* .* .*
A pro-independence blog by James Kelly - one of Scotland's three most-read political blogs.
Saturday, November 8, 2025
A response to Alba man Jim Cassidy's rather cowardly personal attack
Friday, November 7, 2025
Alba Sleaze Update: Party insider makes explosive allegation that every single Alba local by-election candidate since McEleny's downfall has been nominated illegitimately
* .* .*
SNP stroll to big landslide win in Fife by-election
It's the middle of the night as I post this, but I'll just briefly give you the by-election result, because it's a second impressive win for the SNP in as many weeks. I'll also try to make a video about the result at some point, but that might have to wait 24 hours or so.
Buckhaven, Methil and Wemyss Villages by-election result (6th November 2025):
Reform UK 28.9% (n/a)
Labour 20.8% (-19.5)
Liberal Democrats 2.6% (+0.4)
Alba 2.2% (+0.9)
Conservatives 1.7% (-4.8)
Sovereignty 1.2% (n/a)
* .* .*
Thursday, November 6, 2025
Stuart Campbell, the restraining order, and the "visibly distressed horse": here are the facts as we know them so far
Below you'll find today's *three* tweets about me (heaven only knows how many it is this week so far) from the man who famously "doesn't stalk me" and "barely even mentions me". Yup, you've guessed it, it's the controversial far-right blogger known as "Stew". You can probably hazard an educated guess as to what lies behind the adult content filter on the first tweet - it mixes his two favourite pastimes of a) attempting to mock my physical appearance, and b) bullying people with gender dysphoria round the clock.
Still, at least he's tidied the house up a bit.
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) November 6, 2025
Any idea what his cringy "Stu, make mine a double" shtick at the end of each video is about?
— Aru_Tokoro_Ni (@AruTokoroNi2001) November 6, 2025
I imagine it's a reference to "both votes SNP".
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) November 6, 2025
Oh well worked out, Stew. They don't call you an "investigative journalist" for nothing. Actually, on second thoughts...
Now, I do feel it's incumbent on me at this point to furnish you with a little reminder of what Stew himself looks like, just to give us a sort of baseline reading with which we can judge the immense blessings of nature which have clearly emboldened him to spend so much of his life mocking the physical appearance of others...
Ooooooh-kaaaaaaaay. Crikey.
Actually, when it became clear a few weeks ago that his stalking was morphing more and more into outright insults about what I look like, I did take the precaution of asking Grok to provide me with a little essay assessing Stew's own attractiveness, with predictably hilarious results. I wasn't planning to publish it, I was just going to keep it in reserve as a sort of "nuclear deterrent". But this just goes to show the basic problem with all "deterrents", and it's something that David Lammy should take heed of - they don't actually deter anyone, you kind of always end up using them, and just look at the carnage that ensues.
Grok, does Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland conform to standard norms of male hyper-attractiveness?
Answer: No, Stuart Campbell, the Scottish blogger and former video game journalist behind Wings Over Scotland, does not conform to standard norms of male hyper-attractiveness.
Understanding "Male Hyper-Attractiveness"
Standard norms of male hyper-attractiveness (often rated 8–10/10 on common attractiveness scales) are defined by a combination of cultural, evolutionary, and societal factors, drawing from psychological research and beauty ideals. Key traits include:
Facial features: High symmetry, strong jawline, high cheekbones, clear skin, and balanced proportions (e.g., golden ratio approximations in face structure).
Body composition: V-shaped torso (broad shoulders, narrow waist with a waist-to-shoulder ratio around 0.6–0.7), muscular build (low body fat ~10–15%, visible definition without excess bulk), and average-to-tall height (ideally 6'0"–6'3" or 183–190 cm).
Other factors: Youthful vitality (typically apparent age under 40), groomed appearance, and an aura of confidence or status. These ideals are heteronormative and Western-influenced but appear cross-culturally in studies (e.g., preferences for symmetry and fitness signaling health/fertility).
These traits are rare—fewer than 2.5% of men meet the "optimum" for even individual features like shoulder-to-waist ratio, per evolutionary psychology research. Examples include celebrities like Chris Hemsworth or Henry Cavill, who embody near-perfect harmony.
Assessment of Stuart Campbell
Based on publicly available photos (e.g., his X profile avatar and historical images from his Amiga Power era), Campbell, now 58, does not align with these norms:
Facial features: Angular but asymmetrical structure, with prominent brows and a receding hairline; lacks the chiselled symmetry or high cheekbones of hyper-attractive ideals.
Body composition: Appears average build (not muscular or V-shaped), around 5'10"–6'0" (estimated from photos), with no evident low-body-fat definition.
Overall: His look is unremarkable and aged—more akin to a standard 3–4/10 on attractiveness scales. Early 1990s photos show a youthful, edgy style (e.g., mohawk hairstyle), but even then, it veered punk/nerdy rather than classically handsome.
Attractiveness is subjective and influenced by personality (Campbell's cockiness might boost appeal for some), but against objective hyper-attractive benchmarks, he falls short. If you're referencing a specific photo or context, more details could refine this.
*. *. *
About the title of this blogpost: as you may be aware, a few months ago Stew set up a little shrine to me in the sidebar of his blog, and it's been there ever since. If you click on it, you'll find what purports to be an exhaustive and constantly updated list of the titles of all the blogposts I have ever written in which he is mentioned at some point.
There is now, let's face of it, hours of fun to be had probing how far the titles can go before he mysteriously 'forgets' to include one, or feels obliged to add an unintentionally amusing 'explanatory note'. Let's see how he gets on with this one.
Wednesday, November 5, 2025
YouGov latest: another swing to Yes on the independence question, and the SNP on course to win big
* .* .*
Tuesday, November 4, 2025
BOMBSHELL Scottish poll rocks Westminster: firmly No-friendly pollster YouGov shows the No lead has been reduced to a barely-there three points, while the SNP and Greens are on course for a PRO-INDEPENDENCE MAJORITY at next year's Holyrood election
It's 2.20am as I sit down to write this, so probably not the ideal time to embark on making a video (you wouldn't believe how long even the shortest of videos take to make, once you take into account the preparation, the editing and the processing), but I must nevertheless bring to your attention the information that Calum Findlay revealed in the comments section of the previous post. The Scottish Election Study has published its latest Scottish Opinion Monitor (SCOOP) poll. These polls are basically just regular YouGov polls but with two thrilling twists - the media don't seem to report them very much, and the data tables don't bother to mention what the results are with undecided voters excluded.
The most significant results are on the independence question. YouGov has in recent years reverted to its former status as a very firmly No-friendly pollster, and that remains the case in this poll because there is a No lead at a time when other polling firms are showing substantial Yes majorities. However in a sense it corroborates the trend shown by those other firms because it shows a third successive reduction in the No lead (as far as YouGov polls are concerned, I mean) and leaves No with a mere three-point advantage, which is much lower than YouGov typically show. As Calum points out, the fact that No even remain in the lead at all should be interpreted with caution because it's been partly caused by YouGov's reweighting of their raw data based on how people say they voted in the 2014 independence referendum - a practice that the UK's gold standard pollster Ipsos states is unwise because of the high risk of distortions caused by false recall.
Should Scotland be an independent country? (YouGov, 10th-20th October 2025)
And although this isn't a video, please feel free to subscribe to my YouTube channel anyway, because I'm trying to get to 1000 subscribers as soon as possible!
Monday, November 3, 2025
Controversial "Stew" blogger spells it out for anyone who mistook his meaning first time around: he thinks it would have been wrong to block the Nazis' rise to power, in spite of the genocide and unprecedented global catastrophe it unleashed
Some of you may be familiar with a controversial and increasingly far-right blogger, based in Somerset, and known almost universally as "Stew". In spite of being such an enormous distance away, he actually supported Scottish independence during the 2014 referendum, but has since had a change of heart as his views have drifted back to the right, and at both of the last two major national elections in 2021 and 2024 he instructed his readers to vote against independence. More recently, he has become particularly drawn to Nigel Farage's party Reform UK - logical enough, given the huge overlap between his own views and those of Reform. But somehow he can't quite bring himself to admit yet that he intends to endorse Reform at next May's Holyrood election. Presumably he feels he still has a lot of work to do to get the choreography just right as he gets ready to 'spontaneously' announce: "you know what, alert readers, I could NEVER have imagined getting to this point, but I don't think we've got much CHOICE but to vote Reform".
In a blogpost on Wednesday, I pointed out that Stew's passion for Farage is the love that dare not speak its name, and that in order to prepare the ground for endorsing Reform while not actually doing so yet, he is tying himself up in knots with absurd arguments such as: "it's important to stop Reform, and to do that other parties must adopt Reform's policy programme in full, because it's excellent, and they must actively celebrate Farage's electoral successes because Reform is a lawful party in a democracy". On the latter point specifically, I noted that the Nazi party was also a lawful party in a democracy at the point at which it took power, and on Stew's logic we would be required to 'celebrate' that.
I'm very honoured that Stew took a brief break from his round-the-clock bullying of people with gender dysphoria to respond to me.
Heck of a debate, that one.
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) October 31, 2025
PROPOSITION 1: Political parties should attempt to offer the electorate something worth voting for.
PROPOSITION 2: We should ban political parties that are supported by large sections of the population but we don’t like. [definition of “we” TBA] pic.twitter.com/MAdFoG8MLG
But, y’know, wow. “The Weimar government should have banned parties it didn’t like, in order to prevent the rise of a party that, er, banned parties it didn’t like!”
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) October 31, 2025
Become the Nazis to beat the Nazis. Genius.
Well, it's true that one feature of Nazism was the banning of other political parties, but it was scarcely the only feature or even the defining feature. There were also things like the systematic extermination of entire ethnic groups, and the military conquest of almost an entire continent. When people pose the question of whether the Weimar authorities should have banned the Nazis, they specifically do it due to their knowledge that the failure to prevent Hitler seizing power unleashed both genocide and the deadliest global conflict in human history, and that averting those outcomes should have been an absolute imperative.
I've made clear any number of times on this blog that I am not inclined to favour the banning of political parties, and that I regard the tendency of countries like Spain to go down that road as difficult to reconcile with democratic principles. But given the uniquely catastrophic consequences of Nazi rule, and given that Hitler was open about at least some of his intentions when he stood for election, it's pretty extraordinary to see the sheer casualness with which Stew mockingly dismisses anyone who even raises the question of whether the Nazis should have been banned (either on the grounds of racial hatred against many of Germany's own citizens, or because they wanted to dismantle the democratic system they were participating in).
For what it's worth, I think my own answer to that question would probably be no. I think the Nazis did need to be blocked from seizing control at all costs, but probably the way to do that was by addressing the weaknesses in the Weimar constitution that Hitler exploited, in particular the provisions governing states of emergency. Stew, by contrast, is so untroubled by genocide and global catastrophe that he doesn't seem to think there was any great imperative to stop the Nazi rise to power, and his only answer to victims of the Holocaust and the tens of millions who died in a needless world war seems to be: "sorry, chaps, but it was the Social Democrats' fault, they should have run on a manifesto more attractive to Nazi voters". Well, I'm sure that's an enormous comfort to everyone, Stew, particularly bearing in mind that the only manifesto that would have been attractive to Nazi voters is one that adopted Nazi policies - and be in no doubt that's exactly what Stew is getting at, because it's bang in line with his argument in the present day that mainstream parties should adopt Reform policies in order to 'stop' Reform, thus largely defeating the purpose of the exercise.
Perhaps Stew could clarify precisely which Nazi policies he thinks the democratic German parties should have embraced in order to become more attractive to Nazi voters. And perhaps he could also let us know whether he has sufficient self-awareness to spot the galactic levels of irony in his claim that those who disagree with him want to "become the Nazis to beat the Nazis".
Elsewhere, Stew also responded to the comment I made about his fanboy enthusiasm for Farage's policy on the climate emergency, although if anyone can make head or tail of this one, you're doing better than me -
“But if the world was arranged completely differently to how it actually is, my point wouldn’t be total p***!” pic.twitter.com/lnwdi2VHl4
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) October 31, 2025
Eh? I was talking about the world as it's actually arranged - one in which Scotland as a nation of five million people has to take responsibility for the climate emergency in proportion to its population size, and one in which a failure of countries to take responsibility in proportion to their population size will result in a global failure to tackle the climate emergency at all. But I can hardly put it more eloquently than one of the commenters on Stew's own blog -
"'Scotland’s contribution to climate change is so infinitesimally small that nothing we do can possibly make any difference'
How nearly true. Just like the contribution to society made by me paying taxes is so infinitesimally small that it could not possibly make any difference.
And I’ve recently read a novel set in Yorkshire during WW2, in which the main character’s father 'did his bit', as I understand the saying was. His own contribution was so infinitesimally small that it could not possibly have made any difference.
In fact every such contribution makes a very slight difference. The combination of everyone’s contribution makes a noticeable difference."
* .* .*




