Wings Over Scotland

An alert viewer noticed this evening that after being broadcast twice in two days, “The Trial Of Alex Salmond” has tonight disappeared from BBC iPlayer.

We have no information as to why, although we do know it committed contempt of court by providing so-called “jigsaw identification” of one of the complainers in the case. If that’s the reason for the show being pulled, it’s going to be VERY interesting in terms of our ongoing enquiries with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about why a number of Scottish newspapers and websites critical of Salmond haven’t been acted against for publishing exactly the same information, while pro-Salmond blogger Craig Murray faces a trial and a potential two years in prison for doing less.

We’ll keep you posted with anything we find out.

Read the rest of this entry →

In a development which has caught us somewhat by surprise, we’ve just had a reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) which was both timely (in more than one sense of the word) and actually contained a straight answer.

Join us in our astonishment below.

Read the rest of this entry →

So that you don’t have to, we endured tonight’s Dani Garavelli programme on Radio 4 as well as last night’s Kirsty Wark one, and to be honest there’s very little to report.

It’s a statement of the blindingly obvious – the SNP is currently split between young Nicola Sturgeon loyalists for whom independence is only one aspect of creating a pure and woke new Scotland, and older Alex Salmond-supporting traditionalists for whom independence itself is the only true goal and whatever happens afterwards is in the hands of democracy and fate – interspersed with Garavelli and her media pals taking the chance to air some of their own unconnected grievances like pouting toddlers.

So we get Garavelli bleating at length about how lots of nasty people on the internet have called her out for her indisputable, provable contempt-of-court identification of one of the accusers of Alex Salmond, and yet another demented rant from poor old David “reds under the bed” Leask about the evils of this site, and so on and so forth.

You can listen to it by clicking the pic above, but frankly we wouldn’t bother.

Last night’s BBC Scotland documentary on the Alex Salmond trial was so shockingly biased that even the Herald, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Gerry Hassan couldn’t quite bring themselves to defend it. Anita Singh’s two-star review in the Telegraph said:

“The verdict in the Salmond case, by the way, was not guilty. He was cleared of all charges of sexually assaulting ten women while Scotland’s First Minister. However, it was pretty clear that the programme-makers hoped he would be found guilty; the first 45 minutes of the hour-long film were devoted to the prosecution case.”

While another female reviewer not known for being terribly fond of Mr Salmond, Alison Rowat for the Herald, observed:

“Taken with Ms Wark’s observations as the trial went on, it felt like proceedings were being played out all over again. Except this time Mr Salmond was not there to defend himself. 

Ultimately, you had to ask whether the film gave Mr Salmond a fair shake. For this reason, and many more, The Trial Of Alex Salmond had to appear far and above the fray on which it was reporting. From where this viewer sat, it did not pass that test.”

But not everyone kept their grip on reality.

Read the rest of this entry →

The last words spoken in Kirsty Wark’s documentary “The Trial Of Alex Salmond”, which just aired on BBC Scotland, are spoken by an unnamed actress letting rip with the full BAFTA range of quivering emotions as she reads out the words of a completely anonymous woman (we don’t even get to know her trial pseudonym letter) who last year falsely accused Alex Salmond of sexually assaulting her.

“What you’re saying is a man can try to kiss a woman, or he can say completely inappropriate things to her, when he’s 30 years older than her and he’s the First Minister of Scotland.

I’m worried about what this says more widely to other women, or just to us as a society. I mean, where does this leave us?”

Now, since the court found that neither of those things actually happened, the logical answer in that person’s case ought surely to be “facing prosecution for perjury”. But readers will be astonished to learn that that isn’t where the show went.

Read the rest of this entry →

If you didn’t already know that the BBC were going to run a character-assassination hatchet job on Alex Salmond tonight (and another one tomorrow), you could surmise it easily enough from the state of the Scottish media in the last few days.

We’ve almost lost count of the attack pieces on the former First Minister in the run-up to the show, from specially-commissioned opinion polls to conveniently-timed releases of allegations of unspecified “bullying” during his leadership and highly selective leaks from the documentary itself.

But it’s today’s Daily Record that dredges the depths of the journalistic sewer with a barrel and then scrapes the very bottom of it for the grubbiest, oiliest sludge it can find.

Read the rest of this entry →

Chilling indeed, 1992 Sunday Times. Chilling indeed.

It is our grave and solemn duty to inform readers that there’s been another entrant in the New Act Of Union Of The Year competition. (This is an extremely niche joke.)

The details of this one, which is arguably even more bonkers than the last one, needn’t concern us here. But they’re a reminder of something we DO need to remember.

Read the rest of this entry →

Alert readers will be aware of very considerable recent active involvement by Police Scotland in matters relating to alleged contempt of court with regard to the trial of Alex Salmond. A blog in April by Craig Murray gave some details.

So we were extremely surprised by a letter we received this week.

Read the rest of this entry →

Alert readers may have noticed that the hypothetical Wings list party is once again the talk of the steamie, with the usual suspects stamping their feet and pouting about it yet again on social media, in particular the firmly-ensconced SNP MP Pete Wishart and the worryingly obsessed former poll-analysis website WINGS OVER SCOTLAND IS BAD AND TERRIBLE AND STUART CAMPBELL SOMETIMES DOES SWEARS SO NOBODY WOULD EVER VOTE FOR HIM! Goes Pop.

(We’re not sure where this sudden outbreak of 18th-century Puritanism about Scottish people using colourful language has come from, to be honest. It seems the weirdest and least plausible grounds for objection imaginable in a country that’s literally world-famous for its enthusiastic embrace of swearing, but *shrug*.)

The trigger was a bizarre piece in yesterday’s Courier (also picked up by the National, the Evening Express and others). They phoned us last week ostensibly to talk about a new website set up by a bunch of loony Unionist zoomers who with amusingly ironic timing have named themselves “The Majority”, and whether we thought they’d have any impact or be able to attract funding.

We chatted perfectly amiably to the reporter for several minutes on the subject, so we were quite surprised when the story that eventually appeared didn’t contain a single mention of them, and instead was solely about the Wings party, which he’d also asked us a couple of “Oh, by the way, while I’m here”-type questions about.

So let’s just clarify a couple of things for the record (again).

Read the rest of this entry →

Late last week, Wings finally received a long-overdue full response to the queries we first made to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) in early April, regarding several matters connected to the failed prosecution of Alex Salmond.

(You’re supposed to get a reply in 20 working days. It’s been nearly four months.)

The unmappable fog-filled labyrinth that COPFS (under the Lord Advocate, W. James Wolffe QC), the Scottish Government and the civil service are attempting to construct around these matters is so tangled that it’s taken us a few days to sit down and make some sense of it, but the truth that’s being coaxed, painfully slowly, into the light is one that paints a truly disturbing picture.

We invite you to examine it for yourself and see if you disagree.

Read the rest of this entry →

Alert readers will probably have noticed that earlier today we featured a post by SNP MP Kenny MacAskill making the seemingly-unsurprising statement that the purpose of his party is to “bring about the end of the British state”.

So we thought he might have wanted to check with his colleague Stewart McDonald, the SNP’s defence spokeman and an obsessive Russophobe, when we saw a snide quote from him in a Belfast Telegraph story disparaging former leader Alex Salmond (who’d advocated the reunification of Ireland during a chat with ex-Taoiseach Bertie Ahern) for the heinous crime of “proposing the disruption of the United Kingdom”.

It later transpired that there’d been an error and the quote should have been (and now is) attributed to a Scottish Conservatives spokesman.

But we couldn’t help noticing the complete lack of shock with which the comment was received on social media in the several hours between its publication and correction, as if nobody thought it at all implausible that McDonald would have said such a thing. (And indeed, it’s barely different from what he HAS said about Salmond’s RT show.) There were plenty harsh criticisms of him, but we didn’t see a single tweet suggesting that a mistake might have been made.

Never more so than in 2020, sometimes fiction is more believable than truth.