Archive for the ‘comment’
The women you mustn’t believe 390
It will come as little surprise to any observer of the Scottish media for the last decade that the trial of Alex Salmond is to continue indefinitely after the actual court case that cleared him of all charges.
With very occasional honourable exceptions, including some from rather unexpected sources, the Scottish press has been – even by its own spectacularly low standards – an absolute sewer for the past week. Wings has taken the decision not to link to any of the most disgusting articles, even as archives, because frankly in the current stressful situation none of us needs any extra poison in our headspace.
Scotland’s political journalists have been unable to contain their seething fury at being robbed of the head on a pike that they were all expecting and salivating about like Pavlov’s dogs. But scumbags are gonna scumbag, and that’s not news. What’s far more alarming is something in today’s papers that they didn’t write.
Let’s not kill ourselves 143
This article is the only thing Wings is going to say about the COVID-19 crisis, because (a) we’re on holiday, (b) it has very little to do with Scottish politics, and (c) we’re not virologists and have no expertise to offer.
But in so far as we have some sort of reach and to some extent people listen to us, and we don’t want any of you to die, here’s a small plea for all our sakes.
An innocent man 950
Today a mostly-female jury drawn from the most Unionist city in Scotland and directed by a female judge delivered the only verdict it was credibly possible to reach on the (total absence of) evidence before it: that Alex Salmond was not guilty of any crime.
After two weeks hearing an assortment of lurid allegations from former friends and colleagues hidden behind cloaks of public anonymity, the jury – having been advised by the prosecuting counsel that they were the sole arbiters of fact – decided that there was no truth to them.
Since the two most serious charges, in particular, were both matters of the accuser’s word against that of the accused, and the two parties gave completely irreconcilable accounts of the facts (rather than competing interpretations of agreed events), it can only be the case that one side was lying absolutely, and the jury decided that it was the anonymous accusers who were doing so.
It remains to see whether there will be a legal reckoning for those lies. But more than one sort of reckoning will surely follow from these events.

























