Scot Goes Pop: The Final Fundraiser (plus an update about the video blogging experiment)

Click here to go straight to the fundraiser page.

Scot Goes Pop's annual fundraiser for 2025 ended up getting much, much closer to its target figure than I ever thought was possible, so a million thanks to everyone who contributed over the course of the year.  It really has made all the difference in allowing me to continue with the blog during what has been a financially very difficult year for me (it's been one of those years in which just about everything that could have gone wrong has gone wrong).

I'm not planning to launch a full-scale fundraiser for 2026, because as you know, back in the summer I made the decision that I couldn't keep lurching from mini-crisis to mini-crisis forever, and that I was going to have to find a more sustainable funding model - either that or get out of the political blogging game completely.  Apart from anything else, I am heartily sick of the accusations of "grifting" and I am determined to bring the days of embarrassing year-round crowdfunding to an end (since 2021 it's become like the proverbial task of painting the Forth Bridge).  The grifting allegations are completely bogus, let me stress - nobody would be able to devote the sheer amount of time I have to writing about politics unless they either a) have private means, or b) can bring in funding from somewhere.  I do not have private means, but if my detractors do, then they have my congratulations.  And I've certainly never written anything I don't believe in the hope of attracting funding, which as I understand it is the essence of what grifting means.  A certain fake curate in Somerset used his Facebook page a few weeks ago to accuse me of doing exactly that, which frankly I regard as an absolutely despicable thing to say. Apparently to qualify as honest in what you write, you have to agree with all of his own political views. What should really terrify him is that I actually do believe every single word I write.

But I'm only human and being constantly told I'm a grifter takes its toll.  I want that to stop, which is why the YouTube monetisation model has so much appeal - it doesn't rely on reader/viewer contributions at all.  I'd be able to stop crowdfunding, keep all of the content completely free, and embed all of the videos on this blog.  But as always in life, there's a snag.  In order to even *apply* for monetisation, I have to reach two very challenging thresholds - I need at least 1000 YouTube subscribers and 4000 watch-hours over the last year.  It's taken me five long months of making regular videos to reach the second threshold, and I still haven't reached the first one - as I write this I have only 911 subscribers.  That may not sound like much of a shortfall, but based on the current rate of progress I probably won't get there until around Christmas Day, give or take a few days.  The application process will then apparently take around 30 more days, with no guarantee I'll be successful.  Even if I'm approved, it will then take yet another month or two to find out whether enough funds are coming through to make the idea work.  Based on what I've read about average earnings on YouTube, it should just about be feasible as long as I'm making videos extremely frequently, but the problem is that there's a huge amount of variation on either side of the average, and if I find myself on the wrong side of that equation, I'll be right back to square one.

If YouTube doesn't work out, Plan B will be to move over to Substack or something similar.  That's very much the second-best option, though, because it would mean leaving this site behind and putting at least some content behind a paywall.  But I will give that a try if all else fails.  And if neither YouTube or Substack work out, I will reluctantly call it a day at that point.

So as you can see, I'm basically in total limbo until I can get through the YouTube application process.  The paradox is, then, that to get to the point where I can stop crowdfunding, I'm going to have to crowdfund one last time.  I've done some sums to work out a realistic figure for what I'll need to raise to get me through this long transitional period, and I reckon £1500 will just about do the trick.  To give myself a bit of leeway and to take account of GoFundMe fees, I've set the target for the final fundraiser at £1700.

Incidentally, some of the "Kelly is a grifter" mob have specifically made an issue of the fact that I went on a short holiday in late August and made a couple of videos for the YouTube channel while I was away (one in Sark and one in Saint Malo).  It's probably true that if I hadn't made that trip, I'd be a few hundred pounds closer to safety now, but what can I say?  I unexpectedly found a bargain-basement deal for five nights in Jersey, the weather was fantastic, and I came back feeling refreshed and like I'd actually had a proper summer.  So from a personal point of view it still feels like the right decision, but there are so many little decisions in life that are effectively trade-offs, and there are no right or wrong answers.  For the most part I do live frugally.  I did go and see a special showing of Metropolis in Edinburgh on Thursday night (which was fascinating - as far as I can remember it's the first full-length silent film I've ever seen), but that was my first proper night out in weeks.

I also realise I'm tempting fate by calling this the "final" fundraiser so definitively, but put it this way - in any foreseeable circumstances it'll be the last one.

If you'd like to donate, please click here to go to the fundraising page.

Just a word about GoFundMe's fees: technically they eliminated their fees a few years ago, but they do still push you extremely hard to leave them a sizeable tip, and I think you have to manually adjust the suggested tip down to zero if you don't want to pay them anything.  Additionally they use an external payment processor, which does still charge a small fee.  There is, however, a way of cutting out the middle-man and paying no fees at all, and that's to make a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Or of course there's also the option of direct bank transfer.  If you'd like to do that, please drop me a line and I'll send you the necessary details.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address, and can be found in the mini-bio on my Twitter profile or on my BlueSky profile.

I'm very much aware that Christmas is around the corner, so please only donate if you can afford to.  Remember also that small donations are just as valuable as large ones - if even a modest percentage of the people who read this blog on an average day were to donate just £10 each, the target would be reached instantly.

And if you have a Google account, there's also a way of helping without paying a penny - and that's by subscribing to my channel on YouTube.  If I could somehow speed up the process of getting to 1000 subscribers, that could potentially make a big difference.

STUNNING YouGov polling confirms SNP are far more popular with voters in Scotland than *any* of the London parties are with UK voters

* .* .*

With just over one month of the year left to go, the 2025 Scot Goes Pop fundraiser is still short of its target figure.  If you'd like to help keep the lights on during the several months it will take me to find out whether an alternative funding model is viable (realistically it could be a wait of around four months or more), card donations are welcome HERE.  Or, if you prefer, direct donations can be made via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far.

IT'S OFFICIAL: Rachel Reeves confirms Scotland is in a FORCED union with England, not a voluntary one. She claims there is literally NO democratic path to independence. So is this a material change of circumstances that should lead to the SNP strategy being revisited and reconsidered?

* .* .*

With just over one month of the year left to go, the 2025 Scot Goes Pop fundraiser is still short of its target figure.  If you'd like to help keep the lights on during the several months it will take me to find out whether an alternative funding model is viable (realistically it could be a wait of around four months or more), card donations are welcome HERE.  Or, if you prefer, direct donations can be made via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far.

Does the Alba Party's "princess" Shannon Cullen regret her ill-judged association with far-right agitator Craig Houston, now that he's been whipping up racial hatred outside a primary school?

In a way it's ironic that the Alba Party have become so vehemently anti-monarchy, because they certainly believe in the principle of Royal Families within their own ranks.  Famously, Christina Hendry and her family have special status because they are "Of Salmond Blood", while in Ayrshire the Corri Nostra clan of Corri Wilson, her daughter Shannon Cullen (formerly Donoghue) and her son-in-law Chris Cullen are able to lord it over the common folk, in part thanks to their chumminess with the party's de facto leader Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.  Good luck to any Alba member in getting the normal party rules to apply to any of these people - they act with total immunity and total impunity.

Not long before my enforced departure from the Alba Party, I was subjected to low-grade bullying by both Chris Cullen and Shannon Donoghue as she was still called.  Most of it occurred in person and therefore away from the public eye, but by September 2024 she was emboldened to start making extremely personal public attacks against me on Twitter - a blatant breach of the party's Code of Conduct, which luckily doesn't apply to Alba royalty like Our Shannon.  She probably felt able to do that because she knew by that point that Josh Robertson and "The Squad" had been quietly informed that they would be instructed to expel me before the year was out - whereas I was still oblivious to the fact that any action against me was even in the pipeline.  I was astonished to see that one of the people who piled in behind her while she was publicly bullying me was the notorious far-right podcaster Craig Houston, who spoke to her in distinctly chummy tones as if he regarded her as a personal friend.

That was because she had been a guest on his podcast/YouTube channel three months earlier.  As the mask had so clearly slipped and she was no longer making any secret of her hostility towards me, I felt able to point out on this blog that her decision to take part in that podcast was extraordinarily ill-judged, given that she represents a party that is ostensibly left of centre.  I said that it may be justified to take part in public discussions or debates with far-right individuals as long as the purpose of the exercise is to challenge their views or to offer an alternative, but that wasn't what had happened in this case - the conversation on the podcast had been cosy bordering on intimate, and had been firmly in the service of Houston's own political agenda.

Her decision has aged extremely badly, because Houston has in recent days been at the forefront of despicable protests outside a primary school, which has been targeted because it is hosting English language lessons for adults in an effort to help migrant families integrate into society - something you would think the likes of Houston would thoroughly approve of if their rhetoric was honest.  Instead they are opportunistically seizing on the occasional presence of immigrant adults in the same building as white children, and are using it to whip up racial hatred.

Interesting company that Shannon Cullen, and by extension the Alba Party, has been keeping.  When I was actually an Alba member, I used to think the allegations that the party was right-wing (usually based on the trans issue) were patently absurd, but in retrospect it's not hard to see that some senior Alba figures would actually feel pretty comfortable in Reform UK if the independence issue was set to one side.

Landmark YouGov poll shows how SNP could win independence by holding the balance of power in London

* .* .*

With just over one month of the year left to go, the 2025 Scot Goes Pop fundraiser is still short of its target figure.  If you'd like to help keep the lights on during the several months it will take me to find out whether an alternative funding model is viable (realistically it could be a wait of around four months or more), card donations are welcome HERE.  Or, if you prefer, direct donations can be made via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far.

Scotland becoming a "YouGov democracy" is not the road to independence

* .* .*

With just over one month of the year left to go, the 2025 Scot Goes Pop fundraiser is still short of its target figure.  If you'd like to help keep the lights on during the several months it will take me to find out whether an alternative funding model is viable (realistically it could be a wait of around four months or more), card donations are welcome HERE.  Or, if you prefer, direct donations can be made via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far.

Nothing succeeds like secession

Just a quick note to let you know I am one of the interviewees in Dani Garavelli's Radio 4 documentary If At First You Don't Secede..., which is about the epic saga of the ever-elusive Indyref 2.  The other interviewees include Sean Clerkin, Liz Lloyd, Libby Brooks, Ailsa Henderson and Kenny Farquharson.  You can listen to the programme HERE, and the part with me in it starts at about 9:05. 

"War is not a Hollywood movie. Living, breathing people are the ones who must be saved."

Iuliia Mendel on Twitter: "Every subsequent deal for Ukraine will only be worse — because we are losing. We are losing people, territory, and the economy.
The EU (which by the way has paid Russia more than €311 billion for energy and goods since February 2022) has no real strategy, no way to stop fueling… pic.twitter.com/zx8lBKQn7X

— Iuliia Mendel (@IuliiaMendel) November 22, 2025

When retweeting someone you've never previously heard of who is expressing a controversial view that you happen to agree with, it's best to check who they are just in case they're some sort of political extremist, but as far as I can see Iuliia Mendel's credentials are absolutely fine - indeed she's President Zelensky's former Press Secretary.

Her views chime with mine, which is that the Ukraine war has become a sort of Death Factory, comparable to the long stretches of the First World War when hundreds of thousands of men were callously sacrificed by military leaders in pursuit of pitifully tiny gains of territory.  In other words, what is being fought for in the real world, rather than in the world of rhetoric, is now too small to justify the loss of life.  Russia cannot realistically conquer Ukraine, while Ukraine cannot realistically recapture all - or anything like all - of the territory it has lost.  What is actually been fought for is thus the precise location of a post-war border or armistice line or "line of actual control", and the fine details of that question are far better decided by peace talks rather than by industrial-scale slaughter of young people who under the law of the two countries cannot actually choose for themselves whether they wish to fight and die or not.  So don't try to tell me that continuing the war is all about "freedom".

Ms Mendel's point about "human life being the highest good" equates in its purest form to pacifism, which is an ideal I've always been very attracted to.  In practice I accept that pacifism has some limitations, because it wouldn't have worked against the Nazis, and Ghandian passive resistance would have been a hopeless tool in preventing the Holocaust.  Genuinely defensive military campaigns may therefore be morally justified even if they cause substantial loss of life, but that is not what we're talking about here.  What can realistically be defended has already been successfully defended.

Of course some political leaders argue that the war has to be continued no matter what the cost because of a wild, wholly unproven theory that Putin is the new Hitler and he will invade the rest of Europe if he is not stopped in Ukraine, just as Hitler conquered much of Europe after Britain and France failed to defend Czechoslovakia.  But with all due respect, if Putin was Hitler I think we might just have noticed by now.  He's been leader of Russia since 31st December 1999, so if he has Napoleonic ambitions he's been remarkably slow about taking any action on them.  The 28 point peace proposal, which has been criticised for being "handwritten by the Russians", almost certainly gives a much truer guide to Putin's war aims, which are seemingly limited to consolidating the territorial gains already made, prevention of further NATO expansion, and a return to the international community (such as membership of the G8) from a position of strength.  Indeed the latter point would be completely irreconcilable with invasions of Finland, Poland or the Baltic states.

There's also the small matter here of the fact that Russia has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and if the Ukraine war isn't ended there is always the theoretical chance of an escalation that leads to human civilisation being destroyed by nuclear war.  Previous generations understood that morally difficult compromises and concessions sometimes had to be made to preserve nuclear peace - for example NATO made no attempt to defend Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968.  Some principles are not worth risking global destruction for, and that's a truth our political and military leaders seem to have lost sight of somewhere along the line.  To put it mildly, those hyping up and agitating for a wider conflict with Russia are deeply irresponsible.

Last but not least, I want to address an accusation that has been levelled at me when I've made points like these in the past, namely that I'm applying different standards to Ukraine and Gaza.  That is categorically untrue.  What I've called for in Palestine is a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries.  Those boundaries are exceptionally favourable to Israel (much more favourable than the original UN partition plan, for example) and were won at the point of a gun.  The international community rewarded Israel's military aggression in 1948 by recognising the territory it invaded as its sovereign land.  The State of Palestine has reconciled itself to that profound injustice in the hope of a lasting peace and of self-determination within its reduced territory.  It will probably also end up accepting total demilitarisation, even though there's no reason why it should have to, other than the 'might is right' principle.

What may be asked of Ukraine is actually not quite as punitive as that.  It's more akin to Austria accepting permanent neutral status in return for Soviet withdrawal in 1955.  That neutrality has since developed into a key part of Austrian national identity and a source of tremendous pride.  Who knows, something similar may yet happen in Ukraine.

My response to Chris McEleny's allegation that I defamed him in reference to his role in the 2023 Alba vote-rigging scandal (the short answer is: no I didn't)

I received an unsolicited email out of the blue a few hours ago from the Alba Party's disgraced former General Secretary, Chris McEleny, who was sacked and then expelled from the party due to his "gross misconduct".  Any email from him is the marker of a veritable red letter day, because as long-term readers of the blog will recall, I made umpteen efforts to obtain information and clarification from him during the sham "disciplinary" process against me in late 2024, but with one exception he simply ignored my emails.  Many other people had a similar experience.  It's lovely to see that he's belatedly located the "send" button in his email account.

The purpose of his message was to accuse me of defaming him in one specific sentence of my blogpost from Thursday night, entitled 'Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: the ego has landed', and to demand that I delete the sentence.  As the name implies, the post is in fact primarily about Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh's role in the death of the Alba Party, not about McEleny's role, and indeed it only mentions McEleny once in passing.  However, he is claiming that I was factually inaccurate and defamatory when I said that Alex Salmond had involved him in the rigging of the 2023 Alba internal elections in order to ensure that Jacqueline Bijster and Denise Findlay, the rightful winners of the Membership Support Convener election and Organisation Convener election respectively, were not allowed to take office (or rather to retain office, because they were both incumbents).  There is no direct legal threat made against me, but presumably I'm supposed to infer that it's there by implication.

My view is that McEleny is trying it on here, and is basing his allegation of defamation on an unrealistically narrow definition of what the term "election-rigging" means.  That won't wash, because in numerous blogposts over the last year I have actually defined specifically what the nature of the rigging of the 2023 Alba internal elections was.  It did not involve literal falsification of election results (as far as we know, anyway - there have been vague rumours of falsification but nothing has ever been established).  What actually happened fell into the following three broad categories:

1) The 'pay-per-vote' system for electing ordinary members of Alba's NEC was exploited by a wealthy individual, who bulk-purchased dozens of votes which were effectively cast as a bloc.  The main purpose was to ensure that Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh comfortably topped the poll in the female ballot, and thus to make it less likely that any questions would be raised about her moral right to remain as Party Chair.  However, the tactic went badly wrong because the Tasmina voters also voted as a bloc for the little-known Abdul Majid, who by all accounts topped the male ballot by such an implausibly huge margin that if the results had been published, it would have been blindingly obvious that the process had been hopelessly tainted.  That was why the results were controversially kept secret, and why a variety of contradictory and unconvincing excuses were given for that decision (including by McEleny himself).

2) The Alba membership's decision to re-elect Denise Findlay and Jacqueline Bijster was thwarted by means of a cynical two-step plan.  Firstly the original results were nullified just before they were due to be announced, with an extremely elaborate and convoluted cover story put forward by Alex Salmond at the party conference to attempt to justify the voiding of elections that had been properly-conducted and fairly won.  Secondly, intolerable pressure was then to be put on the winning candidates to 'voluntarily' withdraw from the reruns of the elections, which it was obvious they were likely to win again.  As it turned out, this pressure was only necessary in the case of Ms Findlay, because Ms Bijster withdrew in disgust before any pressure had been really applied.  

3) Ms Bijster's name was unilaterally removed (according to her supporters by McEleny) from the list of candidates for female ordinary members of the NEC, even though she had only withdrawn from the rerun of the Membership Support Convener election and thus remained a properly-nominated candidate for the NEC.

In his email to me, McEleny has effectively disputed the third category by arguing that Ms Bijster was no longer eligible to stand because she had by then "publicly resigned from the party".  I very much doubt if that's true - it's certainly possible she was certified as having publicly resigned, but that's not the same thing as an actual public resignation, as numerous other victims of the McEleny Purges can readily testify.  However, that's an irrelevant point in this particular instance, because the sentence McEleny is complaining about does not relate to that part of the election-rigging.

The nub of the issue is whether McEleny played a significant role in thwarting the democratic decision of Alba members to re-elect Ms Bijster and Ms Findlay to their office bearer roles, and in spite of his protestations, the evidence confirms that he did.  He claims in his email that Alex Salmond made the decision to nullify the election results in agreement with the Party Chair (Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh) and the Depute Leader (Kenny MacAskill).  But that does not even tally with what Alex Salmond himself said in his announcement to conference at the time, when he stressed he had made the decision "after consultation with the General Secretary", ie. with McEleny.  The Party Chair and Depute Leader were not even mentioned.  (I have a transcript of the Salmond speech, before anyone tries to quibble.)

Furthermore, Mr Salmond did not in fact have the constitutional power to nullify the election, which under the party's rules was being administered by McEleny.  It would therefore have been impossible for Mr Salmond to improperly usurp McEleny's role in this way without McEleny's consent.  We can only speculate as to whether that consent was given willingly or grudgingly, but we know it was given because the only real alternatives to consent were for McEleny to either block Mr Salmond's decision, or to resign as General Secretary and make clear that his position had been left untenable by the leader's actions.  He did not take either course.  

Incidentally, there was an Alice Through The Looking Glass moment during the review of Alba's constitution in early 2024, of which I was a part.  It was suggested that we should probably change the constitution to allow the party leader to do things like unilaterally nullify internal elections, because Mr Salmond had made clear through his actions that he intended to do stuff like that, and it was a great pity he'd had to breach the constitution to do it!  None of the leadership loyalists - not Daniel Jack, not Suzanne Blackley, not Robert Slavin, not Shannon Donoghue, not Chris Cullen - disputed the fact that Mr Salmond had acted outside his constitutional powers, which by definition means that McEleny had permitted him to do so.

As far as the improper pressure on Denise Findlay to withdraw from the rerun of the election is concerned, McEleny openly admits in his email that this happened, but claims that he was not directly involved.  He portrays himself as having done nothing more than passively "listened in to the call" in which she was told to withdraw.  It's becoming something of a pattern for McEleny to try to get off the hook by saying "nothing to do with me, guv, I was just sitting there at the time, that's all".  It's amazing how often he just happened to be sitting there when these dreadful things were done.  However, it doesn't strike me as hugely important whether he's being honest about his passivity or not, because his key involvement in the voiding of a properly-conducted election is sufficient to demonstrate that the claim I made in Thursday's blogpost was true.

Nevertheless, McEleny has a long track-record of litigiousness, and defamation law in this country is known to often work unfairly against those who tell the truth but who don't have fabulous monetary resources to call upon.  I've therefore spent the last few hours considering carefully whether or not I should take any precautionary action simply to protect myself.  What I've decided to do is amend the wording of the sentence McEleny has complained about, not to change its meaning in any way, which was entirely accurate, but simply to introduce greater precision and to make clearer what is meant by election-rigging and by McEleny's own role in it.  I don't think he's going to be any happier with the new version, but that's not of any great interest to me - all I care about is making sure that nothing can be 'creatively misconstrued' and that I'm being accurate in the clearest possible manner.

I'd actually like to finish by offering McEleny some free advice, which of course he'll ignore.  I'm not sure he realises just how obviously he telegraphs his insincerity at times, and just how much of a handicap that is to going to be to his political ambitions, regardless of which party he ends up in.  Take for example the quote he gave to newspapers a couple of weeks ago when the Electoral Commission forcibly removed him as Alba's registered Nominating Officer.  He took his trademark claims of passivity to a new extreme by portraying himself as a private citizen, an 'umble electrician who was just minding his own business and who was being inexplicably picked on by the Alba leadership.  He claimed to be delighted to have been relieved of his burdensome duties as Nominating Officer, and that he had wanted to relinquish them voluntarily but had been totally unable to because Alba had failed to provide him with the paperwork in the required manner.  

Pretty much all of that is the polar opposite of the truth.  There's no doubt that he desperately wanted to remain Nominating Officer (even if we don't know exactly what he planned to do with the powers of that role) and will have been gutted when that wheeze unexpectedly didn't work out.  He is massively overestimating the stupidity of his fellow human beings if he thinks they can't see straight through him, but apparently that's exactly what he thinks.

*  *  *

Stew on Twitter: "(PREDICTION: James will go very quiet from this point.)"

— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) November 21, 2025

Now be honest, Stew, do you REALLY think there's the remotest chance of that happening?  This looks set to be your worst prediction since the celebrated "I'm calling it now, Humza has lost" in early 2023.  And the competition is stiff.

*  *  *

If the law is applied consistently, this should be a considerable worry for the countless MPs who have been given massive financial inducements to speak on behalf of Israel.https://t.co/t8Pqu3HWJd

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 21, 2025

BREAKING: Stew ducks the debate - it turns out he's NOT a Charlie Kirk type after all and doesn't believe in debating his political opponents - his claim after Kirk's death to have never run away from a debate in his time as a blogger now lies in tatters - WELL THAT'S A SURPRISE NONE OF US SAW THAT COMING DID WE

After issuing my video debate challenge to controversial blogger Stuart "Stew" Campbell, I said this: 

"Please do let me know your thrilling excuses for ducking / ignoring this debate challenge at your earliest convenience."

It turns out I didn't have long to wait.

Crazy obsessed man makes up a whole string of flat-out lies, then demands I “debate” him over them in order to drive traffic to his website with 122 articles about how I’m basically Hitler on it (while blocking all replies) 🙄 pic.twitter.com/a4SbyJsorY

— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) November 21, 2025

Yup, my bingo card is more or less full already.  "Crazy", "obsessed" (thanks for the "man"!), "flat-out lies" (yeah, what are those flat-out lies specifically, Stew?), "drive traffic", "122 articles", "basically Hitler", etc, etc.  Disappointed we didn't get a "deranged" or a "demented" or a "lunatic", but we can't have everything.

Not to worry, Stew, I'll use the extra time for Christmas shopping instead.  But let no-one say I didn't make the offer or that I wasn't serious about seeing it through.  And it's had the highly useful effect of forcing you to tacitly admit to your readers that you are not in fact a Charlie Kirk type, and that you do not in fact believe in open debate with your political opponents - something that I suspect you would have much preferred not to concede, however indirectly.  We'll just have to call you Rev "No Debate" Stew from now on.

The offer, needless to say, remains open.  If you ever change your mind and locate a spine, you know where to find me.

And hey, Stoo, make mine a double.  #BothVotesSNP