Twitter yesterday was full of SNP MPs crowing about having been elected exactly one year ago, something achieved on the back of a pledge to “STOP BREXIT” and put Scotland’s future in its own hands. But curiously, none of the pics any of them posted with their tweets depicted the party’s main campaign slogan.
Which, y’know, is pretty understandable.
For much of last year, this site advocated a rational but unpopular position – namely that the SNP, which at the time held the balance of power in the UK parliament, should offer to support Theresa May’s soft-Brexit deal in exchange for the transfer of powers to hold a second independence referendum.
The logic was clear – nothing was ever going to stop Brexit from happening, but passing May’s deal would save the UK from the catastrophe of a no-deal. Everyone would be a winner – England and Wales would get what they voted for, Remain-voting Northern Ireland would get special terms that kept it in the EU in all but name, and Scotland would get the chance to stay in the EU as an independent nation.
“But no!”, everyone screamed at us. “We can’t possibly do any sort of deal with the Tories or we’d be electorally crucified and lose the referendum, you idiots!”
Record scratch, jump-cut to the present day.
[Pause for long, weary sigh.]
It’s weird. Less than 24 hours ago, we were being firmly told that a vote in the Scottish Parliament was an insignificant, indeed “meaningless”, choice between two words that meant exactly the same thing and were “interchangeable”.
So when the Parliament decided last night, by an overwhelming 113-9 margin, which of the two words it wanted to use, you’d imagine that that’d be no big deal and everyone would shrug it off in a casual, indifferent sort of way, right?
The list below is a much, much shorter one than we were expecting to run. In the end, just nine MSPs voted today against Johann Lamont’s amendment on forensic medical examinations, with one abstention. The amendment passed by a margin of 104 votes after SNP MSPs voted in favour, with only the Greens and Lib Dems opposed.
Every last one of them is a disgusting coward who doesn’t care about the feelings of rape victims and we’re ashamed to share a nationality with them.
We note in passing that all but one are male, and that the list includes all (excepting Alison Johnstone, currently absent from Parliament recovering from an operation) of the Scottish Greens, the party which has – by choice – the lowest proportion of women in the Parliament. The Lib Dems, of course, are second lowest, in every sense.
We’ve had plenty to say already this week about the amendment that will be debated at Holyrood this afternoon. So instead we’re going to present you today with the case for each side, as made by two Scottish women on Twitter in the last few hours, and let you decide for yourselves whose argument is the more compelling.
First up, in favour of the amendment, is Scotsman writer Gina Davidson.
The Scottish Parliament website has just published a letter from Peter Murrell following his appearance at the Salmond inquiry yesterday.
The media is focusing on Murrell’s continued evasion of the question of his WhatsApp usage (Murrell bizarrely states he has several messaging apps installed on his phone but uses none of them), but there’s a much more interesting revelation in the second of the letter’s two sections.
This is a direct, unambiguous and categorical statement from the First Minister that the investigation into the false allegations against Salmond was a Scottish Government matter that was absolutely nothing to do with the SNP.
Her failure to record the use of her private office at the Scottish Parliament to discuss the issue on 29 March 2018 (despite repeated denials that such a thing happened at all), and to take minutes of that discussion and of subsequent meetings at her home to consider the issue, and her numerous statements that the matter was private party business (now revealed by Murrell to be false) are all therefore indisputably breaches of the Ministerial Code.
The net draws ever tighter.
This site and other gender-critical voices are regularly accused of being “obsessed” with trans issues, even though the subject has been mentioned in fewer than 0.7% of Wings posts. But this week the SNP’s transgender faction – when it hasn’t been STILL raging about its battering in the NEC elections – has been swamping social media with organised complaints about a tiny prospective legislative change that they themselves insist doesn’t actually matter at all.
But wait a minute – that’s not true, is it?
For anyone hoping for an outbreak of sanity and decency, this is a bad sign.
Rape Crisis Scotland, who are almost entirely dependent on the Scottish Government for funding, have chosen this evening to wade into the debate over the wording of a new law which is intended to lessen the trauma of people (nearly all women) who’ve been raped. We can only speculate as to whether they were pressured to do so, but the intervention seems likely only to pour petrol on the fire.
Well, we need to qualify that quite a lot.
In his evidence to a Holyrood inquiry today, having been asked about some troubling WhatsApp messages concerning the case from 2018 which appeared to suggest the possibility of a conspiracy against the former First Minister, Murrell told members of the committee “I’m not on WhatsApp, it’s not a social media platform I use”.
Alert readers will have noticed a very careful use of the present tense there.
We’ve now filed a formal complaint with the Scottish Information Commissioner about this, because what we’d forgotten last week was that our original request was actually sent in September and it’s now been almost 60 working days with no sign of a proper response, not the 20 it’s supposed to take.
Because for some reason the Scottish Government REALLY doesn’t want you to know what the First Minister and Geoff Aberdein talked about in March 2018, and we think that you probably should.
We don’t normally like to devote much time on Wings to things that have been more than adequately covered elsewhere in the media, which is why you haven’t read much here about eg the Internal Market Bill. Unlike some we don’t see much point spending our limited human resources telling people stuff they already know and agree with.
But we’re going to make an exception for this next thing, which was already covered pretty well by Susan Dalgety in last week’s Scotsman, because (a) a lot of our readers, quite reasonably, will have an instinctively adverse reaction to either anything printed in the Scotsman or anything written by Susan Dalgety, and (b) a number of people have asked us to amplify this issue because it’s so important and so awful.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
