wilting Lily

Blogger "Lily of St Leonard's" is a strong Brexiter, and philosophically determined Tory, though she is adaptable as a voter and now backing Galloway's Alliance For Unity. Even for folks like me not sharing those views, she used to be a good read for following how Scots of her views were reading political events. Same reason as why it's sometimes good to read the National. But the lily is wilting! Her reading of the position, where she used to be confidently predictive of Brexit actually strengthening the Union, is shifting. Gradually, not too visibly until you check back.

Best about her used to be that she wrote well in support of Alex Salmond getting a fair trial, and against the MeToo-related witch hunt of men. She was willing to act across sides to do that. But now she is writing about Salmond's case making a party point from SNP inaction against him at the time in question and lack of Scottish media chasing of it: in a way that rather clearly assumes him guilty, and arguing it from exactly the MeToo-corrupted standards of conviction in the US that she used to condemn. It's a disappointing change. It may show an increased sense of all-out back-to-the-wall fight against the SNP.

An even more startling shift is from
www.effiedeans.com/2019/09/the-remainer-rearguard.html
to
www.effiedeans.com/2020/08/knowing-terms-of-divorce.html.

That's from
"It never crossed my mind in 2014 that if Yes won the Scottish independence referendum that Scotland wouldn’t get to Leave the UK. I thought the SNP’s claims about the Scottish independence were exaggerated at best dishonest at worst. But we all had had the chance to contest the political claims of the Yes campaign. If they had won, I would have accepted the result. It never would have crossed my mind not to do so. I did not expect to be given a second chance if my side had lost."
to
"Just as Nicola Sturgeon argued for a confirmatory referendum on Brexit, so too the British Government could require a third referendum on independence after the terms of the divorce were known. The same ten questions and more could be asked an answered during the transition period in which Scotland would remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. Only when all issues had been resolved would there be a referendum on the terms of the divorce. Scotland could accept them meaning independence would happen or decline them meaning independence would have been rejected."
!

the jury is in

The SNP govt wanted, during the present state of emergency, to abolish juries. No attempt to do that has happened in Englandandwales, where jury trials are simply postponed for the duration. Mercifully, within a day they were stopped by all the Unionist parties: and okay, as the Unionists are not in a majority, also by the opposition of law professionals from their own ranks.

Human rights here have just passed through a breathtaking moment of emergency, and who from? From the reputed progressives who have told us for years they want to give us a nice more progressive state of our own, and campaigned against Brexit's likely rollback of ECHR-associated human rights safeguards. The independence movement's entire claim that Scottish governments and state would be innately more progressive and fairer, now stands smashed by this. This will always be there as a fact of history in the debate.

Notice it follows within days the MeToo extreme feminists' oopenly disliking that a woman-majority jury found Alex Salmond innocent. This has rightly split the nats into a bad fight on Facebook and in the National, where both the loyalists who saw politicality in the whole trial, and the scrupulous over the vital human right to presumption of innocence, have seen through the evil raving believe-what-we-want injustice of the radical feminists and their witch-hunt of men.

The Crossgate Centre on Mar 24 displayed on Facebook a reply to that character of radical feminists, that they well deserved, and deserve everyone to contemplate:

《 This tweet from Rhiannon Spear, the SNP National Women's Convener, in response to the Alex Salmond verdict yesterday is absolutely appalling, and has drawn a well-deserved backlash from SNP members and the wider Yes movement on Twitter. Her contempt for the principle of presumption of innocence, juducial due process, and not least the jury, 9 of whom, the majority, were women - makes her unfit for office.

Never mind respecting entitlement to presumption of innocence, clowns like you can't even respect a verdict from a female-majority jury if it goes in the accused's favour. You epitomise the entryism piggy-backing on & destroying an SNP where it is because of indy supporters. The tweet itself, Mar 23, and its reactions, are here.