As we’ve repeatedly pointed out, Wings has made NO comments about the “workplace harassment” allegations made against Alex Salmond several years ago. We’ve only commented on the CRIMINAL allegations, and workplace harassment isn’t a crime. (It’s a matter for an employment tribunal, not the police.)
But the real question is WHY Andy Wightman is so doggedly attached to these two complainers that he’s determined to keep digging himself further into a hole of lies. And everyone knows what you tend to find when you start digging holes.
David Davis may be the last of his kind – a libertarian Tory from a council-scheme and grammar-school background, and also one of the few remaining big beasts occupying the political jungle of the back benches.
(He could in fact have been Tory leader, and would have been if David Cameron and George Osborne hadn’t teamed up to defeat him in 2005 after he won the first ballot.)
So on the rare occasions when he leads a Commons adjournment debate, as he did last Thursday evening, those with an educated eye for politics sit up and take notice.
In any functional nation, Friday’s revelations in Parliament by Sir David Davis would have been headline news. An extremely powerful figure, the then-First Minister’s chief of staff, was named and accused of conspiring with the Scottish Government, civil service and media to imprison an innocent man – the former leader of the country – on very serious charges of sexual assault, and of seeking to destroy his reputation by illegally leaking the false allegations to the press.
Liz Lloyd had never been publicly named as the suspect before that moment, so it was almost immeasurably bizarre that only two of Scotland’s newspapers (and two of its lowest-selling), namely The Times and – belatedly – The National, bothered to even report the accusation, far less spend any time seriously delving into it.
But it still wasn’t as odd as THIS response from a former Green MSP.
What on Earth is being suggested here? Let’s try to find out.
It’s both a comprehensive refresher of events surrounding the Scottish Government’s conspiracy to convict Alex Salmond on false charges, and a sharp reminder of why Scotland is, in truth, not yet a country in a fit administrative state for independence.
But one part in particular ought to be the headline news tonight.
Independence is dead as a political issue in Scotland for the next few years. This much should not be in any dispute. A Labour government with a crushing majority sits firmly in Westminster with absolutely no intentions of granting a second referendum, and the SNP has loudly and clearly abandoned any other strategy.
This fact is understandably painful and difficult to come to terms with for anyone who’s devoted the last 13 years (or more) to pursuing that cause and now isn’t quite sure what to do with theirself. But for those who still aren’t ready to face up to the unpleasant reality, there’s always the comforting world of fantasy.
Because there’s always money to be made from snake oil and pie in the sky.
The average rape sentence in Scotland is seven years, so to get six years plus three years’ supervision for the technically lesser crime of sexual assaults means they must have been pretty grim ones.
So we know that Cameron Downing is a very bad man. Which does rather invite the question of why he was so popular in the SNP.
The SNP have been pretty clear about the reason they think they got a battering in last week’s election: it was because people were voting to kick out the Tories.
Now, that’s obviously nonsense. There were almost no Tories in Scotland to start with – just 10% of voters had a Tory MP – and only one of the six actually lost his seat. (Which was entirely down to the ham-fisted interference of Douglas Ross rather than an SNP surge – the SNP’s vote share in the seat in question went DOWN.)
If you wanted to keep Tories out in Scotland all you had to do was keep voting for your current MP, most of whom were SNP, rather than risk splitting the anti-Tory vote by switching to Labour and risk letting the Tories squeeze through in the middle. (Which would have happened in many seats had the Tories’ own vote not collapsed.)
But if it was true that the SNP lost because the electorate thought the election was about getting rid of the Tories, whose fault was that?
To be honest, folks, we’re not quite sure what to do with ourselves at the moment.
Everyone and his wee dug is writing election-aftermath columns and offering the SNP advice of varying intelligence and solemnity about how to recover from the shattering blow they’ve just been dealt by Scottish voters.
But it’s a pointless exercise. They may as well be yelling down a manhole.
The Scottish Greens, in a feat of remarkable hubris and financial profligacy, stood 44 candidates in this week’s general election, knowing that most of them would lose their deposits, which they duly did.
But not quite all of them. And there the comedy arose.
Because while SNP boneheads on social media are raging idiotically at Alba, Wings and others for causing division and damaging the unity of the indy cause yada yada yada, a small handful of Green candidates made a real difference.
Xaracen on Faces In Sand: “Are you claiming that the 1707 Treaty was not voided by England’s coercion of Scotland to bring it to the…” Oct 26, 17:52
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “The only thing missing from your explanation is the eccentric bit which is; “I, Xaracen, posting on Wings over Scotland…” Oct 26, 17:08
Xaracen on Faces In Sand: “@Northcode; Re your “The Myth They All Rely On” post of 21 October; (I was too busy with a flitting…” Oct 26, 16:42
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “It is extremely tedious, and it is not presented with the intent to provoke debate or discussion, it is simply…” Oct 26, 14:44
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “I doubt anybody in the M25 omniclusterfuckpermashambles-on-Thames is paying any attention to the UN capers (all of which is just…” Oct 26, 13:41
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “Pished, hysterical, incoherent rambling as per.” Oct 26, 13:31
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “Yes, the “useful idiot” argument (from a Unionist POV) isn’t lost on me. 🙂 However, it is bloody tedious, isn’t…” Oct 26, 13:25
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “I think Confused is having a tougher time as an adult. I would guess passing the days drinking very strong,…” Oct 26, 13:24
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “It has a practical purpose in driving the cause of independence down a dead end and diverting time and resources,…” Oct 26, 13:18
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “I’m guessing you had a tough time at school, Confused, and were no stranger to the “bogwash”.” Oct 26, 12:40
Confused on Faces In Sand: “getting into the english at the UN is useful, and enjoyable, because it “hits them where they live” – they…” Oct 26, 12:17
Confused on Faces In Sand: ““Rewilding” is another con job – what it means is : GET ORFF MOI LAND – and whenever an ANGLO…” Oct 26, 12:14
Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “Northcode: although contemporary international law would back us up in most areas, the Treaty will almost certainly come into play…” Oct 26, 11:30
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “Alf, but the UK *does* exist, legally, politically and physically, not just within its territory but it is internationally recognised.…” Oct 26, 10:55
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “I understand the frustration — democratic systems are imperfect everywhere. But my point was simply that, unlike in 1707, Scots…” Oct 26, 10:24
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “Hey, it’s almost as though this “ancient guff” that happened over 300 years ago is of no pragmatic consequence in…” Oct 26, 10:14
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “So it’s a case of “Schrödinger’s Union” then, eh Alf? 😀” Oct 26, 10:08
Willie on Faces In Sand: “Morning Northcode, ” In 1707, ordinary people weren’t given a choice. Across Europe, citizens had no democratic say in major…” Oct 26, 10:02
Marie on Faces In Sand: “You forgot Palestine and Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, born in East Lothian.” Oct 26, 09:53
Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: “You can’t end something that never existed in the first place, Northcode.” Oct 26, 09:18
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “The confusion begins with the name. “Treaty of Union” suggests an equal partnership, but the institutional reality created in 1707…” Oct 26, 08:59
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Hatey — that’s a very clear way of putting it. The distinction between wanting to end the Union and pretending…” Oct 26, 08:53
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““the White House will be adorned by a downright moron” Haha, Scotland leads the world! We’ve already had a string…” Oct 26, 08:29
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““That there was colonialism of Northern Ireland was an idea widely considered by many groups and individuals” That it was…” Oct 26, 08:11
TURABDIN on Faces In Sand: “«As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.…” Oct 26, 08:04
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““those such as yersel who maintain that a UK ‘union’ exists when it becomes ever more evident that it does…” Oct 26, 08:04
Willie on Faces In Sand: “The repeated euphemism of the word ” the Troubles ‘ is a masterpiece of spin to mask the reality of…” Oct 26, 08:00
Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: ““..dismantle a political and economic union that he claims doesn’t exist” The problem surely lies with those such as yersel…” Oct 25, 22:36
sarah on Faces In Sand: “Dan, thanks for the info on trees. I brought the chestnut tree up from Kent as a sprout 25 years…” Oct 25, 21:56
Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “I absolutely agree, Northcode, that we need to make a powerful case for independence across the board, but, after an…” Oct 25, 20:52
