The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Updates and continuations

Posted on February 18, 2021 by

While we wait for this story to unfold:

Let’s catch up on a few things. Scottish politics is moving very fast at the moment, and if you don’t stop and look around you might miss stuff.

The latest news on our first story of this morning is that weirdly, Scotsman hack Conor Matchett – rather than, just for example, using the proper contact details his paper holds for this site to actually get a quote from us – has been constructing a somewhat unconvincing case that he DID try to get in touch with us yesterday, based on the fact that he supposedly at least visited our Contact page.

As far as we can ascertain he’s made no attempt to actually send us a message today, though. Meanwhile, a number of readers have taken it upon themselves to send test messages via the form, all of which miraculously managed to get through just fine.

In other news, we unreservedly recommend the second part of Gordon Dangerfield’s epic investigation “A Very Scottish Coup” about the Salmond affair.

And also this concise (18m) but powerful interview with Craig Murray:

We keenly await the adjudication of the SPCB, after which we hope to squeeze in two further articles that are currently in the queue. Keep up as best you can, folks.

Print Friendly

    88 to “Updates and continuations”

    1. Gerry Mcghee says:

      Stu, given the amount of crap coming your way just wanted to take a minute to express my admiration , respect and indeed, need for you work. Thank you, so, so much!

    2. Dave Llewellyn says:

      This pile on has seriously upped your work rate Rev. You will be needing to broadsheet at this rate to keep up.

    3. Black Joan says:

      Wings — a journalist actually worthy of the name in these dark times, and too good for the NUJ.

    4. Stephen says:

      Well done! You do us all a great service with your work! The only reason they come for you is that they fear the truth

    5. carjamtic says:

      Fantastic Stuart

      What an absolutely brilliant team of people posting on here and the other great blogs,Scotland will be forever indebted.

      #BringingItAllHome

      😉

    6. Giesabrek (the original) says:

      Matchett is bullsh*tting. Just tested there and the Contacts page appears twice in the browser history, first when you’re filling in the form and second after you hit the submit button and you’re redirected back to the Contact page. At best he forgot to hit the Submit button, something every contact form ever created requires…

    7. Bob Mack says:

      Dangerfield dissects the case like a master Surgeon dissects a patient.
      It is positively enlightening when you even just read his blogs to date. I am looking forward to part 3 and 4.

    8. Willie Jay says:

      I simply have to repeat the message posted by Gerry Mcghee:
      Stu, given the amount of crap coming your way just wanted to take a minute to express my admiration , respect and indeed, need for you work. Thank you, so, so much!

      And I will personally repeat that simple message, “Thank you, so, so much!”

    9. Captain Yossarian says:

      I can only add my gratitude and admiration for the work you are doing on our behalf.

      I notice Conor Matchett doesn’t attempt a clumsy attempt at the reputation of the excellent Gordon Dangerfield.

      Andrew Neil is working to the same end as both of you. Conor Matchett doesn’t attempt to go after him either.

      I suspect Conor Matchett is just another muckle tool of the Junta. Just like Andy Wightman.

      By the way, Andrew Neil is quiet just now. I don’t think that is because he is doing nothing.

    10. James Carroll says:

      If Alex does attend I hope he tears right into those useless sheep. SNP/Wightman whitewash at the expense of our public funds….

    11. Robert graham says:

      I know that it’s a very early but the recent spat about Facebook unfriending Australia if that even makes any sense , a really funny term has been doing the rounds.

      Trusted News Outlets , yep Trusted , fk me now that lot are really taking the piss

      The reaction from the Australian Government to Facebook declining to pay News outlets in order to carry their published news stories has really upset them I didn’t know Facebook was a source of news I assumed it was just people showing other people what they had for their dinner and ads for dodgy E/Bay stuff , oh well you live and learn don’t you , Facebook for News now that’s different eh

    12. AwakeNotWoke says:

      Thanks mate.

    13. Paddy Hogg says:

      As a former SNP councillor (now Independent) I am flabbergasted at the nasty invective towards Wings for Scotland from Bella Caledonia which I wrote for a couple of times. Stu here has done investigative journalism of the best kind, getting tot he truth only and to hell with egos and party prejudice. NS is NOT Scotland. Being critical of her actions honestly and accurately is not attacking the Yes Movement. What is emerging from this tragic saga is that NS was never up to the job of winning indy for Scotland and hung on the coat tails of Alex for a few years then was overjoyed and unable to deliver and loved the power and attention. Possessed with this she learned to ACT the part with soundbite applause and played the Yes Camp as her toy puppets of which I was a believer until the mist fell and cleared. Corruption is rancid in her government. Gordon Dangerfield has exposed it better than anyone and Wings are fearless in the best kind of journalism lacking in the paper press. Sturgeon should stand down and end the embarrassing white wash farce of a committee of Stooges as Gordon has said today. NS has become a ("Tractor" - Ed) to her cause by moving her lips and meaning none of it. Her treachery towards Alex is worthy of Macbeth due to her insecurity and desire to keep him out of politics or working for RT and she sought to get him Jailed for years for crimes trumped up by a few cronies which were dismissed by a real court. Fabianni’s committee is a joke than disgraces Scotland. Keep it coming at Wings. Ive cancelled my links with Bella in disgust

    14. Captain Yossarian says:

      Dear@ElectoralCommUK
      ‘I have been a parliamentary observer at many elections around the world. If we had discovered an election as rigged as the one you are silent about in Scotland we would have been on the first plane home denouncing the poll as a farce.’

      GEORGE GALLOWAY

    15. ITB71B says:

      lack Joan says:
      18 February, 2021 at 2:25 pm
      “Wings — a journalist actually worthy of the name in these dark times……”

      I second that. What ever side of the independence debate you are on, there is only one journo telling the truth. And that’s here.

    16. Robert graham says:

      I wonder how the committee are going to keep Alex on Script how are they going to make sure he doesn’t tell the whole world the truth
      Handcuffs
      Cattle prod
      Taser
      10 minute delay in live coverage
      Or a trusted Power Cut ?
      Power cuts 2-1 on ” latest odds ” all the rest even money

    17. Lynne says:

      Haven’t read all the comments on both threads yet, but a few days ago, people were reporting difficulties sharing Wings articles, as anything with a Wings URL was being binned by Virgin Media as spam. (Tested it myself & my email client refused to send it.)
      I’ve sent a test message including URL via the contact form, so Stu can check if that’s the problem.

    18. EPT says:

      Is it the case that if certain politicians are trying to stop people from reading your blog that they actually don’t like people reading the truth? Cos if that is the case then that’s really very worrying!! It should be a concern to everyone! What is it with politicians and truth?

      They do realise its fabby publicity for you though. The more they talk about you on twit twat they more everyone is like ‘oh il go and read Wings’ lts like the beefy bake advert. Go and follow it through!!!

    19. kapelmeister says:

      That second installment of Dangerfield’s is required reading. Cool, clear and as concise as possible whilst retaining all the necessary information.

    20. kapelmeister says:

      We do have our Woodwards and Bernsteins in Scotland. They just work in the blogosphere and not in the MSM.

    21. Captain Yossarian says:

      @kapelmeister – most of them do, but we also have Andrew Neil, Fraser Nelson and Stephen Daisley who all work for The Spectator.

      That turnip Pete Wishart hounded Daisley out of his job when he was with the BBC. Daisley may well come back and bite him on his flacid arse.

    22. Hugh Jarse says:

      It would be folly for those who would control us to assume that the virus is going to stop people from getting near them to protest.
      If 1% of the readership were to decide enough was enough, Charlotte Sq would be a busy place. If 1% of the good guys for indy were to organize, Holyrood would be surrounded!

      A sane-headed government would think twice, before crossing any more lines.

    23. Marc Rich says:

      What are the Redacted emails in the above? Why have you blanked out the entire subject and sender etc from a number of emails?

      What are you hiding there?

    24. jomry says:

      Ref VIRGINMEDIA blockage of Wings URLS
      I and others became aware of this last Sunday. I made a formal complaint to VM a few days ago as any link to Wings site in incoming and outgoing emails was being blocked. This was still the case last night. However, although I have not received a response to my complaint, the blockage now seems to be cleared.

    25. Lenny Hartley says:

      What Gerry Mcghee said , thanks Stuart, really appreciate the work u do and the thanks for taking all the shit you have to put up with to get the truth out to the wider world.

    26. John Martini says:

      Even the conservatives in england are getting it. It’s just a matter of time.

      “The atmosphere of sleaze, I called it corruption (in the Chamber)…the atmosphere, the smell, the sense that something is rotten, something is going wrong, is growing. It’s growing more palpable. We can all smell it – we can all see it.”

    27. robertknight says:

      The thing to remember about MSM hacks is he who pays the piper…

      They’re not really investigative or honest brokers of ‘news & current affairs’ for the most part… they simply produce what they’re told to produce or that which they know will get the nod from their editor. They also have mortgages to pay etc.

      Honest journos are to be found outside the MSM. They live or die by their own penmanship and integrity. They’re not bought and sold with the promise of someone else’s gold.

      Keep up the good work Stu! 🙂

    28. David Morgan says:

      well, its took a while but am convinced

    29. Captain Yossarian says:

      @John Martini – When the government corrupts the legal profession and tells them ‘this is the way it work’…..then we are all fucked, I’m afraid.

      The saps of the legal profession have it coming to them now. Their profession is shit – full to running over with political affiliations and consequential shit.

    30. Frank Gillougley says:

      Good soldier Svejk that I am, I have been keeping up dutifully.

      The one thing that sings out in Gordon Dangerfields part two is the creation by Leslie Evans of the back story post of ‘pastoral care’ given to Barbara Allison to cover why witness B had initially contacted her.

      Aye, right.

      There must have been psychological studies carried out about the social phenomena of why employees of government assume that everyone else outwith that set of people are entirely stupid.

    31. Daisy Walker says:

      OT favour

      I need to re-read Dani Giavalli’s article about the Salmond Trial. The one published by Turquoise…

      At the moment I only get the first paragraph before it greys out.

      Does anyone know if it was archived, or can they point me to the Rev’s article about it?

      Many thanks

    32. kapelmeister says:

      The Fabiani committee is a Subject committee of the parliament, as distinct from a Mandatory committee. Members of the Mandatory committees can, I believe, submit minority reports. It’s unclear if a minority report can be submitted from a Subject committee. Does anyone know? Could Baillie, Fraser and Cole-Hamilton give a joint minority report? If they could then would they?

    33. Strathy says:

      Another excellent interview by Tommy Sheridan. Craig Murray is a man of integrity and bravery.

      Part two of Gordon Dangerfield’s forensic (a much over-used term, but correct in this case) investigation is every bit as impressive as the first.

      And at the opposite end of the scale – surely even a half-arsed journalist like Conor Matchett would keep a copy of a request for comment, in order to avoid being exposed as a little liar.

    34. kapelmeister says:

      Frank Gillougley @3:17

      Yes Frank, that was the nub of Gordon’s Pt2 I’d say.

      Pastoral care! That’s a prize winning euphemism.

      Liked the Svejk reference btw.

    35. Could Conor no just be schtoopit, as my granny used to say

      `there is a want about him` ,

      don`t really know what that means but i sort of do.

    36. orri says:

      Does the contact page send a message to let you know you’ve actually sent the email?

    37. Kit Bee says:

      Funny coz I read Gavialli’s blog on the Trial just a few days ago and had no probs. Has it just been removed?? Lots of information on the various ‘ claims’ by the Alpha sisters. I have suspicions.

    38. MaggieC says:

      Re the above tweet from Philip Sim ,

      “ have agreed.to have another meeting in the afternoon. The dance continues “
      .
      Instead of “ the dance continues “

      It should be “ the FARCE continues “
      .

      Rev Stuart Campbell ,

      Thank you for all that you do for all of us who want to see the truth being reported .

    39. Kit Bee says:

      uJst had a look again at Dani Garavelli’s blog and the article is still there. Worth reading for the information contained.

    40. Daisy Walker says:

      @ Frank Gillougley says:
      18 February, 2021 at 3:17 pm

      Good soldier Svejk that I am, I have been keeping up dutifully.

      The one thing that sings out in Gordon Dangerfields part two is the creation by Leslie Evans of the back story post of ‘pastoral care’ given to Barbara Allison to cover why witness B had initially contacted her.

      It makes no sense to have 2 points of contact for the reporting of complaints.

      If however, Ms B’s complaint was clearly one of criminality, it would make a lot of sense to ensure she was dealt with a well meaning soul, who did not understand the seriousness of what was being reported, and in that way, the whole thing could be dealt with internally, and by means of employment law.

      Then when making the alleged perpetrator aware of the complaints – if you do not inform him of the exact nature of the complaints (AS was not provided the complainers statements – just Leslie Evans rewording of same), or the identify of the complainers – you can continue to maximise sabre rattling leverage using the civil legislation, without having to do a proper criminal investigation – that could and did show the whole thing to be groundless.

      It is really unclear if for the civil complaints A and B they amounted to criminality or were clearly civil, and when handed to Crown Agency/Police traced the additional complainers or were they too handed over to Crown Agency.

      This is important, if the first 2 complaints handed to Police did not amount to criminality. Police Scotland Had No Powers or Rights to further investigate.

      The correct course of action should have been for them to refer complainers back to civil legislation, and qualified advocacy services and record the incident as Intelligence, in case of further – more serious – complaints coming in at a future date.

      Let me paint this senario – a work colleague accuses another of deliberately ‘accidentally/on purpose’ brushing against her, however the work set up involves a narrow corridoor and both parties need to move back and forth in the context of work purposes.

      Other work colleagues have not seen anything untoward. No other work colleagues have any issue.

      The boss, receives the complaint, does not know what to do, contacts Police.

      Police investigate, cannot prove a crime has been committed, however from background checks they are aware the suspect has a conviction for indecent assault.

      They should record the complaint as intelligence. They should make the suspect aware of the complaint.

      What they are not allowed to do is, on the basis of that, set up a 22 officer team, carry out over 400 interviews, over an 18 month period, in the off chance they find another person who wants to make a complaint.

      If they could not substantiate a crime in the first instance, they are not entitled to go on a giant fishing exercise.

      Its illegal.

    41. orri says:

      If what I thought I learned recently is true then this isn’t just a plot against Salmond but one of the instigators might happily see the back of Sturgeon too. Or I suppose I could just be trying to induce a bit of paranoia. It all depends on if/when Sturgeon leaves the FM role and who gets elected in May. Might also explain some of the ire at even the possibility of Kate Forbes gaining enough popularity to have a chance at the role.

    42. Milady says:

      I confess I don’t have much time for Tommy Sheridan but this interview with Craig Murray was an interesting listen.

    43. Tenruh says:

      Daisy,
      I think you’ll find it on Craig Murrays site, early April last year

    44. holymacmoses says:

      Hi Daisy

      https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2020/04/01/dani-garavelli-alex-salmond-verdict-scotland/

      This is reading through for me – have a shot. You have to delete the first bit of http:// and then put it in on the search bar. I’m using Google search and I assume you meant Tortoise

      Hope this helps – love your posts.

      Daisy Walker says:
      18 February, 2021 at 3:18 pm
      OT favour

      I need to re-read Dani Giavalli’s article about the Salmond Trial. The one published by Turquoise…

      At the moment I only get the first paragraph before it greys out.

      Does anyone know if it was archived, or can they point me to the Rev’s article about it?

      Many thanks

    45. Margaret Lindsay says:

      Again what Gerry McGhee said.
      Thank you.

    46. Dave Llewellyn says:

      Wings Over Scotland
      Not afraid to call a spad a spad.
      Oops typo COPFS.

    47. Frank Gillougley says:

      Kapelmeister 3.25

      Yes, ‘pastoral care’ would also fit into the pattern of corporate/government schpeak thieving from the ecclesiastical lexicon, with the equally obnoxious ‘synergy’ doing the rounds a while back.

      Even reading the language of those government emails makes me feel physically ill. Leslie Evans comes across as some piece of work, one of those devoid of a central nervous system.

    48. Captain Yossarian says:

      The full text of Alex Salmond’s submission to the James Hamilton Inquiry is on The Spectator website just now.

      In it, Alex spells out how the Ministerial Code was broken.

      Hence, the worthies of Holyrood cannot allow it to be published and discussed or else they will need a new FM just before the election.

    49. Red Molly says:

      Wanted to add to the chorus of thanks. It’s been so disheartening lately, Wings is one of my few islands of sanity!

    50. Daisy Walker says:

      Re the Dani article, thanks folks.

      I get to the page, I get to the article, and all I can read is the first paragraph.

      What I’m trying to find out – without names for obvious reasons, is what letters were allocated (in the criminal trial) to complainers A and B of the civil harassment complaints.

      I’ve been told it is within her article, but cannot access it for some complex computer reason.

      I don’t need job titles and I especially don’t want names.

    51. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Which election in Scotland is The Twat in the Hat on about @Captain Yossarian says at 2:50 pm?

      It reads as one which has happened.

      He is only interested in self promotion and plays the division card (Catholic vs Protestant as Labour; Muslim populace vs English Nationalists in Bradford with Respect and now BritNat vs Scottish Independence).

      Notice he was OK with the result of IndyRef 1 – despite record breaking turn out %s and suspicions around the postal vote (presumably because he was happy with the result).

      He never gets called a “Kremlin Stooge” by the BritNat MSM like Salmond does despite having a show on RT either.

      You have to admire George’s indefatigability at trying to get elected so he can look after No. 1!

      😉

    52. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Daisy Walker.

      Garavelli – archived.

      http://archive.is/dnNrM

    53. Lynne says:

      jomry says:
      18 February, 2021 at 3:10 pm
      Ref VIRGINMEDIA blockage of Wings URLS

      Cleared for me, too. But if it was still blocked last night, that may explain things. Wonder if Matchett uses VM…

    54. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Jockanese Wind Talker – From Salmond’s evidence: “The First Minister told Parliament that she first learned of the complaints against me when I visited her home on 2nd April 2018. That is untrue and is a breach of the Ministerial Code.”

      You don’t have to like him or agree with him on most things, but he is right on this occassion, isn’t he.

      For months we have been told by John Swinney that we need to proceed carefully in line with legal advice. We now have legal advice, this time it is not secret for the eyes of John Swinney only, this time it has been published. It is not complex and we can all understand it. What therefore is the problem?

      George Galloway doesn’t annoy me particularly. Everyone has a right to speak. He choses his battle grounds carefully so that he ends up on the right side of the arguement. Does it not therefore seem strange that he has chosen this subject to fight the SNP on. Could it be that he is right and the SNP is wrong.

      What annoys me is James Wolffe QC smiling and laughoing his way through the Fabiani Inquiry hearing. A fly-man.

    55. ScottieDog says:

      I do hope Craig is never in the position of contesting an election from prison but it was an interesting point made by Tommy Sheridan.

    56. Daisy Walker says:

      Thanks Brian – got the answer now.

    57. Ian Mac says:

      Well, Matchett, it’s never too late to correct your mistake. You can do a follow up with a proper Wings interview. After all, as a journalist one would presume you are interested in reporting all sides of the debate, and Wings has covered issues about independence you and your colleagues never have. Or do you just prefer digging for stuff you can pimp as ‘hate’, when the SNP minions spend all day churning the stuff out. When for instance are you and the minions going to take the hate against Joanna Cherry seriously, and it sources? Or is that off the agenda for political reasons. Man up, and do some actual reporting, instead of regurgitating the party line.

    58. Breastplate says:

      ScottieDog,
      I found that interesting too, I for one would vote for Craig Murray with zeal if he was my representative.

    59. James Horace says:

      Never before have I seen an official Ghanaian Governmemt account cause so much rage within the Scottish trans community.

    60. Denise says:

      Woo how Salmond’s evidence will be published

    61. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      So Galloway was commenting on the Fabiani Inquiry not an election @ Captain Yossarian says at 4:06 pm

      Your comment confused me as it attributes the statement “If we had discovered an election as rigged as the one you are silent about in Scotland” to GG

      I wanted to know what election I’d missed voting in.

    62. Sylvia says:

      The Poisonous Feud Threatening Scotland’s Independence Drive

      An article from the NEW YORK TIMES

      https://archive.is/D8orE

    63. Betsy says:

      Wightman abstained due to being on the committee so with that obstacle removed it’s evidence time.

      https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1362441837919764480

    64. kapelmeister says:

      Sturgeon’s people arranging ‘pastoral care’ lolz. I’ve got an image of the FM now as a shepherdess with her crook.

      Her crook of course being Murrell.

    65. Hugh Jarse says:

      Bo peeps about to lose her sheep K!

    66. Cath says:

      Apparently the Corporate Body has now “agreed it is possible” to publish Salmond’s evidence. It’s a measure of my faith that I’m reading that as “It’s possible, just as it is possible you will win the lottery on Saturday. However on balance we have decided not to”.

    67. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Betsy – Fabulous news.

    68. A Person says:

      Well, fair play to Andy Wightman then, when the push came to shove he seems to have done the right thing- unless I’m being naive?

    69. Skip_NC says:

      Kaplemeister, I was about to eat lunch when I read your comment. My keyboard and computer monitor express their undying gratitude that I had not.

    70. Daisy Walker says:

      Re NS Inquiry.

      When did 2 complainers become 9?

      There’s a problem.

      Of the intial 2 A/B complainers for the civil harassment complaints.

      One is alleging AS grabbed her bum at Stirling Castle. Multiple witnesses at the event disproved this allegations.

      At which point the Police investigatin into that aspect should have stopped. Certainly not enough to charge.

      The second complaint of harassment is the ‘sleepy cuddle’ incident, for which AS apologised in the morning and which the complainer already informed her line manager and it was all recorded.

      It was either downplayed at the time, or dealt with fully at the time and later on this complainer added further information to the complaint.

      It would be really instructive to know if the exact nature of her complaint to Scot Gov changed from November 2017, to September 2018 (when Police took over the enquiry).

      If, at the start it was the full extent, then it means the Civil Service, and then the First Minister, have been attempting to ‘deal’ with AS and an allegation of attempted rape, by means of civil employment law!

      If on the other hand, it was an allegation of inappropriate harassment type behaviour, but when Police attended, ‘new evidence’ was introduced… that would have justified the Police doing their great big fishing expedition.

    71. Mia says:

      “This is important, if the first 2 complaints handed to Police did not amount to criminality. Police Scotland Had No Powers or Rights to further investigate”

      Daisy, bear in mind that, according to what woman H said during the criminal trial, she communicated the SNP HQ her complaint on the 5th November 2017, that was before woman A and B issued their formal complaints. Woman H’s issued one the most serious complaints – attempted rape. We do not know when that complaint was reported to the police and would be very interesting to know.

      What we do know is the response she got from SNP HQ: “We’ll sit on that and hope we never need to deploy it.” Well, they obviously sat on it and then deployed it, so here is the question, how long did they sat on it and how long it took from that point in November to report the complaint to the police? Was that before or after Mr Salmond threatened with launching the judicial review?

      I am not mistaken, it was on the 31st October 2017, well before the “concerns” of Woman A and B in the civil case had even been communicated to anybody in Government or Woman H had contacted the SNP HQ with her complaint, that Ms Anne Harvey’s private phone was inundated with text messages asking for information on Mr Salmond. This suggests the fishing expedition had started in earnest well before Woman A and B from the original case or Woman H from the criminal case had formally communicated their complaints.

      Then there is also the complaint put to the police by Ruddick, as she voluntarily acknowledged publicly recently in the press. Complaint that was reported in the press as having been investigated but the police had “insufficient corroborative evidence to charge”. Well, we know the complain referred to an event allegedly taken place in 2008, but what we do not know is when that complaint was made and if she, like Woman H, was also advised “to sit on it and hope not having to deploy it”

      It would be very interesting to have the exact dates each and every one of those women in the criminal case reported their cases to the police or if anybody else reported those complaints to the police on their behalf. It would be very interesting to see how the dates the official complaints were made to the police sit on the timeline of events compared with the starting of the complaints procedure design, Mr Salmond’s lawyers communicating the intention of having a judicial review, and the imminent loss by the S government of the judicial review. It would be wonderful to be able to put in that timeline the first time the Sgov received advice from its own counsel and legal team that they might lose the case.

      What is becoming more and more apparent is that there was an apparent collusion/coordinated action between the Scottish government and the SNP to file those complaints at roughly the same time and just in time for the criminal case to go ahead and Mr Salmond to be arrested just one week after Evans collapsed the civil case. This is important, because by arresting Mr Salmond and effectively initiating the process for the criminal case, the parliamentary inquiry “had to be delayed” for over a year, leaving Sturgeon free to continue stalling indyref, which together with keeping Mr Salmond out of the SNP, was in my opinion the main reason to bring forward the criminal case.

      The SNP and the Sgov must be independent. So who was the link between the SNP and the UK gov civil service that coordinated the complaints through both sides so they converged at the precise moment in time? It cannot be one of the civil servants, so who was the link?

    72. Jim Bo says:

      Never understood why some pro Indy people are all-too happy to hold the feet of opposing MSP’s / MP’s to the fire, as well they should, but when all evidence seems to point to their their own First Minister showing signs of truth distortion/ ambiguity / vagueness & hypocrisy at best and outright lies at worst, they for some reason become reluctant to push for the truth to come out. How shallow is that?

      The FM’s stance is so overwhelmingly suspicious that it beggars belief that even the most ardent SNP fan wouldn’t be suspicious. Is that really the kind of person they want to lead them into an Independent Scotland?

      The continued attack on Wings too, is shocking. Yes, he uses abrasive and direct language. So what? If the best anyone has is to insult him due to the courseness of his language then they’ve clearly already lost the argument. Then again, they know this already; hence the attacks on the Rev’s character.

      It was refreshing to see the acknowledgement of wrongdoing from Loki as well as the follow up from the Rev in return. If only others were willing to admit their errors.

      Keep up the amazing work Stu. I’ve read all your articles from way back in the day and just felt the need to let you know that we’ll continue to support you in your quest for the truth, justice and an independent Scotland.

    73. holymacmoses says:

      quotations from the piece Daisy

      In another part of the country, Woman K – former civil servant and one of the complainants – is working from home when Salmond’s voice suddenly cuts into her kitchen. Instinctively, she covers her ears. “I couldn’t move, I couldn’t hear him gloating. It was a visceral reaction,” she says.

      Woman F – the other original complainant, who never actively sought criminal charges – says the social media backlash is compounding her distress.

    74. Willie says:

      Bella Caledonia started out with good promise. However it now languishes in a dark unloved part of the Web with very very few readers.

      The recent announcement by its emotionally fragile editor Mike Small for crowdfunded comments against Stuart Campbell very much reinforces the turgid off beam oddball journal that Bella has become. But Mike Small probably too emotionally engaged to realise that

      Either that or vaulting jealousy of readership numbers is dementing his well being.

      But either way Bella is an unloved platform that very few visit trying to attract its lost audience.

    75. Confused says:

      dear oh dear – Bella is determined to pursue this vendetta against WOS, now digging up old articles; someone should sit him down and say “leave it aht, mike ‘es not wurf it”

      – I imagine every winger has been over to Bella at some point, craving pro-nationalist news and analysis, then drifted away as only finding its all this weak-piss middle class “indy on the 12 of never” twaddle, in love with itself, huffing its own farts.

      Mike Small should write better articles, if he can. The few decent reads on the site are not written by him at all.

    76. Aulbea1 says:

      Well worthy of my licence fee – at the very least. Thank you very, very much.

    77. TOMMY SHERIDAN says:

      Hi Stu thanks for adding the link to my podcast interview with Craig Murray yesterday to your post. I hope Wings readers will listen to it as Craig was superb despite the severe and concerted pressure he is under https://sptnkne.ws/FvQf. I also applaud your inclusion of the link to Gordon Dangerfield’s latest blog as I believe Gordon’s forensic analysis of the whole Salmond fiasco leaves any reader with a morsel of objective thought and at least one brain cell in no doubt that Alex has indeed been subjected to a coordinated, cruel, callous and criminal conspiracy designed to ruin him politically and steal his liberty. Arguments over the motivation for such a conspiracy and whether it was intended to go as far as it eventually did when first hatched are inevitable and understandable but to deny the existence of a conspiracy is surely now only the preserve of the wilfully blind and deaf and the payroll apparatchiks whose integrity has been traded for salaries and sinecures. However I hope you don’t mind if I also add a link to an article I wrote the other day concerning the impending May Scottish election and the Max The Yes strategy being promoted by myself and the likes of former SNP MSP and pioneer of the independence cause with 50 years membership of the SNP under his belt, Dave Thompson, who has formed Action For Independence (AFI) with the specific purpose of preventing another ridiculous waste of YES votes at this election as happened in 2016 (750,000 List votes, 2nd votes, for the SNP in 6 of the 8 regions five years ago produced ZERO SNP MSPs but did ensure scores of useless numpty unionists were elected to talk down Scotland at every turn). Despite the serious misgivings we all have regarding the competency and integrity of the current SNP leadership I and AFI still advocate 1st vote SNP to win an Indy majority Parliament in the constituencies alone but 2nd vote AFI (or another credible and progressive independence supporting party) to deliver a super-Indy majority and ensure independence is front and centre of the next parliament not an inconvenient afterthought to be dangled at elections to guarantee renewed victories which promise so much but deliver so little. Our aim in the wider independence movement should be the election of a block of independence fundamentalists who form the official opposition after the May election and hold the feet of the SNP government to the fire in relation to delivering Scotland’s freedom. For us independence is not an afterthought but critical to any Covid19 recovery package as without it we face a return to the old normal that abandons far too many citizens to low pay, insecure employment, lousy welfare support, homelessness and poverty amid a country of fantastic natural wealth and resources. We want a new normal not the tired old one that served the needs of the wealthy but not the majority. So please allow me to share this contribution on Wings in the hope that it may be read, considered and generate support and further sharing. Membership of AFI is sought and implementing the Max The Yes strategy in May puts independence at the top of the priority list where it belongs https://sptnkne.ws/FuwY.

    78. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Quick question if you have time Tommy Sheridan

      Will AFI stand in a region where ISP is?

      Wouldn’t want to risk a Yes split when a decisive blow to the Greens and FibDems is a distinct possibly.

      Thanks in advance.

    79. Tommy says:

      In his profile on the Huffington Post, young master Matchett describes himself as “an aspiring writer and political activist based out of London England”.

      One does wonder what form said political activism takes.

    80. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What are the Redacted emails in the above? Why have you blanked out the entire subject and sender etc from a number of emails?

      What are you hiding there?”

      Private personal emails that are none of your fucking business, son.

    81. Alain Mack says:

      BBC Scotland news tonight. Covid,and Beavers in Perth……meanwhile Stu gives us the real news.Well done Stu…..Gin tonight ??

    82. Mia says:

      @Tommy Sheridan

      I fail to understand in light of the level of corruption within the SNP leadership and beyond, and in light of their having no intention to deliver indyref or independence, how it can be considered a good strategy for AFI to encourage us to give our first vote to the SNP.

      How can we progress independence by giving our fist vote to a party that has no intention to deliver independence?

      I hope you forgive me for being this blunt, but at present I think it is an illusion to think that after their wasting 5 years, majorities, mandates and opportunities to deliver indyref, if Sturgeon or Robertson retain control of the SNP and the largest share of the seats in Holyrood, indyref or independence will ever be delivered.

      I think it is more than obvious by now that Sturgeon and Robertson are the establishment candidates. If they weren’t, Sturgeon would have been forced to resign back in January 2019 and we would have a real pro indy leader in place. We might have already become independent if that had been the case.

      I hope you don’t mind me asking, but why is AFI not including in their manifesto a mandate to end the union?

      I appreciate that AFI cannot win a majority of the seats only running in the list, but at this moment in time symbolism is very important for yes voters exhausted after 5 years of deliberate inaction by the SNP. That opportunity could win votes. It would also help to set the record straight: Unless the SNP makes the same move, it will no longer be the most pro independence party in Holyrood. That could be a bold and productive strategy for AFI to gain traction in the GE 2024, because no doubt, if STurgeon’s SNP wins the largest share of the Holyrood seats in May, we will still be welded to England by 2024. To have AFI established as the real pro indy party in Holyrood will put it at an advantage – in 3 years’ time there will be even more fed up yes voters with the inaction of the SNP.

      From the perspective of an ex SNP voter, We have already given a collection of mandates for indyref. So what I want to do now is to vote for independence, Tommy, no for more mandates to hold a vote maybe or maybe not at some undefined point in the future.

      I am puzzled as to why all the allegedly pro indy parties insist in denying us that vote and instead expect us to hand yet another indyref mandate to the party that has already refused to deliver it in the last 5 years. Frankly it seems cruel and counterproductive. I don’t understand the point of that.

      What is the problem in including the end of the union in the manifesto? Because I cannot see one. I am sure I am not the only person that asks how many times do the people in Scotland need to say they want something before they can get it, when England only has to say it once. We already gave a mandate for a vote, so why do we have to give another mandate for a vote if we can have the vote instead?

      If I have to be honest with you, AFI asking us to hand our constituency vote to the SNP puts me right off. I cannot bring myself to vote for a party that has abused my trust for 5 years and has put Scotland in the awkward position it is today with every opportunity to become independent squandered and mired in embarrassment at the level of corruption in our democratic structures, government and prosecution service.

      Because of that, it is very difficult for me to trust a party that is asking me to cast my first vote for the SNP to deliver a mandate that they have already refused to deliver during the previous 5 years.

      It is also very difficult for me to trust a party that instead of fighting for independence themselves, with their own tools, for example by including in their manifesto a mandate to end the union, chooses to ask us to continue relying on the SNP damaged tools and lack of will to deliver indyref. It is like a worthless gamble where you know you stand to lose even before starting.

      If feels like AFI (or ISP) are taking over from the SNP the dangling of the indyref carrot but at the end of the day, it will be always the decision of the SNP to hold it or not. Well, I already know what the SnP’s decision will be, so why should I bother voting AFI or ISP if they have nothing more to offer?

      What I want now is to vote for independence, so what is the real incentive for me to vote AFI or ISP if none of them actually offer me that opportunity and the most they are prepared to offer me is to attempt to persuade the SNP into deliver what they should have delivered 5 years ago?

      Why do we have to wait for indyref to cast our pro indy vote? Why cannot every election be a de facto referendum? What is the problem with allowing the electorate to vote for independence every time they cast a vote for AFI or ISP?

      Why is AFI setting its bar so low as just acting as a mere boost of seats for the SNP when AFI can be the real deal and offer us the opportunity to cast a vote for independence in the list?

      I am sure I am not the only one that sees things this way, so AFI and ISP might be losing a lot of voters with that stance. The position of “SNP1and AFI2 to holding the SNP’s feet to the fire to deliver indyref” may appeal to SNP faithful but it is certainly off-putting for those like me who now want to cast their vote for independence, do no longer believe the SNP will ever progress independence because they have been hijacked by the British state and a fair and honest indyref will never be possible because it will be hijacked by the British state as they did in 2014.

      Thank you very much for taking the time to read this comment.

    83. TOMMY SHERIDAN says:

      Hi Jockanese Wind Talker AFI is committed to standing in all eight regional lists in May. Dave Thompson has tried to initiate discussions around joint approaches with all the smaller independence supporting parties but unfortunately his advances to the ISP have been rebuffed. Others are actively considering their options and announcements on this should be made soon. By standing in every regional list you meet the requirements for Party Political Broadcast to be aired and a post office delivery of prepared and bunched election addresses to each household in Scotland. I hope that answers your question. In relation to Mia the article I attached the link for explains the nexus of the Max The Yes strategy and further explanation and an excellent Report on the mechanics of the regional vote breakdown can be found on the AFI website http://www.afi.scot and I would encourage you to access it and read it. My preference and AFI’s preference would be for the May election to be turned into a plebiscite election with an Indy majority signalling the beginning of Union dissolving negotiations. The SNP leadership as simply too timid and comfortable with devolution to go toe to toe with Westminster and make that announcement. However if we secure a super Indy majority which constitutes over half the votes cast over the two votes for independence there is a case for announcing the beginning of separation discussions. BUT… democratic legitimacy for our new nation’s re-birth is essential. The SNP refusal to turn the election into a plebiscite election means the 34% of Labour voters who are in support of independence, according to the recent Savanta ComRes poll https://www.thenational.scot/news/19091861.four-fascinating-findings-latest-scottish-independence-poll/ will not have their votes counted (nor the 23% of LibDems who are apparently now for independence). In the absence of a clear statement and understanding, akin to the clarity of the 1918 UK election for the Irish, it really isn’t strong ground to suggest that a narrow majority of votes, even over 50%, from a section of the electorate that may note reach 50% is grounds for dissolution of the union. Whether we like it or not another specific referendum is necessary to move us forward, a referendum held regardless of Westminster opinion and if unionists boycott such a defiant referendum our job is to ensure over 50% of Scots take part and we win that contest. I am confident we can achieve both aims but some bottle and guile will be required to deliver these circumstances and although the current SNP leaders are not up to the challenge we have no realistic alternative prior to May and the cause is always more important than the party or individuals. We deliver an SNP majority with a strong battalion of independence fundamentalists to hold the SNP government feet to the independence fire. If only 1 in 8 SNP voters in 2016 give their 2nd vote to AFI and not the SNP at least 8 AFI MSPs will be elected. If 1 in 4 could be persuaded the number elected would rise to 16 and the official opposition mantle is reached, given the fact AFI gains will be at the expense of unionists. Dave Thompson is a very credible leader and served in the Parliament for nine years (2007-2016). John Wilson was also elected in 2007 as an SNP MSP and is an AFI leader living in Central Scotland. Martin Keatings has led from the front as an Indy grassroots activist and hopes to lead the AFI List in Mid-Scotland and Fife. Mark Hirst has joined AFI in South Scotland and can hopefully be persuaded to consider standing for a Parliament he has many years experience of working in, for various SNP MSPs. These are credible candidates with proven track records in the Indy movement. Dave Thompson joined the SNP to fight for independence in 1965. He is certainly no novice to the cause. However I would appeal to others currently disaffected with the SNP leadership to get involved and through their considerable political weight behind the strategy. After next Wednesday hopefully AS will give it serious consideration.

    84. TOMMY SHERIDAN says:

      Should be “throw” not “through” in the last paragraph… Long day …

    85. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Thanks for taking the time to reply Tommy.

      I fully agree, May really needs to be a plebiscite!

      Hopefully we can get a Pro Indy Supermajority in May.

    86. Dan says:

      @ Tommy Sheridan at 9.07pm

      I appreciate your response and input though, I note in touches on percentages of vote obtained, and also seats won, which are separate matters.
      I’ve had a look at the AFI site and couldn’t identify any particular stance on some of the current contentious and divisive issues that the SNP is pushing at this current time.

      ISP’s positioning with their stated policies does appear to be at least acknowledging these issues, and offering the electorate a haven to at least express their objection to what the SNP seem so belligerent at pushing on with despite there being a very questionable mandate to pursue these particular matters when the main reason the electorate voted SNP was to progress with Indy or Stop “Brexit”.

      My concern is the splitting of 2nd votes.
      Firstly because of keeping the campaigning message simple so activists have a decent chance to inform folk of a voting strategy with the limited available time, made all the more difficult with restricted social interaction with the public due to covid.

      Secondly because if AFI and ISP both stand in all Regions, the 2nd votes cast for them will not be pooled as the Parties are separate entities, and thus has the potential to lose precious 2nd votes that may have obtained an extra seat if transfers after previous list seat won thresholds were possible, as would be the case for a single Party.

      It’s just textbook divide and rule stuff and really struggling to believe serious genuine pro-Indy political players, particularly at this massively important time, can’t get their heads together and resolve this matter so we can move forward in a unified manner.

      C’mon folks, these are unprecedented times, so please consider trying everything possible in your negotiations with one another to reach a consensus.
      There are an awful lot of folk that will respect and back you if this can be achieved.



    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