just changed again.

Read the rest of this entry →

In April 2021, the SNP were still the undisputed masters of all they surveyed. A poll conducted by Ipsos MORI that month showed them on 53% of the vote for the Scottish Parliament, a jawdropping 33 points ahead of their nearest rivals.

When the Holyrood election a month later was held, they won 64 seats, one more than they had done in 2016. Yet despite having led a minority government without any significant difficulties for the preceding five years, Nicola Sturgeon chose to invite the Greens to form a coalition with her party, and the effect that had on the public’s view of the government was… well, let’s see.

Read the rest of this entry →