The Scottish political arena is a funny place at the moment. Never before in modern history has there been so much dangerous hypocrisy, particularly on social media.
And what’s equally dangerous is that right now this hypocrisy is being doubled by a notion that independence of thought is a dangerous quality in a political movement that seeks to gain independence for a nation.
We couldn’t see any other outcome than this as soon as the decision was passed to the SPCB, because the Unionist parties have the majority of votes on it.
So it looks as though the Scottish Government’s desperate stalling is finally at an end, and two months after it was supposed to have happened we’re all about to have a very interesting day indeed. We can’t wait.
I first joined this union in roughly 1992. On the very few occasions that I’ve sought its assistance it’s been worse than useless, but I’ve retained membership for most of the period because I believe in the principle of trade unions.
However, there are limits, and they’ve just been breached.
The following article by Conor Matchett appears in today’s Scotsman:
It’s a pretty standard anti-Wings smear piece, except for this bit:
which is simply a flat-out lie. We can’t speak for Kenny MacAskill, but we do know for sure that Wings has NOT been contacted for comment by Mr Matchett.
We’d happily have provided a quote if we HAD been asked, to give the lazy hatchet job (perhaps “Matchett job”) at least a minimal veneer of balance and fairness as a boost to the badly-ailing paper’s “trusted, fact-checked journalism”. Since we’re banned from Twitter, perhaps someone could pass that on to Mr Matchett.
In the meantime, Wings readers should look forward to some more posts from SNP politicians, which we’ll be publishing later today.
It would be improper not to note that in addition to this:
…Darren McGarvey has contacted me directly by email this evening with what I take to be a sincere apology, which I’ve accepted as such.
(It was a private communication and won’t be reproduced here.)
I have no problem at all with people disliking me and saying so – I’m hardly a shrinking violet – but I can’t abide hypocrisy, which is what the massive pile-on from friends of Neil Mackay yesterday amounted to, and while I couldn’t give the slightest toss about the opinions of the people involved, even one person doing the decent thing over what was said deserves to be acknowledged. While I’m sure that we’ll continue to disagree profoundly and strongly on many or most things, what’s right is right.
It contains nothing that those who listened in on the case by telephone last week didn’t hear for themselves – it’s simply an 11-page summary of what was debated in court and casts no new light on what Lady Dorrian said at the time.
We’ll be very interested to see whether or not The Spectator – or perhaps more to the point its lawyers, who we must presume had vetted and cleared the initial publication just as Alex Salmond’s lawyers had – now feels able to restore the redacted paragraph that it removed after what it can now be publicly revealed was a threat from the Crown Office (a threat also received by this website).
The magazine’s response today is non-committal on the subject.
While it is this site’s belief that the paragraph in question DOES NOT identify anyone as a complainer – the Crown Office has not communicated which “other evidence” it feels could be combined with the paragraph, which makes no reference whatsoever to the criminal case, to provide identification – the restoration of the missing paragraph would certainly appear to provide circumstantial evidence to that effect, something which would be entirely due to the intervention of the Crown Office.
But overall, the needless delay in publishing this document has merely run down the clock on the inquiry by another week – time that it can ill afford – without providing any real additional clarity.
(We’re a bit puzzled as to why The Spectator’s counsel appears to have given up so easily on the second element of their application, which sought to specifically permit the publication of both Salmond and Geoff Aberdein’s written evidence.)
The fact that the judgement wasn’t released yesterday probably means, at a minimum, no more evidence sessions until next week, as the committee generally only meets on Tuesdays. We hope that doesn’t become a crucial issue, but we fear that the written judgement is sufficiently tepid that the crooked SNP members of the committee, and the spineless Andy Wightman, will use it to justify rejecting Salmond’s evidence and therefore hearing from him in person, rendering the entire undertaking moot anyway.
Michael P on How Far To Go, How Far: “Breathtaking – that Tribunal Judge has written himself into a whole world of trouble. It is a real concern that…” Dec 12, 15:44
100%Yes on How Far To Go, How Far: “My understanding is you can only make an appeal if you have a point of law. The judge might have…” Dec 12, 15:44
Rev. Stuart Campbell on How Far To Go, How Far: “I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN” Dec 12, 15:42
100%Yes on How Far To Go, How Far: “I honestly would love to see other women and organizations put their weight behind her appeal. This needs sort and…” Dec 12, 15:38
AdamH on How Far To Go, How Far: “I don’t know which is more unbelievable 1) That a judgement could contain so many errors 2) That even if…” Dec 12, 15:24
Stuart MacKay on How Far To Go, How Far: “The whole thing reeks of AI slop. You’d have to be especially retarded to write “Not For Gays” – good…” Dec 12, 15:20
holymacmoses on How Far To Go, How Far: “Make sure you’re credited for all this research and analysis Mr Wings. The judgement was bizarre if not cynical in…” Dec 12, 15:19
DaveL on How Far To Go, How Far: “‘The laws an ass’, that’ll be regarded as a top notch compliment now.” Dec 12, 15:13
Terry on How Far To Go, How Far: “You have two Problem 3’s. Best not to have errors when criticising the errors of others. Anyway, keep up the…” Dec 12, 15:13
Gordon Bain on How Far To Go, How Far: “Utterly shameful! It’s also interesting that even the Record can’t use English properly. “nurse Sandie”? FFS! Nurse Peggie, surely. As…” Dec 12, 15:09
Stu on How Far To Go, How Far: “I mean, I’m sure no actual judge would do the following, so I’m talking about a hypothetical judge in a…” Dec 12, 15:08
Captain Caveman on Strike One: “I am the bearer of good news, Northy: No one is trying to kill you – or your imaginary Pictish…” Dec 12, 14:34
Jay on How Far To Go, How Far: “What, if any, provisions exist for public funding of Mrs. Peggie’s costs? Will we see the day when a Judge…” Dec 12, 14:12
Sven on How Far To Go, How Far: “Yet again, I feel the MSM are following where our host leads.” Dec 12, 14:07
Northcode on Strike One: “Hi Marky, Try not be a humungous bore on here today… oops, too late, Marky. And I don’t hate the…” Dec 12, 14:04
Bruce Williamson on Strike One: “Has nobody questioned what a Doctor is doing in a Nurses area in the first place. Pretty sure the pecking…” Dec 12, 14:01
sarah on How Far To Go, How Far: “More excellent analysis, Rev. Thank you. [typo – there’s two number 3 problems.]” Dec 12, 13:56
Southernbystander on Strike One: “Thanks NC. This is the original German: ‘Schießt um die gehörte Musik die Zeit zum strahlenden Kristall zusammen, so fällt…” Dec 12, 13:48
Northcode on Strike One: “No problem, Jay. Your comment was very clear. I knew fine well that your comment wasn’t directed at me. I…” Dec 12, 13:40
Giesabrek on How Far To Go, How Far: ““Scotland in 2025 is a country where pretty much nobody is actually responsible of accountable for anything” Should be “responsible…” Dec 12, 13:35
Mark Beggan on Strike One: “Hi Northy, ‘Colonizing agents’ Seriously? It doesn’t matter how you dress it up Northy. You just can’t get that hatred…” Dec 12, 13:27
Jay on Strike One: “Hi Northcode, Going back to spoiler alert, my reference to unconstructive comments was not directed at you but at your…” Dec 12, 12:48
Northcode on Strike One: “I like this comment of yours, Oh, Southern one. Yes… the original German might be useful, and interesting, too. Thanks,…” Dec 12, 12:05
James Cheyne on Strike One: “The Scottish judges may be knobbled, however due to the pre terms, conditions and articles, one of the major reasons…” Dec 12, 11:41
Southernbystander on Strike One: “Regarding the fate of comment consigned to the silent void, as Theodor W. Adorno said about music that is written…” Dec 12, 11:35
Captain Caveman on Strike One: “A truly astonishing read (not in a good way). Just incredible. What an utter shit show. Time to clear the…” Dec 12, 11:35
Liz on Strike One: “They can’t blame typos as the stupid judge took notes in longhand, causing everyone to slow down with their responses.…” Dec 12, 11:32
A2 on The ginger stepchild: “thing is , If you realise indi isn’t going to be happening any time soon, then you will prioritise things…” Dec 12, 11:21
Northcode on Strike One: “Associating the SNP with Scottish independence and the independence movement is now a popular anti-Scots unionist tactic. There are only…” Dec 12, 11:08