The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Choco ration soars again

Posted on August 01, 2017 by

There’s been some breaking news.

Or rather, there hasn’t.

Because there never WAS a “fraud case against former MP Michelle Thomson”. Michelle Thomson was never charged with fraud. She was never arrested. She was never even questioned as a suspect. She gave a voluntary interview to police as a witness in a case against someone else entirely.

So the news is in fact “Entirely Non-Existent Fraud Case Against Michelle Thomson Continues Not To Exist, And Will Not Exist In Future”.

This will, we’re sure, all come as a very grave disappointment to the Scottish media, which unanimously found Mrs Thomson guilty on all charges (including ones the police hadn’t even thought of) way back in 2015.

As well as to Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson, who’d both vilified her in the Holyrood chamber from behind the safety of Parliamentary privilege.

For some odd reason, rather than apologise to Mrs Thomson for their coverage, the press is now pushing the “dodgy character gets away with it on a technicality” line, rather than the reality – that the police found absolutely no case to answer against her whatsoever, and at no point identified her as a suspect in any crime.

We’ll be interested to see if that line holds for the next 24 hours.


[EDIT 4.33pm] We challenged the Press Association, BBC and Nick Eardley on all the tweets and headlines above. Nick Eardley subsequently tweeted this correction:

The Scotsman has also changed its original headline:

At the time of writing this edit, the BBC website headline was unaltered.


Previous Wings coverage of this story: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 01 08 17 16:56

    Choco ration soars again | speymouth

  2. 02 08 17 10:01

    ‘Buy Me Scotland’ said the Union through the BBC.. – MacAlba

168 to “Choco ration soars again”

  1. Andrew says:

    Typical. This has been said so many times but I cannot express in words how ashamed I am by the Scottish MSM and it’s deluded, SNP BAD rantings every day. >:(

  2. Alex Grant says:

    What a fucking disgrace.She should be able to sue these people for destroying her political career! Meanwhile that nasty git Cole Hamilton is being investigated for election fraud??

  3. quentin quale says:

    They never let the facts get in the way of a good, erm, SNP bad story, do they?

  4. heedtracker says:

    Its cost her her seat though and she was an SNP member in her teens. Another example of how UKOK hackdom can target and take out elected reps relatively easily. BBC Scotland gimps alone will be glowing with pride at their campaign to get her.

  5. Betty Boop says:

    It’s high time we got rid of “parliamentary privilege” when it comes to maligning the reputations of others.

    Disgusting behaviour from newspapers and those who think they are untouchable.

  6. Fairliered says:

    If Michelle Trhomson wants to start a crowdfunder to fund a defamation case against the MSM, we know who she can ask for advice.

  7. sassenach says:

    Dear Old Kez, never let’s an opportunity to show her idiocy pass!

  8. Famous15 says:

    BBC at it again.There was never any complaint of wrongdoing.Smear by innuendo!

    The BBC in their program “Homes Under the Hammer”encourage her business interests as a way of getting houses up to a living standard.

    BBC you will not get a flat farthing from me for your licence fee. BBC are worse than liars,the invent mischief and smears.

    Michelle Thomson was infiniely better as an MP,even with the stress of this absurd allegation,than the Lib Dem who stole,yas stole,the seat.

  9. denise says:

    She seriously should sue … everyone. It was a totally ridiculous witch hunt and I am sorry that the SNP didn’t stand by her. The fact that Michele T took it all in good grace speaks volumes about her lack of ego and commitment not to undermine the SNP or the cause of independence. But now she should sue the unionist’s socks off.

  10. Pity the SNP appeared to lose confidence also – and then lost the seat. From the BBC

    “Her former SNP colleagues gave their unanimous backing in September to calls for the party to consider reinstating her.
    But she was told by the SNP’s national executive in April that she would not be selected as a candidate in the election, with the party instead choosing Toni Giugliano to stand in Edinburgh West.
    Mr Giugliano ultimately lost the seat to Christine Jardine of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.”

  11. AnneDon says:

    The entire Alex Cole Hamilton electoral campaign for Holyrood last year consisted to issuing leaflets with copies of those headlines, repeatedly, around Edinburgh West. It was a high profile seat for the Lib Dems, as Donald Gorrie had held the seat at Westminster for years. In fact, they were reported for overspending on the campaign.

    I have to say, I’m not impressed with the way the SNP treated her either. The fact she had to resign the whip gave the witch hunt a spurious air of legitimacy. And ultimately led to them losing the seat this year.

    Reporting Scotland, of course, were at the head of the pack with their ridiculous piece from the aggrieved woman who seems to think that house prices never rise.

  12. sassenach says:

    Fairliered – I notice she has said she will take a couple of days to think about the matter!

    I hope there is something there to “get her teeth into” as she has been wronged on so many levels. Eagerly awaiting BBC ‘Burdz eye view’ tonight!!

  13. Street Andrew says:

    Perhaps we’d better have a whip round again.

    Should be worth more than £25K

  14. Andy-B says:

    God, the unionist parties and media got weeks if not months out of this non story. I wonder how long the same culprits will carry the headlines that nothing happened on Michelle Thomson’s part.

  15. Street Andrew says:

    …..not that your own reputation is a minor matter, Rev.

  16. Bob Mack says:

    Apparently witch hunts do actually work. No doubt the MSM will come up with another angle to try and justify their tawdry scribblings. I am sorry this successful woman was vilified in this manner, even through having to resign the party whip because the SNP did not have the gonads to back her, in her hours of need.

    There will be no retractions or apologies dispensed to her from the gutless cabal who accused her in the first place. Such is justice in this country these days.

    I hope she stands again as a candidate in the future.

  17. sassenach says:

    Could that Cole whatsisname become the subject of an action for distributing those pamphlets about Michelle Thomson during his disgusting campaign? I know he’s a normal lying LibDem, but even so!!

  18. HandandShrimp says:

    No real surprise, it seemed unlikely that charges would be brought some time ago. Nick and the BBC are guilty though. Fake News from the UK Pravda.

  19. Marie Clark says:

    Dear goodness, they maligned the poor woman for months, and actually, the way it’s being reported now, they are still maligning her.

    I hope she does sue them. It’s atrocious behaviour by all of the MSM. Absolutely disgusted.

  20. jacage says:

    Look out for a Commonspace article suggesting she should not pursue damages against the media, Kez, Ruthless etc for defaming her character.

  21. Jack Murphy says:

    If there’s anyone still watching BBC Reporting Scotland tonight the newsreader and his/ her editor will have to choose their terminology very carefully.

    Nick Eardley,a BBC Scotland Political Correspondent is already correcting himself on Twitter:

    “Corr: Thomson was never charged, so my terminology is wrong. Should say no criminal proceedings rather than case dropped.”

  22. Macart says:

    Oh, that’ll leave a mark. 😮

    Some folk’ll be deleting intae the wee sma hours.

  23. Proud Cybernat says:

    It was just Michelle Thomson the vile MSM went after, they went after just about every SNP MP after the 2015 SNP tsunami:

    The Eck’s Files

  24. Proud Cybernat says:

    *was* = *wasn’t*

  25. velofello says:

    Pleased to hear that she is innocent.

    Now note in the last video clip that Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick intervenes, correctly. So why didn’t the present Presiding Officer, MacIntosh intervene when Dugdale set out on her shit-stirring spite against Rev Stu and his remark/observation/musing regards Mundell, a matter entirely outwith the responsibility of the First Minister? This not the first instance with MacIntosh, allowing Davidson’s “sit down” remark to stand was disgraceful.

    Is there a disciplinary procedure to censure a Presiding Officer who is neglectful of their duty? Can a Presiding Officer be removed from position?

  26. Juteman says:

    I’m pretty sure Haggerty and her right on mob will be organising a feminist group to defend her.
    Maybe not.

  27. Tony Little says:

    We have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.

    I was wondering how the MSM/BBC would be able to twist this non-news into an SNP Baaaad story. So the Technicality line is being pursued, or rather the no “criminal proceedings” slur, which still carries with it the usual “No smoke without fire” line beloved of propaganda merchants the world over, and particularly in authoritarian states.

    The clock is definitely ticking. How many will wake up before midnight, I wonder?

  28. Dorothy Devine says:

    The lady will not have far to look for those she can sue – I hope she gets cracking and has a field day!

    I look forward to some HEADLINED grovelling from those who HEADLINED every week for months about this non case.

    I would like to see the SNP doing a bit of grovelling to her too – didn’t like their lack of support for whatever spurious reason.

  29. Betty Boop says:

    That update from Eardley; even more weasel words. If she wasn’t even formally interviewed by the police, there was no case to answer as far as she is concerned.

  30. AAD says:

    I’ve just submitted a complaint to the BBC about their Website story on Ms Thomson on the grounds of the headline being factually incorrect. The body of the report was misleading in that it did not make clear the true facts of the situation.

    I am not holding my breath for any kind of admission of sloppy reporting from the BBC, let alone an apology to Ms Thomson.

  31. Bob Mack says:

    “No case to answer” seems easy to write but what do I know?.

    It would appear the way ahead for the Unionists would be to put out any smear against any member and let the press innuendo do the rest. Fake news? Surely is!

  32. Alex Clark says:

    Michelle Thomson has had this allegation of fraud hanging over her head since September 2015. Today we find out that:

    “The Crown Office said there was a lack of ‘credible and reliable evidence.'”

    So why has it taken almost two years? There should be an investigation into what was actually being done over these two years. How many witnesses were interviewed and how many statements taken. Who was responsible for the investigation and how many hours were billed against it.

    How long did the file lie in a drawer on someone’s desk at the Crown Office gathering dust with nothing actually being done.

    Evidence of the most serious crimes can be gather in weeks rather than years so why so long in this case? Michelle Thomson was an elected official and in the interests of all these claims of fraud should have been investigated quickly and resolved well before now.

    Some questions need to be asked of the Crown Office, they have some explaining to do in my view.

  33. Scott says:

    I only wish I won £2M on the lottery so I could back Ms Thomson and sue the whole bloody lot of them BBC and their lackeys a shower of barstewards the lot of them.

  34. Calum McKay says:

    Ms Thomson was crudely dealt with by the loyal north british press. A politcal career ruined, but what do the press care, they”ll be at it again tomorrow.

    I wish Ms Thomson all the very best for the future, she will sleep well, I wonder if those who destroyed her reputation including davidson and dugdale will sleep so soundly?

    My advice to one and all is don’t buy north british papers, it only encourages them to print garbage!

  35. Gullane No4 says:

    The UK press seem to be introducing a new element to UK law.

    Found guilty [by us] until proven innocent [by police or courts]
    IMO that is a slippery slope.

  36. harry mcaye says:

    I’ll predict right now – The BBC will report this CORRECTLY tonight. STV will not. Wait and see.

    The bets way to get our own back on the Scottish cesspit media tomorrow is for everybody on hereto buy The National.

  37. gordoz says:

    Pathetic BBC & Scottish press core response … same as it ever was !(D Byrne).

    Michelle Thomson was hounded out of her job, no doubt about it. The ‘whataboutary’ from Labour & Tories aided & abetted by BBC was astonishing and ugly but I’m sure all the good old GB press core in Scotland will sleep at night knowing they have no need to retract as there is no counter or balance media to go after them and the majority of Scots like being ‘Muppet mushrooms’ being fed crap. For all the good folks in Scotland, there’s an abundance of dunderheids & all.

    Aye … the quality journalism in Scotland, no shame? no mea culpa here ? (Clegg / Eardly v Ian Bell R.I.P. – dearie me ?)

    THEY took down a politician – the Police found no case to answer and the SNP / YES get accused of mindless cult status / North Korea pish ?

    Zombie journalism comes to mind.

    SNPbad reigns

  38. Alex Clark says:

    What is the point of buying newspapers or watching television?

    Your not getting any NEWS instead you are being lied to, every single day they are filling their pages and our screens with innuendo and made up accusations especially if it suits the aim of preventing an Independent Scotland.

    Do not encourage them, stop buying the rags and bin the telly tax.

  39. Brian says:

    Hooe she sues them all.

  40. Robert Graham says:

    While unionists will probably mutter aye – smoke n fire , oh well we will nail the next one it just takes perseverance and a compliant media and their ever helpful BBC .
    They fail to grasp all these things done with their approval in their name , can and will be used against them at some future date ,they in their glee are missing the bleedn point , instead of cheering on this twisted media they should be asking serious questions ” what if ” what if they come for us who will take our side ? , bloody short sighted fools being led like sheep .

  41. ScottishPsyche says:

    From the minute they were elected in 2015, that cohort of SNP MPs was pursued and hounded like no other. I remember at the time the glee with which the MSM would print another story, often of little consequence, but ramped up and amplified to increase the reverse halo effect.

    Peat Worrier adds a cautionary note, her solicitor was struck off, an investigation was needed. However, the way the MSM went after her was unbelievable. I’m glad her colleagues stood by her – they knew her personally and probably had more knowledge of the truth of the matter than the rest us no thanks to the work of a despicable and grubby media intent on smear.

    When was the last time the BBC door-stopped someone like that? As for that interview on STV, it was like something from Brass Eye with the whipped up outrage and resentment.

  42. cirsium says:

    @alex Clark, 5.17pm

    This woman’s career has been ruined. Her reputation has been trashed. Her livelihood has been adversely affected and all the Crown Office has to say after nearly two years is that there was no credible or reliable evidence. So I agree with you that the Crown Office has some explaining to do. It sounds like gross negligence to me.

  43. yesindyref2 says:

    Well, JK Rowling was forced to apologise and remove tweets because she believed the media when an edit apparently showed Trump ignoring the “outstretched hand” of a disabled child.

    Turns out he actually made straight for the child and spoke for a few minutes.

    So if such a denizen of the rightness and truthfulness brigade as JKR can get caught out by the obscene, obnoxious, lying, disgusting, totally dishonest, manipulations of the media, then who are we to complain?

  44. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    The BBC is the major problem here. It should be sued. I’ll chip in happily.

  45. galamcennalath says:

    The BBC and MSM are having yet another SNPBad fest. It’s what they do. It is their raisin d’être.

    I listened, for a while, to Radio Shortbread on the way home this evening. Language laced with innuendo. No opportunity to cast aspersions of underlying guilt missed.

    TheRev’s ” dodgy character gets away with it on a technicality “ sums it up.

    IMO it has a silver lining. They are not protecting their Union. By spreading bad feeling, division, resentment, and disgust, they are bringing it into disrepute. What sort of Union could only survive by these tactics? None.

  46. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    It was the Daily Record who started this whole travesty by completely misreporting a house sale.

  47. crazycat says:

    @ AAD at 5.08

    I’ve also submitted a complaint to the BBC; I am expecting their standard “we are sorry you were disappointed (but we did nothing wrong in our eyes and won’t be changing anything)” response, even though I told them in my complaint that that would not be acceptable. It isn’t my feelings that matter.

    Even though I know what the outcome will be, I think it is important to have evidence (their confirmatory e-mail) that they are not just being allowed to get away with these things unchallenged.

    I previously complained when their article about MPs who voted against the dissolution of parliament earlier this year lumped Michelle T and Natalie McG together as having been charged with fraud. Their very late response made some excuse about headlines, whereas my complaint referred to the text, which they never, during the period in which I kept checking, corrected.

  48. Ian McCubbin says:

    No surprise, funny now she is not an MP truth all comes out. Shame on MSM for this.
    Good for covering Stuart.

  49. GrahamB says:

    Dave McEwan Hill says:
    1 August, 2017 at 5:49 pm
    It was the Daily Record who started this whole travesty by completely misreporting a house sale.

    And ever since I’ve been waiting for the DR to champion a witch hunt against ‘’ for utilising the same practice of offering people less than real value for a quick sale!

  50. Alex Clark says:

    Here’s an example of press whitabootary by the Daily Express in June under an article with the following headline.

    “’Sturgeon was the problem’ SNP supporter turns on leader’s relentless rallying for indyref” 28 June 2017

    I sent a complaint to IPSO stating that the article provided “totally false information” and was a breach of clause 1(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

    The article boldly made out that “Nicola Sturgeon has refused to hold another independence referendum within the next five years.” which was an outright lie.

    I also stated in my complaint that the newspaper were obliged to offer Ms Sturgeon an apology for misrepresenting her.

    After waiting a couple of weeks this was the response I got from the Express.

    After contacting the journalist, he has confirmed that the statement was supposed to read:

    “Ms Sturgeon, however, did not refuse to hold another independence referendum within the next five years”.

    As you can see, this was a minor editorial mistake changing the sentence to Nicola Sturgeon refusing to hold another independence referendum when in fact she did not.

    To resolve this issue, the website article will be amended so that the sentence will say, ”Ms Sturgeon has not however refused to hold another independence referendum in the next five years …”

    However, I do not believe that an apology to Ms Sturgeon is necessary in the circumstances.

    There you have it, how pathetic is that? They can say black is white and write anything even the exact opposite of reality and spin it to be true.

    When caught lying, “sorry just a minor editorial error that I really don’t think requires an apology”. That’s not good enough.

    Other than the National I will never buy another Newspaper nor pay the TV license until the day I die.

  51. Dan Huil says:

    More britnat misreporting. Boycott the britnat media. The bbc is the enemy of Scotland. Don’t pay the bbc tax!

  52. Hamish100 says:

    Daily record very quiet on the topic.

    Herald hiding Tom Gordon

    BBC usual guff but online NHS Scotland A&E departments meet the 4 hour deadline. Must be lead story in papers tomorrow. Jamie Greene Jackie Baillie will no doubt praise the NHS .

  53. Gordon Cuthbertson says:

    I am glad there are to be no proceedings. I am also embarrassed that the SNP didn’t stick by her. The Crown office took an awfy long time to come to this decision, and the BBC misreported Scotland as usual.

    I hope better times lie ahead for Michelle Thomson.

  54. Artyhetty says:

    So after such a long time, the Crown Office decide to abandon the fact that there is no case to answer and there never was any evidence against M.Thomson. Absolute disgrace, and a very worrying state of affairs because it shows that the law is being manipulated to a specific agenda, to suit someone.

    Accused, tried and found guilty by the media, the bbc, and all daily rags, when this was a fabrication which lost someone their job. An elected SNP MP was hounded out of her job. It is disappointing that SNP HQ did not stand up for M.Thomson, as has been pointed out that actually most likely made the whole fabricated, accusations appear to hold some gravity. However, the SNP would be damned by the UK tory/red tory media no matter how they had dealt with it.

    If I was M. Thomson, I would really, seriously, sue the pants off the lot of them!

    Utterly indicative of a dead democracy, a dodgy, corrupt media and a gullible public.

  55. Dorothy Devine says:

    I am assuming Ms Bird will be exceptionally careful while reporting tonight – no misreporting!

    I am almost wishing the reporting will be as spiteful and inaccurate as usual , giving Ms Thomson every opportunity to seek legal reparation

  56. K1 says:

    They destroyed her reputation. She really should sue them for defamation of character and loss of career and potential earnings.

    Michelle was a complete boon to the independence movement during the referendum campaign. Up and down the country with Ivan McKee explaining the economic case for independence, audience turn out was phenomenal at all the various sized venues. She is one of the most articulate, intelligent and thoroughly honest people, it didn’t take a genius to figure out it was nothing short of a smear campaign to vilify her.

    Recall STV even had the wumin at the centre of the house sale under question on, making out she was some sort of charlatan.

    A total fucking disgrace, and Ivan? If your tuning in, let her know we will back her all the way if she wants to set up a crowdfund to cover costs to expose the media in Scotland for the fraud they perpetrated upon the Scottish voting public on the back of lies and smears that they happily concocted tae destroy the career of someone who would have continued to fight for her constituents tooth and nail if she’d been re elected GE17.

    Scunnered, we all knew at the time it was a pack of lies, the SNP should have supported her instead of barring her from standing at GE17. They caved in on this one, completely. Sigh…

  57. Highland Wifie says:

    Have just emailed complaint to BBC.
    Also politely enquired whether they are still losing licence funding from Scotland and suggested perhaps this type of fake news may not be helping!
    I know – probably a waste of time.

  58. TheWasp says:

    You couldn’t make it up. After the headline article, up comes Michelle Thomson as article two, then right after a judge saying “what you did was reprehensible”. It was actually the start of article three there was no break or pause between them, disreporting Scotland right enough. Eardley has just said “there will be no criminal proceedings for now” wow nick is now the procurator fiscal too

  59. Ghillie says:

    Michelle Thomson has a very wise head on her shoulders.

    She will know the best action to take.

    Am looking forward to her choosing her new place in our Campaign for Independence =)

  60. Dorothy Devine says:

    TheWasp, they did something similar to Ally McCoist making him look as though he was laughing at some Celtic tragedy – one of the reasons that BBBC Scotland was banned from Ibrox.

    Utterly shameless bunch of devious , manipulative , dishonest hacks.

  61. gus1940 says:

    Count me in for a crowdfunder so that she can sue the whole effing lot – BBC, STV every one of the papers except The National and in particular that tailor’s dummy Cole-Hamilton.

  62. Alex Clark says:

    crazycat says:
    @ AAD at 5.08

    You posted:

    I’ve also submitted a complaint to the BBC; I am expecting their standard “we are sorry you were disappointed (but we did nothing wrong in our eyes and won’t be changing anything)” response, even though I told them in my complaint that that would not be acceptable. It isn’t my feelings that matter.

    Even though I know what the outcome will be, I think it is important to have evidence (their confirmatory e-mail) that they are not just being allowed to get away with these things unchallenged.

    Yes it does seem like we are wasting out time when dealing with the BBC but I feel otherwise. This must rankle with those in power about the uppity Jocks getting above their station and if more of us were a thorn in their side then who knows.

    I contacted them recently with a FOI request relating to the programme “The Twelth” broadcast by BBC NI. I had not unsurprisingly ever heard of this programme but with the DUP sharing power in Government and them being given a £1 billion bung then NI politics suddenly became very topical and I saw some of that programme for the first time via Wings Twitter.

    I asked the BBC for answers to the following questions:

    “Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 please provide answers to the following questions relating to a programme broadcast today (12/07/17) in Northern Ireland called “The Twelfth”.

    1. This programme has ran since at least 2015. On what date was this programme first commissioned?

    2. Which individual or group requested or suggested that this programme be made?

    3. Which individual or group within the BBC was responsible for commissioning the programme.”

    I of course got the stock response from BBC NI:

    The information that you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of “journalism, art or literature.” The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion.

    Part VI of Schedule 1 to the Act provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for “purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature.”

    The BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.

    So what does all that horseshit mean about being “only covered by the Act if it is held for “purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature.”

    What I think it means is that they are telling me to piss off, we don’t need to tell you or any other taxpayer anything. We write the law and you just have to suck it up.

    Those responsible for drafting the FOI law knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote it. Protecting the state mouthpiece and other state licensed broadcasters from it.

    That’s who we’re up against in trying to win Independence.

  63. David Mills says:

    Sound like someone else need to be retaining a Lawer for defamation suits

  64. Andy Anderson says:

    This type of poor journalism really makes me annoyed and a bit sad that our totally biased press has come to this. Shame on them all.

  65. ScottishPsyche says:

    I expect to see a piece in CommonSpace soon from the purity police saying although she has committed no crime she benefited from the capitalist system and therefore SNP bad.

  66. Proud Cybernat says:

    BBC Scotland news manipulation demonstrated in just 2 minutes:

    Blatant BBC News Manipulation</b?

    BBC Scotland are lying gits. They are Scotland's enemy #1.

  67. scottieDog says:

    I’m happy to stick with property investigations.
    Lets look at ghe current tory mps and the Blairite MPs who have benefitted massively from their parties’ domestic economic property.
    There are no doubt lots of MPs who’s property portfolios are doing very well.

  68. ScottishPsyche says:

    Just saw the Reporting Scotland item on Michelle Thompson. What a dreadfully uncomfortable piece. I thought Nick Eardley had immaturity to excuse his former faux pas but having seen him defensively squirming in his seat tonight and the undercurrent of ‘ well why didn’t the SNP want her back’ throughout I see he is as bad as the rest. He also jumped in to defend Angela Haggerty during her meltdown at the weekend.

    Also, that link to the item with the judge. WTF?

  69. Dr Jim says:

    Michelle Thomson is GUILTY

    Of being an enemy of the British State as am I by her membership of separatist party the SNP

    Never forget friends that being a member of Scotlands National Party comes with a responsibility to bear the hatred of all Unionists throughout the Isles of Britain and if this were some other countries we’d be lined up and jailed or worse if the Inglish state thought for one moment they could get away with it

    Our kind are the living embodiment of opposition to all things British and Imperial, we are as welcome in our own land as a disease and that disease is called democracy and the Inglish state has never in its history stood for that, in fact the complete opposite is and has always been true

    So in a funny sort of way it’s us the SNP who should be shouting No Surrender

  70. Robert Peffers says:

    @AnneDon says: 1 August, 2017 at 4:26 pm:

    “I have to say, I’m not impressed with the way the SNP treated her either. The fact she had to resign the whip gave the witch hunt a spurious air of legitimacy. And ultimately led to them losing the seat this year.”

    Oh! For heaven’s sake. It is an accepted fact, within the SNP, that any SNP member elected to any government body from, The EU through Westminster down to community councils will step down as a member for the good of the party and for the sake of the fight for independence. That is they will step down and sit as an Independent but usually will vote with the SNP.

    They all know this when they get elected. This is totally the opposite from the rest of the political parties both Cameron and Blair made public announcements that they had every confidence in their party members who were subsequently found guilty.

    Remember there are former convicted persons sitting in both the Commons and the Lords and more than a handful of Tories presently under investigation by the police for election fraud.

    there is also the scandalous way that MPs who have fiddled their expenses have been given only a token slap on the wrist, (with a feather), even although they were obviously on the fiddle.

  71. Capella says:

    I hope she takes them to the cleaners. I would happily contribute to a crowdfunder. I’m surprised how angry I feel about this though I knew all along it was a smear campaign designed to ruin the career and reputation of a highly successful and engaging politician.
    The threat hung over her head until after this year’s election. Now that she has lost her career and influence the smear can be dropped. Despicable.

  72. ronnie anderson says: As expected the radical leftist stick together .

  73. Tinto Chiel says:

    @K1 6.23: I agree completely with your comments re Michelle Thomson. I attended a public meeting shortly before the referendum and was greatly impressed with her performance.

    Speaking eloquently without notes and taking questions afterwards, she had a mastery of her brief, was highly articulate and charming and, to me seemed a person of integrity.

    All this makes you a target for the Establishment.

    I’m sure she will reflect carefully and respond appropriately.

    Many people on here will have contributed to three worthwhile appeals for crowdfunding recently: I am sure many would be happy to support MT in any action she may take against her defamers.

  74. Legerwood says:

    O/T slightly.

    CH4 news just now had a discussion about housing in the last part of the programme.

    Doubted that Scotland and the building of social housing and scrapping of right to buy was going to get a mention then right at the end the architect – lady of a certain age – really let rip. She pointed out that Scotland had scrapped right to buy and had, in the last 10 years, built more social housing than the rest of the UK put together. She pointed out that Scots had more disposable income too because of the affordability of the housing.

    Really worth a look if it is put on their web site.

  75. stonefaction says:

    Incidentally the actions of the Crown Office have also recently been brought into question over the dropping of a number of cases for illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors despite what appears fairly clear evidence of illegality.

    I wonder if it would be possible to find out if the same individual(s) is/are ultimately responsible for the dropping of those cases and the length of time it has taken to bring this one to a conclusion. It would not surprise me to find a link between these cases, nor a link hinting at ‘outside influence’.

  76. PacMan says:

    I’m not fully aware of Michelle Thomson’s business dealings but it sounds like she was operating a Fast sale operation much like these webuyanyhouse outfits.

    I had to deal with one of these companies to sell a previous property and they are specifically aimed at those who are unable to sell their property on the market for a number of reasons or require their property to be sold quickly. The whole point of them is that these companies buy the property at below the market rate because they are taking a risk on buying a property that can’t be sold the normal way and the customer has the choice to accept the offer or not.

    Nobody forced the individuals, who thought they were being ripped off by Thomsons company, to accept the offer given. If somebody owns a property, they must be financially savvy enough to understand the state of the housing market and whether they are getting a good deal or not. If they didn’t think they were not getting a good deal then they should have walked away and or at least got quotes from a number of similar companies.

    I don’t know the specific details of the allegations but as the company Thomson onwed was buying a product rather than selling one, I’m not sure how someone can fraudulently buy a product as the owner should be fully aware of the product they are selling and in the case of properties, have independent advice to the value of that property.

    Of course, there are moral and ethical issues about the fast sale business model but that applies to the whole industry, not just to one individual. In that way, it is hard to justify the allegations made against her if it is solely based on these transactions and nothing else.

  77. ScottieDog says:

    Maybe MSM could look at the property portfolios of MPs which benefitted from the policy of help to buy – or as some economists have tagged ‘help to sell’.
    Help to buy drove property prices up by around 18% after the financial crisis.

  78. yesindyref2 says:

    Actually it makes me angry too, and the Herald still carries its headline “Crown drops case”.

    For the first time ever, I hope the Herald disappears and rots.

  79. Marker Post says:

    Even the watered-down version of the Scotsman headline is totally misleading. It implies heavily that Michell Thomson was the subject of the fraud probe.

  80. orri says:

    Some expert trolling, if intentional, on Reporting Scotland tonight. The trailer had the report of the lack of prosecution just before a clip for another item showing a judge claiming something along the lines of “her actions were reprehensible”

    Also interesting how the official “verdict” was preempted by an alleged leak of “insufficient evidence” when according to the police the alleged “evidence” lacked credibility or reliability. In less polite terms lies.

  81. yesindyref2 says:

    Mmmmm, that was satisfying. I let the Herald have both barrels, and the lock and the stock.

    They disgust me.

  82. Rock says:

    “Because there never WAS a “fraud case against former MP Michelle Thomson”. Michelle Thomson was never charged with fraud. She was never arrested. She was never even questioned as a suspect. She gave a voluntary interview to police as a witness in a case against someone else entirely.”

    She should sue for defamation.

    She must be pretty rich from all those property deals she did, which were of course totally legal under Thatcherist capitalistic laws.

    Truth Always.

  83. Rock says:


    “Mmmmm, that was satisfying. I let the Herald have both barrels, and the lock and the stock.

    They disgust me.”

    Buy The National to keep its elder sisters, The Herald and The Sunday Herald alive.

    Truth Always.

  84. Robert Peffers says:

    @PacMan says: 1 August, 2017 at 8:51 pm:

    “I’m not fully aware of Michelle Thomson’s business dealings but it sounds like she was operating a Fast sale operation much like these webuyanyhouse outfits.”

    You are correct except the business was not quite like most, “webuyanyhouse outfits”, in that her company did not go to the sellers, the sellers came to them. Not only that but the properties bought were renovated and decorated to improve them.

    In the case that the gutter press brought to the public domain the sellers made a handsome profit on a property they were not only unable to sell but were desperate to get rid off and they approached the company.

    The lawyer that the company used set up bank loans for the deal and besides the profit the sellers got they got their outstanding mortgage settled with that lawyer’s setup bank loan.

    In effect the sellers got their outstanding mortgage paid off and also made a profit from the sale.

    The bank got the loan they made paid off double quick and made a profit.

    The new owners got a newly renovated and decorated home at the then current going rate.

    The lawyer got his fees so also made a profit and the company, after renovating and decorating the property, made a profit and absolutely no one lost anything in the entire transaction.

    The Lawyer, however, did break the Law Society’s rigid rules of practice but had really harmed no one.

    So it strokes me that to all appearances the only problem was the apparent greed of the original sellers of the property who apparently were struggling to pay the original mortgage but who thought they had been given a bad deal. It would not surprise me if the dead tree press who broke the story had encouraged the sellers to think they had been done.

    However, that’s all just my opinion and could very well be wrong. I suppose there may be someone along in a minute to tell me I am wrong – but that’s o.k. I never ever claimed to be omnipotent.

    At the end of the affair the net result was a property brought back into use and another family off the waiting list and everyone making a profit.

  85. yesindyref2 says:

    Buy The National to keep its elder sisters, The Herald and The Sunday Herald alive.

    They’re different titles. Buy The National, an Independence supporting newspaper, to support Independence.

    Truth Always.

    You wouldn’t know truth if it dropped on you from one foot above the ground.

  86. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Aww FFS, I was just about to post: ‘Right, hands up – who’s scared away aw the tattie-bogles?’

    Then the page refreshed and, well, the rest is history…

    That’s synchronicity fur ye!


  87. Rock says:


    “They’re different titles. Buy The National, an Independence supporting newspaper, to support Independence.”

    They are owned by the same anti-independence company which pockets the profits.

    Less than 8,000 mostly gullible diehard independence supporters buy The National.

    It has near zero positive effect to the independence cause.

    But it helps to keep the poisonous Herald and Sunday Herald alive.

    Truth Always.

  88. heedtracker says:

    Buy The National to keep its elder sisters, The Herald and The Sunday Herald alive.

    One paper out of the Newsquest media corp Rock, keeps the others alive, you nutcase Rock?

    Newsquest Media Group Ltd. is the second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers in the United Kingdom with 205 brands across the UK, publishing online and in print (165 newspaper brands and 40 magazine brands). It reaches 28 million visitors a month online and 6.5 million readers a week in print. Based in London, Newsquest employs a total of more than 5,500 people across the UK. It also has a specialist arm that publishes both commercial and business-to-business (B2B) titles such as Insurance Times, The Strad, and Boxing News.”

    We are blessed with a tory/neo fascist media in this country, and all of it follows the tory BBC gimpery. If things get tricky, the whole show can rely on the £400 million a year the UK gov, red and blue tory, drops them all. Because that’s what regimes do, prop up allies.

    Its not the National Rock

    Bollox Always

  89. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    heedtracker at 10.07

    Very well put. And Newsquest is a subsidiary of Gannett USA which produces hundreds of publications across the States. It’s a business.

  90. yesindyref2 says:

    The Herald also has S1 homes and jobs, which you see even if you do have ABP and uBlock Origin, whereas The National doesn’t. I find mince quite tasteless without OXO, though some may prefer Bisto. Some just regurgitate it anyway, probably something like IBS, but using the keyboard instead. IKS, I guess. Is there a doctor in the house?

  91. Dorothy Devine says:

    I see the Guardian has jumped on the bandwagon with the usual media crap.

  92. David says:

    As the SNP MP was going up the stair
    She met a fraud charge that wasn’t there!
    It wasn’t there again today,
    Oh how we wish it’d go away!

    There was never any evidence against SNP’s Michelle Thomson.
    She got put through the wringer because she’s female, and an SNP MP.

    And as a consequence, LibDem Christine Jardine got back into WM, to the detriment of Edinburgh West in particular, and Scotland in general. 🙁

  93. colin alexander says:

    If council houses were sold to the former tenant and remained in their hands or the family’s hands then I would be okay about that, but when ex-council houses end up snapped up by property developers to rent privately or re-sold at inflated prices, that bothers me.

    If it’s done by those who espouse social justice, it bothers me even more.

    Nothing illegal. An honest living, capitalism etc, I know.

    It just bothers me. Maybe I’m naive, but for me, houses are for living in. Council houses, socially rented houses are meant for people on lower incomes to be able to afford a decent home.

    Buying ex-council houses to sell them or rent them out at higher rents just seems wrong to me.

    Basic Housing, gas, electriciy, water. Basic necessities for life. Unless providing some sort of luxury service, I think they should be run for the public good, not profit.

    For a party like the SNP where socially rented housing is one of their big things, it bothers me that, reselling or private renting basic houses for profit is fine with them.

    It’s good the SNP ended the sales of local authority housing stock. So, I do have praise for the SNP too. I’m being fair. Criticism where I think it’s due and praise where I think it’s due.

  94. Rock says:


    “Newsquest Media Group Ltd. is the second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers in the United Kingdom with 205 brands across the UK”

    How many in Scotland apart from The National with less than 8,000 buyers and its poisonous elder sisters, The Herald and The Sunday Herald?

    Is The National edited and printed in Scotland?

    Truth Always.

  95. Here is Dugdale and Davidson at FMQ`s joining in on the cold blooded and coordinated attack on Michelle,

  96. Brian Fleming says:

    An “absence of sufficient evidence” is just a mealymouthed way of saying a lack of evidence, i.e. no case to answer. The attempt to stitch her up has failed and it is really sticking in the MSM’s collective throat.

  97. @colin,

    are you saying that people who bought their council house should not be able to sell them?

  98. Fireproofjim says:

    It’s just dumb Rock, with his obsessive desire to lose the only inde supporting paper on the newsstands. Do you think the MSM pay him?
    Never a positive word from Rock. Just a constant moan.

  99. yesindyref2 says:

    It never ceases to amaze me the total dumb ignorance and lack of search ability shown by those who never have a good word to say about anything.

    Search for “newsquest in scotland” and pick what for me is the second link. My wee paper is by newsquest. The local issues are probably why The Herald will survive, for the sakes of the wee papers.

  100. galamcennalath says:

    ” A majority of Leave voters think achieving Britain’s exit from the European Union is worth causing significant damage to the country’s economy “

    Rampant blood and soil nationalism!

  101. velofello says:

    The Fiscal Service like so many other government functions have experienced cuts to budgets and personnel, so arguably Ms Thomson’s case was given low priority, unfortunate for her, good for the unionist brigade.

    Eh? it suits the unionists to under-resource justice? Naw, surely not.Cole-Hamilton smirking his way through Holyrood…”I was elected on the constituency vote”, by demonising an innocent person.

  102. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    @ Peffers: “It would not surprise me if the dead-tree press who broke the story had encouraged the sellers to think they had been done.”

    Yeah, I thought the same. I remember thinking that maybe the bank didn’t profit quite as much as it hoped, due to what the solicitor claimed (it was always about the solicitor, really). Not much public sympathy for a bank not getting its stretched pound of flesh, but make it about one of the lower order being unhappy thinking they’re being shafted by an SNP MP and…well.

  103. Brad Millar says:

    that will be somebody else taking Dugdale to court for defamation lol

  104. Fraser Darling says:

    Let’s hope that she sues the lot of them for deformation!

  105. Az says:

    Legerwood 8.00pm

    I believe this is the item you refer to on ch4 news. Infuriatingly, it won’t load properly for me so I have not seen it to the end yet.

  106. Fillofficer says:

    Now where’s that clip of the Donald at his 1st White House news briefing dismissing the BBC as fake news, Luvvit 🙂

  107. Legerwood says:

    Az @ 11.40pm

    Thank you. The bit about Scotland is around 12 minutes in but discussion of right to buy and scrapping it – Cardiff was mentioned – starts about 10 min 40 sec in.

    Copied the link so maybe it will work

  108. Still Positive says:

    Az @ 11.40

    Thanks for that.

    Thanks also to those who wished me a Happy Birthday for September.

    And also a very Happy Birthday for Dorothy Devine on Friday.

  109. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    @ Fillofficer, trump

  110. K1 says:

    Some on twitter are suggesting ‘incompetent juxtaposition’…

    I’m going with deliberate editing of Michelle Thomson ‘no fraud case to answer for’ followed instantly by the next clip of a judge saying ‘what you did was truly reprehensible’ before stating what the judge clip was about….from BBC Scotland 6.30pm news August 1st 2017 ..

  111. Angry Weegie says:

    Just seen the item on BBC Shithouse about Michelle Thomson, immediately followed by the completely unrelated statement by the judge. Even by BBC Shithouse’s remarkably low standards, this was “almost” unbelievable. How long do we have to put up with pish such as this being broadcast?

  112. Tackety Beets says:

    K1 @ 12.19

    I’ve ditched Yon BBC , & the clip link you posted confirms it is a wise decision.

    Indeed that clip is truly “reprehensible”

    FFS !

    Seams like Ch4 provides us proof that what Scot Gov are doing is being noticed doun sourf ,at least by some.

  113. Alex Clark says:


    Just watched that, gobsmacked! No I’m not at all, it’s what I’ve come to expect from the BBC. Why anyone would actually pay to enable the scum that do this is beyond me.

    Bin the TV license, make a stand we’re no longer watching your crap.

  114. Alex Clark says:

    Does anybody think that this was an “innocent mistake” on BBC Breakfast show in Oct 2016 when they were announcing Nicola Sturgeon would be talking to them about a second referendum on Independence.

    The presenter says “I’m sorry about that” so that’s OK then is it?

    Dump the BBC, don’t pay the license use your money elsewhere plenty of alternatives just look for them. BBC taking the piss.

  115. yesindyref2 says:

    I don’t agree with not watching the BBC. It was someone pointing out to me in 1972 how institutionally biased the BBC were against Scotland, that within hours moved me to support Indy.

    Don’t dump it, watch it, and point it out to the undecided. Their increasingly frantic and moronic efforts to down anything to do with the SNP, the Scottish Government and even anything to do with Scotland MUST be watched and pointed out to those who don’t support Indy yet.

    The BBC is our greatest asset, use it wisely.

  116. geeo says:

    I just laughed at the “built a £1.7 million property empire”

    £1.7 million gets you access to a fucking GARAGE in parts of Edinburgh…!!

  117. Col says:

    K1, they only do it still because we let them get away with it. I do think the SNP should have taken on the BBC by now but they either feel powerless to do so or think it’s not in their interests. I’ve been on most of the demonstrations at Pacific Quay but sadly the numbers were too low really to make a real impact.
    What we need is a massive campaign directed at them, a very public campaign of non payment of the licence fee would make them shit their union jack pants but it has to be us the public that orchestrates it.
    How can the BBC claim any legitimacy when less than half the population of Scotland approve of their output and there’s 15000 people standing outside their propaganda factory?
    People power can beat them. People power will give the Scottish government a real mandate to demand change or else we will set up for ourselves. Change the law and and watch Westminster make a fool of itself on the world stage trying to deny Scotland its right to watch what it want on the telly ffs. It’s as ridiculous as it sounds when put out there. Might just wake enough people up here too.

  118. Alex Clark says:


    You pay therefore your choice.

    Really though you are saying that within hours of “someone pointing out to me in 1972 how institutionally biased the BBC were against Scotland, that within hours moved me to support Indy.”

    I find that quite extraordinary since here you are 45 years later after the bias of the BBC moved you to support Independence you are suggesting that we should keep watching the even more obviously bias BBC.

    Pull the other one. There are alternatives and you do know that yet choose to try and persuade people to keep watching the BBC LOL.

    There’s nowt so queer as folk right enough?

  119. Scotspine says:

    @Angry Weegie

    “BBC Shithouse” Lol. Thats a keeper

  120. yesindyref2 says:

    @Alex Clark
    Yes, indeed I am suggesting that the likes of you and me continue to watch the BBC. It’s not going to convert me back away from Indy, and I kind of think it unlikely you will. But without watching it, we are unable to point out the bias. And it’s not just about Indy, or the SNP, or Scotland, there’s the same bias against Corbyn, the EU, various. You may have someting in common you can point out that has nothing to do with Indy at all that the BBC misreport – steel for instance, if and when they do. Or Dunkirk.

    I don’t try to convince people to YES face to face, it’s not my style, it’s not my strength. But having a blether is, and aprticularly listening. I’ve found out, for instance, that very few people believe the newspapers. I think the figure is something like 3% trust newspapers. But a huge amount do trust the BBC.

    So, for instance, if something in the news comes up, then you can say something like “Did you see that on the news last night? First they say no charges are being made against Michelle Thomson, then right after that a judge saying “what you did was reprehensible”. isn’t that disgusting for misreporting.”. And move on, to whatever else you talk about. A seed is sown.

    Or you can do it the other way, because at times the BBC can’t avoid good news about Scotland. So someone says the SNP need to do something about the high level of unemplyment in Scotland, and you say “But even the BBC has reported that unemployment in Scotland is now at 4.4% – below the rate of 4.6% for the whole of the UK”. (reported 17 May 2017).

    But note the word “even” – a subtle dig at the BBC, even while using them as a “reliable” source of Scottish news when it’s in your favour.

    I did, it turns out, cause 1 conversion to YES face to face later on, just by suggesting he watched the BBC closely for what it said – and what it didn’t say. He found out for himself, having previously trusted the BBC (I didn’t find out till after the Ref he’d voted YES). He used to think Scotland couldn’t govern itself, what he found was the UK Gov were a shower of nasties.

    Use the BBC Alex, and abuse them. That’s what they’re there for. Whether or not you pay the licence fee – the website is free.

  121. Alex Clark says:


    I never implied that I wouldn’t watch anything from the BBC. Simply that I won’t pay to watch anything from the BBC.

    If a programme is recorded and posted online and I can watch it illegitimately without a TV license then I will will watch if the subject is of interest.

    Your aware I’m sure of the recent fundraiser for “monitoring of the BBC political output” by GA Ponsonby, Yes?

    Then anything that is put online from that research I’ll be sure to watch. Let’s not cross swords here and be sure we understand each other. I will watch political output from the BBC but legally and as I don’t pay a license I really on others to record the kind of things I might want to see such as the Gorilla impersonation of Nicola Sturgeon from BBC Breakfast that I posted earlier.

    If you want to pay that’s your choice, mine was to ditch them.

  122. Alex Clark says:

    “legitimately without a TV license” “I rely on others”

    LOL Bedtime.

  123. yesindyref2 says:

    @Alex Clark “If you want to pay that’s your choice, mine was to ditch them.

    Indeed. A better way of putting it is “Different strokes for different blokes” (apologies for the sexist expression!)

    I was so knackered I got 2 or 3 hours kip at teatime, so I’ll be working for another couple of hours yet. “He who hoots with the owl by night shall not soar with the eagle by day”.

  124. Pacman says:

    @ Robert Peffers

    I don’t know how the fast sale sector as a whole works but in my case, I had contacted a number of companies, ones located here in Scotland a few in England. In doing so, I was in the full understanding that my property would be sold under market price.

    BTW, even though this case involved an ex-SNP MP, I would still have voiced my argument regardless of the political party the individual belonged to for the simple reason, as I had mentioned, that they weren’t committing anything fraudulent.

    I would agree with you about former clients being misled by the gutter press. I had remembered the STV interview with one of the clients, the one who had used the profanity, and there is no way that individual could be described as vulnerable.

  125. yesindyref2 says:

    Pretty difficult to pick up what might be the “ethics” of an open housing market.

    Someone buys their right to buy council house, which is maybe the easiest case, for £50,000 with say an estimated market at that time of £80,000. So they’re buying it £30,000 under price. Then along comes the buy to let craze, and their house becomes worth £120,000. But they get into difficulties, have to sell, and along comes someone and pays them £90,000. So they pocket £40,000, forgetting about any interest or fees or all that jazz.

    That’s £30,000 under market price, a swindle some would say. But they’ve made £40,000, £10,000 more than the original market price. But then they have to find somewhere to live and guess what, there’s no houses they could move to under £60,000, and no council houses avaolable any more, so where can they live?

    Personally I don’t like the buy to let craze anyway, if there’s any morality about this, then it’s depriving people the first rung on the housing ladder. And removing affordable housing by making it too expensive. But on the other hand, at least people looking to rent can rent, though they have to pay extortionate rents to live there – half their wages if they’re lucky. But at least they have somewhere to live.

    So what’s the answer? Absolutely no idea. Except that building plots should be made available, pay for the services to be put in, and build a wooden hut by chopping down the trees around you. But unfortunately they’ve either got preservation orders on them, or someone “owns” them, so you can’t. So buy a trailer and stick that on there and become “trailer trash”. But who’s going to give planning permission for that?

    Hey, maybe people in the stone age had things better. Find a cave and live in it. Chop down trees, hew out lumps of rock, cover the lot with brances and strew some animal hides around, daub a bit of paint on them and stick them on the walls.

    Kids of today, eh? Don’t know how lucky they are.

  126. Ghillie says:

    Petra, OT/

    Your story grew a wee pair of wings = )

  127. Street Andrew says:

    Returning to this piece I remember that I don’t understand the headline.

    What’s a ‘Choco ration’ about. I’m missing something.

    Re CPS my feeling is that they carefully cultivate an impression of incompetence so that inconvenient cases can be shuffled off into the long grass usually ‘for lack of evidence’. There is an implied suggestion of poor or careless police practice which brings to mind a rookie constable not taking sufficiently careful notes and it’s so long ago that it wouldn’t be worth pursuing so ‘what the hell?’

    Given that we do still have a judiciary which is prepared to contest and rule against government legislation (of either hue) it seems often that the role of the CPS is to protect the ‘establishment’ from the judges.

    Apparent incompetence is highly believable so a good cover.

    Am I being unduly cynical?

  128. Pacman says:

    @ Street Andrew

    It wouldn’t surprise me if ‘lack of evidence’ is the politically correct way for the relevant authorities to say that their time has been wasted by such a false allegation.

  129. izzie says:

    It looks like today is a day to spread The National over the toilet paper red tops. Sorry cant do links but just back from newsagents and the National declares she was completely exonerated.

  130. Jock McDonnell says:

    @Street Andrew – 1984

  131. Fillofficer says:

    @ reluctant nationalist
    Ha ha, not the one I had in mind, but that is priceless. Hadn’t seen that one before, ta much

  132. Macart says:

    This is a case of ‘who knew’ if ever there was one.

  133. Orri says:


    The use of “sources” and “understand” here is an effort to get the more favourable and less scathing version out before the official one.

    If you or I were to describe someone as lacking credibility or reliability then we’d be ever so majorly hinting that they were liars.

    By mentioning the quality of the evidence they lacked they mentioned the quality of the “evidence” they had. No other reason to go beyond a simple lack of evidence that I can see.

    If anything that description of the dubiety of the “evidence” might serve as a warning to those that gave it to drop their grudge.

  134. Macart says:

    Nearly forgot. A good piece by a refreshed and energized Derek Bateman.

    Highly recommend folks read this. Its about time we remembered how far we’ve come and just how close we are.

  135. Nana says:

    Scots space firm helps develop new climate change tool

    Davidson not getting involved in investigation of suspended Stirling councillors

  136. Smallaxe says:

    Nana; Good Morning, it’s a beautiful Scottish day. Thank you for your lovely links. Kettle’s on.
    Any extras? 🙂

    Peace Always

  137. Ken500 says:

    Notice the difference, Headlines. A non crime. Or

    ‘High court rejects the bid by Iraqi prosecutor for Blair conviction’.

    Scared Blair will sue or just plain lies.

    Warmongering liar gets away with it. Illegal bombing. Home burning. Costing £Trns. Tories increasing the debt,

    Thatcher sold off council houses and didn’t put the funds into building more houses. Selling off older houses at a discount to their owners could be supported. The long term tenants had bought their homes twice over. Paid more than a mortgage. Thatcher had interest rates at 15%. People ended up losing their homes, Negative equity. Over 3million unemployed.

    The SNP are now building of renovation enough houses to provide affordable homes. 6,000 a year.

    6,000 a year affordable houses, 17,000 built by private builders. Others coming on to the market. 50,000 a year deaths in Scotland. 17,000 houses? Total 40,000 houses a year?

    Columnist lobbying for private non qualified teachers contract. Without declaring an interest. Illegal? While running down Scottish education system. One of the best in the world. It could be even better. Westminster unionist /councils have cut the funding.

    Newsquest core business selling literature for private education worldwide.

  138. Macart says:


    Just in time Nana.

    Good to see you back Smallaxe. Hope the break wasn’t too rough. 🙂

  139. Dan Huil says:

    Apparently Trump says indyref2 will be a terrible thing. Therefore the only logical conclusion to be reached is that indyref2 will be a good thing.

  140. Nana says:

    @Smallaxe So good to see you

    Any extras?

    Second helpings are being rationed in order to prepare us for brexit!

  141. Ken500 says:

    Many Tories in Westminster are landlords. They voted against measures to improve stardards in housing (rental) markets. Did not publish reports etc. Within the last few years. Officials are culpable for the recent disaster.

  142. colin alexander says:

    Scot Finlayson asked:

    “are you saying that people who bought their council house should not be able to sell them?”

    Not exactly.

    I’m saying I think there should have been a rule in the first place that any profit should have gone towards repaying the tenant / buyer discount to the councils or housing associations or the money used for council home owner improvement grants.

    Councils or housing associations should also have first option on buying them back at lower than open market prices.

    It’s probably too late to do anything about it now.

    I’m not opposed to people owning their own home.

    I just don’t think it’s appropriate that taxpayers cash should be given for buyers’ grant schemes or house sales are subsidised by tenant discounts etc.

  143. Smallaxe says:

    Macart & Nana;

    Stardate 02/08/2017: Just beamed down to visit my dear Friends and I’ll be hanging around for a while in this safe harbour, after a pretty rough journey. All is well, cool runnings from here on in.

    I’ll keep an eye out for you all in Paula Rose’s O/T Lounge.

    Peace Always

  144. Robert Peffers says:

    @Angry Weegie says: 2 August, 2017 at 12:26 am:

    ” … How long do we have to put up with pish such as this being broadcast?”

    The answer to that question, Angry Weegie, is simply, ““As long as Scotland is still an English dominion.”

    Alternatively, “As long as Scottish unionists voters allow Scotland to remain a United Kingdom vassal state”.

  145. galamcennalath says:

    Nana says

    I particularly enjoyed this gem, thanks.

    Worth reading how Australia stayed tied to the UK for so long. It had no embassies prior to WW2, relying on ‘Britain’.

    Johnson is, as always, a comical buffoon. The Ozzies don’t seem impressed.

  146. Alan Laird says:

    Well done ‘Rock’. A fine, well reasoned rant against The National (which IS edited in Scotland by the way). Are you paid personally by Stu? Because I upped my tenner cheque to him to £20. Just because of plants like you. Keep up the good work.
    Incidently – the National’s non-indy content is excellent. My Tory-voting Nawbag friend gets all my old ones and reckons its the best daily in Scotland. Though he hates Haggerty and Fry (!). If anything is going to bring him over to Indy, its the National.

  147. Ghillie says:

    Dan Huil @ 8.23 am

    ‘Apparentently Trump says Indyref2 will be a terrible thing. Therefore the only logical conclusion to be reached is that Indyref2 will be a good thing.’

    Yes Dan, totaly agree = )

    But actualy, it’s really quite serious.

    Because you see, Scotland couldn’t hold the British Open if it went out. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BRITISH OPEN ?!!

    This is deadly serious Dan !

  148. stu mac says:

    @galamcennalath says:
    1 August, 2017 at 11:14 pm
    ” A majority of Leave voters think achieving Britain’s exit from the European Union is worth causing significant damage to the country’s economy “
    Rampant blood and soil nationalism!


    Actually, no it’s not that at all. You should read When Prophecy Fails or a similar book. It’s about how when people commit themselves wholly to what turns out to be an unreasonable belief, rather than turn away from that belief when it is proved to be mistaken, they cling to it more firmly, rejecting the evidence. It’s related to cognitive dissonance, where unable to accept they were wrong they become even more fanatical about it. How much that occurs of course depends how much you were committed in the first place. Some people can and do change their minds but perhaps that’s why it can be a slow process.

  149. stu mac says:

    @stu mac

    I should have said, the cognitive dissonance involved creates an anger which can lead to lashing out – hence the comments in the article you quoted.

  150. Robert Peffers says:

    @Col says: 2 August, 2017 at 1:33 am:

    “I do think the SNP should have taken on the BBC by now but they either feel powerless to do so or think it’s not in their interests.”

    Care to offer us your valued opinion on exactly how the SNP should go about, “Taking on the BBC”, or indeed any other parts of the broadcasting media that are all controlled by either Westminster or by those that control Westminster, Col?

    BTW: Where exactly did you garner your information that the SNP, (The SNP being a political party that the Westminster controlled media are attempting to suppress), are not doing anything? It wouldn’t be from the BBC and MSM would it, Col?

    Did you perhaps mean, Col, that, (in your humble opinion of course), the Scottish Government at Holyrood are doing nothing about the BBC and the MSM?

    You do realise, I hope, that broadcasting is a reserved to Westminster function and Holyrood, where there are three unionist controlled political parties opposing the Scottish Government and a Presiding Officer who has already shown significant bias in favour of his old colleagues in the London Labour Party, “Accountancy Unit”, that laughingly calls itself, “Scottish Labour”.

    Just in case you wondered, Col, the SNP constitution is a democracy in which every member has exactly the same number of votes as has their leader, Nicola Sturgeon. Many of us are indeed attempting to, “do something”, about the BBC, other broadcasters and the Scottish MSM, (MainStream(Media).

    That includes right here on Wings, those members of the SNP NOT paying the Licence fee, (it goes to the treasury and not directly to the BBC), and those demonstrations at the BBC Building in Glasgow. Not to mention the many other individual bloggers and on-line publishers like Wings.

    You didn’t actually expect the Broadcasters & Scottish MSM to tell you all about these anti-BBC and MSM efforts did you?

    ” … What we need is a massive campaign directed at them, a very public campaign”

    Oh! Aye!

    And how exactly do you suggest we make it, “very public”, Col?

    Did you imagine the BBC, other broadcasters and the Scottish MSM that we are directing the campaign against will make it a very public campaign?

    ” … People power can beat them.”

    People power is already beating then, Col. It is the reason the dead tree press, without exception, are suffering falling readership figures. It is the reason that the broadcasters cannot afford to cover live Scottish football or Formula I meetings.

    ” … will give the Scottish government a real mandate to demand change or else we will set up for ourselves.”

    Oh! Get real! Any mandate the SG asks for must fall within the rules laid down by Westminster as to what are Devolved Powers. If those mandates do not fall within Westminster’s rules then they can just rule them as Westminster held powers and rule them out of order.

    Remember this is a Westminster, (de facto Parliament of England), that operates EVEL in order to prevent Scotland, Wales & N.I. interference in anything Westminster deems as, “England Only”, Matters.

  151. Fred says:

    Nana/Smallaxe, hauns-up who wants second-helpings of…..caramel cake?

    On a serious note, a legal action against Jackie Bird personally would get a bung from me!

  152. Robert Peffers says:

    @izzie says: 2 August, 2017 at 7:45 am:

    ” … The National declares she was completely exonerated.”

    Well! Actually she could not be, “completely exonerated”, as she was never charged, cautioned or even officially investigated by the police. She freely volunteered information to the police who were NOT investigating her or her company. The police were investigating the possible fraudulent actions of the lawyer her company had used.

    So she was never officially accused by the police and thus not by the Procurators Fiscal who act upon information provided by the police.

    All accusations made against the lady were by made only by the couple who approached her company of their own free will – and of course by the broadcasters & MSM. Not to mention her political opponents and the unionist on-line Social Media.

    You cannot be officially exonerated if you are not officially accused of anything. The headline should actually only read, ” Mrs Thompson is innocent”, and never officially accused of any crimes.

  153. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    There is an old saying, “justice delayed is justice denied”. And it certainly has been denied in this case.

    The SNP had no alternative but to suspend Michelle while the possibility of this accusation was hanging over her like the Sword of Damocles. But it has taken far too long for those in authority to announce that there was no case to answer.

    In the meantime, she has been tried and convicted by the MSM, who exert themselves assiduously to target SNP politicians with any smear they can vaguely concoct. And even now, try to hint at something unsavoury in their mealy-mouthed reportage.

    I really do feel for her. Life, and especially in politics, can sometimes be grossly unfair. She has suffered real and substantial loss. And in the meantime, have the lives of her former constituents been improved now she has been replaced by a 7-time loser FibDem? A classic lose-lose!

    What a reward for wanting to contribute to society by being a representative of the people. All the better to deter others, eh…?

  154. cirsium says:

    Thank you for the good summing up of the media situation, Robert (10.02am).

    I prefer the term Corporate Media to Main Stream Media. It gives a better idea of who is directing the messages.

    “The media are carriers of the manipulative impulses of a few, to the masses. That which we uncritically accept, will affect us for the benefit of the few.” (Professor Josef Kirchner)

  155. Robert Peffers says:

    @Macart says: 2 August, 2017 at 8:10 am:

    “Nearly forgot. A good piece by a refreshed and energized Derek Bateman.
    Highly recommend folks read this. Its about time we remembered how far we’ve come and just how close we are”

    While I agree with almost everything Derek wrote I must point out that he missed the chance to drive home a vital point that, according to their own claims, even high ranked political figures seem to be totally ignorant about.

    Derek mentions the UK’s unequal per capita funding but fails to explain that to make such comparison is either downright lies or gross ignorance of the UK’s system of funding.

    It is, by its very nature, necessarily unequal and needs to be so. Also the fact that there are four, not three devolved administrations and one of them is never mentioned.

    The differing per capita funding is due to the inequality of the devolved functions of each devolved administration and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being, “Needs Based”.

    It stems from Westminster unequally devolving powers from the Westminster ministries to the devolved administrations and from the fact that by removing those devolved administrations Westminster has become the de facto, (but unelected as such), parliament of the country of England.

    Furthermore because England, (with one big exception), is now the de facto parliament of the country of England. So what is quoted as United Kingdom expenditure is in effect English expenditure. That exception I mentioned is the unmentionable devolved administration of London that is mainly separately funded from the rest of England.

    So – as Northern Ireland has the greatest number of devolved functions then Northern Ireland must of necessity have devolved to them the funding from the Westminster ministry that previously carried out that function.

    Likewise Scotland’s per capita funding will be less than N.I. but more than Wales which has the least devolved functions.

    So anyone, politician or otherwise, who spouts utter nonsense about unequal per capita funding is talking through a hole in their body that is not their mouth.

    And then there is London – the unmentionable devolved administration that would seem to gain funding as London, as England, as The Nation and as – well who knows as what else.

    Not only is London a devolved administration but so also is Transport for London and on top of all that it gets English and UK national funding due to such things as long distance UK and transcontinental transport bus, train and air services classed by Westminster as National assets.

    Then there are the other, “National”, things like the National Galleries, National Ballet, National Theatre and National Museums all centred in London as are the Civil Service and armed forces headquarters in and around Whitehall. Not to mention the National Greenwich Observatory and so on.

    So anyone who attempts to compare per capita spending is either ignorant of the facts or they are confidence tricksters.

    So next time anyone mentions that the Scots get extra per capita funding can safely be asked to explain just how they figured that out. Then stand smartly to one side to avoid the very large stream of sheer bullshit that is about to issue in your direction.

  156. orri says:

    She’s been held to account by the court of public opinion presided over by the unionist press. In those terms being completely exonerated is exactly the right phrase to use. It means that the allegations against her were completely unfounded and, perhaps, malicious.

  157. Albamac says:

    ScottishPsyche says:

    “I expect to see a piece in CommonSpace soon from the purity police”

    Common Space – more commonly known, in my childhood days, as the ‘sper grun’ where children went to fight or play wi’ their baws.

    They should have built something useful on it.

  158. James says:

    “Ms Thomson took a dignified approach during the investigation into her financial conduct. She’ll be relieved to put this affair behind her and we wish her well for the future.” SNP spokesman.
    Damned by faint praise?

  159. Jack Murphy says:

    TheWasp closed his comment last evening at 6:36pm:”……Eardley has just said “there will be no criminal proceedings for now” wow nick is now the procurator fiscal too”.

    I too deliberately watched that programme called ‘Reporting Scotland’ teatime yesterday by the BBC Bureau in Scotland and was shocked by Eardley’s conclusion:“there will be no criminal proceedings for now”.

    Before or after Christmas Mr Eardley?

    Meanwhile on Planet Reality here is one of many instances of
    the BBC Bureau in Scotland bending the news:


  160. Like many I would like to see Michelle Thomson take legal action against Davidson, Dugdale and Baillie for defamation.

    Its about time that trio were brought to book, I would say they should be ashamed of their disgusting treatment of Miss Thomson.
    But then I doubt if they actually know the meaning of the word.

  161. Robert Peffers says:

    Artyhetty says: 1 August, 2017 at 6:17 pm:

    “It is disappointing that SNP HQ did not stand up for M.Thomson, as has been pointed out that actually most likely made the whole fabricated, accusations appear to hold some gravity.”

    Strange is it not that those, who, here on Wings, are claiming that the SNP did not stand by Ms Thompson while at the same time blasting the broadcasters, Scottish MSM and Ms Thompson’s political opponents for inaccuracy.

    So just for the record of accuracy, (no pun intended), are not the true facts that Ms, Thompson, to her credit, voluntarily resigned the SNP whip and thus left the SNP and the SNP Westminster parliamentary party no choice as they could not allow a member to represent the party who has resigned the whip. An action that automatically makes the member a former member as an independent?

  162. Ghillie says:

    Excellent point Mr Peffers.

    What we did see, and it enraged the unionist press and media, is that Michelle Thomson’s SNP friends and colleagues stood by her, enveloped her in their midst in Westminster and supported her throughout.

    Michelle behaved with honour and political savy when she resigned the Whip.

    Proper miscreants of other parties have had their ill deeds swept under the carpet and are allowed to resume as if little of any importance has ever happened.

    This needs repeated until it sinks in:

    Michelle Thomson is innocent of any wrong doing.

  163. SOG says:

    Right now the Grauniad website is still saying ‘Prosecutors drop fraud case’.

    If MT wants to start a crowdfunder for a legal claim, then I’m in.

  164. louis.b.argyll says:

    Damn fine Journalism Rev.

    The BBC hopes that by smearing individuals they will convince more than just a few forever.

    They will soon discover though, that the law gets in the way of their BLATANTLY OBVIOUS quest for UK supremacy.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top