The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


We paid for this

Posted on March 30, 2013 by

The Radio Times was funded by the licence fee until the government sold it in 2011. We don’t remember receiving a cheque for our share. The extract below is from a feature about William Wallace in this week’s edition.

bravebollocks

Let’s read that carefully. “Braveheart” has allegedly been “a gift to Alex Salmond and the SNP”. In what context? The context of “fuelling anti-English sentiment”. There’s no mention of winning elections, no mention of making people feel more positive about Scotland, no ambiguity whatsoever – the specific end to which the film has served the SNP, according to Dr Watson, is “the justification of anti-English sentiment”, and the associated perpetrating of violent assaults on young children.

We’ll run that past you again – the SNP love “Braveheart” because it helps them in their cynical aim of fostering xenophobia and getting little kids beaten up.

(If you think we’re being over-sensitive, ask yourself what the first two sentences are doing in that paragraph. Why are the SNP being involved in a question expressly about “anti-English sentiment” at all if they’re not being accused of it?

After we initially drew attention to this story, an alert reader commented that we weren’t in fact the first to notice it, and that Dr Watson claims to have been severely misrepresented by the Radio Times.

“The SNP have done a great job in explicitly not being xenophobic. I sighed when I saw the copy, but it was too late by then.”

“I entirely agree that this will give an impression in these ‘interesting times’ that I said something that I didn’t. I will see how National Geographic reacts. But feel free to state categorically that, while I did make a comment on anti-English sentiment generally, particularly in relation to the 2006 world cup, I most certainly did not refer to the SNP government, which came out with statements condemning the actions of those few.”

We can only speculate as to why this august organ of the British state would wish to put words in a respected historian’s mouth attacking the SNP and implicating them in sickening racist violence when she had said no such thing. (Ironically under the banner of an article claiming to “separate fact from fiction”.)

But rest assured we’ll be asking them, and we’ll also be asking the Scottish media whether they’ll be troubling themselves to report this rather serious slur on the reputations of Alex Salmond, the entire SNP and a senior academic from a Scottish university in front of millions of readers, given their enthusiasm for spewing column inches about slightly intemperate private remarks by SNP council-election candidates.

Print Friendly

110 to “We paid for this”

  1. mato21 says:

    If I remember correctly this is another of those misrepresentations of what was initially said I cannot quote but I am sure I read about this a few days ago along with a reply from Dr Watson

  2. I hope it genuinely is a misrepresentation.  I hate seeing anyone from my old university showing such a disgraceful lack of intellectual rigour as to say something like this without substantiating it.  It may be a fluff piece in a magazine, but if this genuinely reflects her view on the matter it does not speak well of her real life research.

  3. Malcolm says:

    Sounds like she’s very unhappy at how she has been quoted.
    http://moridura.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/man-or-myth-strange-article-in-radio.html

  4. mato21 says:

    Thanks Malcom I thought that was the case

  5. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    Have edited in light of that info, cheers.

  6. Dcanmore says:

    I’ve read Dr Watson’s reply so I’ve deleted my comment.
     

  7. Morag says:

    I cancelled my Herald at the back end of last year.  My only contact with my newsagent and the paperboy is now through the once-weekly delivery of the Radio Times, which I’ve been reading for even longer than the Herald.

    Gulp.

  8. Jimbo says:

    Link to new owners doesn’t work – just keep getting error 404.

  9. Morag says:

    It should be enquiries [at] immediate [dot] co [dot] uk

    Stu has inadvertently attached the url of this page to the front of the email address.

  10. Erchie says:

    The Radio times has been going downhill for some time.
     
    The Boris Johnson love in and then this are the last straw. Already looking for a new listings magazine.

  11. Macart says:

    I was just tippy typing a good rant when I checked back before posting. Thanks Malcolm saved me a severely red face. 🙂

  12. Vincent McDee says:

    Radio  Times is owned by Exponent, a private equity investment firm. http://www.exponentpe.com/
    RT Editor is Ben Preston Jr. is a former deputy editor of The Times now editor of the Radio Times, who is married to Times columnist Janice Turner.
     
    This must be a case of the Ghost Sub-Editor striking again.  A true slippery b…..d, well known for his unionist streak, suspected of being trained by Cochrane and with an uncanny ability to transform the most politicaly neutral article into an attack to the separatist SNP and all their fellow travellers.
     

  13. Chic McGregor says:

    Yes, another BBC misrepresentation I’m afraid, no real surprise but annoying all the same.  Dr Watson has in fact been the least ‘establishment aligned’ of our academic historian fraternity IMHO.  See my reply on Moridura a couple of days ago.

    No doubt that served to make her all the more prized a scalp.
     
    She is as much a BBC propaganda victim here as the truth.
     

  14. Graham Ennis says:

    I absolutely love Mr McDee’s comment re “The SNP and all their fellow travellers”. Gosh, I am apparantly a fellow traveller…..how impressive!. Next We shall start being called “Agents of the McComintern,” noo doot…..the good thing, is that when even the radio times is dragooned into supporting the “No” clique, it shows how desperate they are becoming, and how increasingly deranged they are. They know that like the Dinosaurs, there time is now passing. How sad.

  15. Stuart Black says:

    Off topic, apologies, but I can’t get even such an innocuous comment as “Thanks Mr Bell, great article” by the Herald mods, and I feel a deep and urgent need to say to any Herald posters lurking here, why in the name of the wee man do you continue to reply the village idiots, McIntyre and McKeown? FFS!
    There are unionist posters with at least a modicum of intelligence to engage with, but every thread ends up hijacked by Rocket 1 and Rocket 2. West Midlands appears to be just dim, but Woking seems to have a deep vein of poison within, perhaps if he wasn’t getting such a barrage of responses he would cut back a bit on the bile.
     
    I suppose having said that, he’s an asset to YES. Mmm…

  16. douglas clark says:

    Stuart,
     
    I have stopped expecting to get anything past the brain dead censorship that constitutes the Herald’s finest. And yes, I am looking at you Mr Calumn McDonald.
     
    It is largely inexplicable quite how biased the Herald’s love affair is with unionist trolls.
    I intend to keep posting there and copying here until their strategy is blown out of the water. I shall also quote directly the bullshit I am responding to. Assuming the Rev Stu lets me.
    Calumn McDonald is an incompetent censor and couldn’t realistically run Mumsnet. He ought to be sacked. As should most censors, though not all.
     
    Completely creepy, ain’t it?

  17. gerry parker says:

    If someone had taken my doctorate and dragged it through the dirt like that, I’d be more than just mad, I’d be determined to get even.  I’m sure Dundee University can’t be much chuffed either, doesn’t give a good impression of the quality of their research fellows.
     

  18. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Stu has inadvertently attached the url of this page to the front of the email address.”

    Actually that’s WordPress. Normally it does it if you’ve pasted in a link without the “http://” prefix, but it seems to do it with email addresses too, which is harder to fix. I’ve changed it to their contact page.

  19. JLT says:

    I have a funny feeling that Dundee University might not to be thrilled at being mentioned in a national magazine, where one of their employees, is slagging off the country that not only gives her a job, but also feeds, houses and clothes her.
    How very stupid of ‘Dr’ Fiona Watson, if she thinks that this might not come back to bite. I would not be surprised if the SNP contact the university to lodge a complaint about racism from one of their employees.
     
    I can see a P45 winging its way in the post, to the History Department at Dundee University.

  20. seoc says:

    I suppose that anything which belittles Scottish aspirations to self-determination is seized upon.
    While we are of a ‘examine the history’ mind, perhaps a caustic look at the origins of the Concentration Camp might widen the topic. Or even the Press Gang.

  21. Craig P says:

    Fiona is one of the good guys, anyone who knows her would find ludicrous the comments attributed to her, I am glad to see she has clarified being severely misrepresented. 

  22. Seasick Dave says:

    Bizarrely, for a cybernat, I have never seen Braveheart and am not particularly interested in doing so either.
     
    However, many of my offshore, English colleagues have seen it and love it. In fact, my Egyptian colleagues love it as well.
     
    To counter some of the nonsense in this article, I have attached a link to a YouTube video about an English academic living in St Andrews.
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOm5U1Rsvu8
     
    Its interesting to note the tone in the interviewer’s voice and his almost disbelief at what he is hearing 🙂
     
    PS Mrs Seasick is a mash eater.

  23. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    Dear Sir,

    I wonder if you might take a moment to explain to me your actions with regard to the above-named academic in your latest issue. In a piece on William Wallace and “Braveheart”, which ironically claimed to “separate fact from fiction” (which can be seen here: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-03-25/bloody-tales-mel-gibsons-braveheart—man-or-myth), it appears you have completely fabricated quotes which implicate Alex Salmond and the SNP in sickening racist violence.

    Dr Watson has let it be known publicly that:

    while I did make a comment on anti-English sentiment generally, particularly in relation to the 2006 world cup, I most certainly did not refer to the SNP government, which came out with statements condemning the actions of those few.”

    For you to have therefore attributed words to her which she did not say, and which disgracefully accuse the Scottish National Party of deliberately heightening “anti-English sentiment” leading to attacks on young English children in Scotland, seems an unforgivable lapse of professional standards, particularly in a publication with a readership as large as that of the Radio Times.

    I look forward to your response.

    Yours sincerely,
    Rev. Stuart Campbell

  24. john king says:

    Ive just been on the radio times website and was able to leave a comment (how refreshing maybe the BBC could learn something) and besides my self there were about 6 or 7 other outraged people who put them straight,
     I simply pointed out that if they wish to take up a political stance it would be worth investing in a political editor who knows what he/she is talking about and advised them it is extremely foolish to underestimate your enemy (which is clearly what they see SNP as being)

  25. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Thank you for contacting Immediate Media Company.
    We aim to reply to general queries within 48 hours”

    It being the Easter weekend, it seems fair to give them until, say, Wednesday?

  26. McHaggis says:

    £5 says a tiny ‘correction and apology’ in the bottom left corner of page 17 of the next issue.

  27. The Man in the Jar says:

    Oops I have been commenting on the wrong thread (No stone etc.!). Sorry everyone. I mistook the header for this as something to do with the Wingsland appeal. (My excuse and sticking to it!) Weeawfiembarasedthingy
    As a member of the Scottish commemorative community I was initially very angry regarding this. I have met Dr. Watson many times at various commemorations. It would have been an extraordinary statement for her to make. So I will give her the benefit of the doubt. I know that the Wallace Society will be on the case. They have a dedicated media rep.
    Even the bloody Radio Times? The BBC goes from atrocious to worse.
    I don’t receive National Geographic. I hope that the program is not edited to show any negativity towards independence.
    I am about to email a link to this page to the convenor of the Wallace Society.
    “A noble heart may have nae ease, gif freedom fayle”
    Inscription on the heart casket of King Robert the Bruce!

  28. Graham Ennis says:

    Depepending on what the response is from Radio Moscow, (oops, Times) someone in SNP needs to pick this up and run with it. political bias and false statements, obviously. 
    Not sure of the legal position under Scottish law, but a good lawywr could find something, I think.Also, a lawyer friend has pointed out something interesting, which is that the Radio Times is owned, edited nd published in England, which is legally a seperate country, with its own seperate legal system. But any case in law would need to be heard in Scotland, not England. So it raises very interesting questions about why this company has de-facto immunity under Scottish law, as there is no way of making them appear in a Scottish court, and they have no assets in Scotland…..It now seems that if an English newspaper, magazine, or TV station says something or does something illegal, in Scotland, that unless it has a registered Scottish Office or assets, it can just ignore a Scottish Court. It is possible to enforce judgements from Scotland in England, but it is very difficult, and expensive. ms. Watson would have great difficulties in going after Radio Times, which she should……if sshe has any brains, as otherwise, this is her reputation finished in Scotland. Her University, of course, will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to help her, in any way.
     

  29. Jason says:

    As has been pointed out, it’s interesting how the Radio Times specifically says, “That period [presumably meaning the time of Wallace, not Braveheart] has been a gift to Alex Salmond and the SNP…”, sandwiched between bits about Braveheart and the apparent anti-English sentiment – letting the reader make the connection.
    They’ve also used a story about children being “beaten up for wearing an England shirt” without pointing out that this was a decade after the release of the film but was the same year that England lost to Poland in the European Championships – leaving the reader to make the connection with Braveheart and Alex Salmond and the SNP.
    It’s doubtful that the historian made each of the specific points; it is more likely that she pointed to a few of the inaccuracies in the film and the piece as it stands was created by James Gill. Also, the juxtapositions of Salmond/SNP, Braveheart and anti-Englishness and the implications that could be taken are unlikely to have gone unnoticed by editors and subeditors.

  30. The Man in the Jar says:

    In my experience some unionists hate the Wallace story. I remember once getting through on a BBC Radio Scotland phone in regarding the orange walk in Glasgow. I started by saying that along with a friend of mine I had been in Glasgow City centre on the day in question. I also mentioned that between us my friend and I had over 35 years service in the British army. The Grand Master seemed quite pleased about this. I then laid into him I cant remember the detail. A lot about the “followers” being pissed out of their heads. For a moment he was speechless. I finished with saying that I had nothing against marches as such as I regularly march for Wallace. He reiterated “A Wallace supporter no doubt SNP. They would complain if we were drunk or sober”
    I finished with “Sir you are undoubtedly well versed at defending the undefendable” and hung up.

  31. Rod Mac says:

    o/t and I apologise ,however we will never see articles like this in Scottish MSM which expose the vile nature at the core of the British Establishment /ruling class
     
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/30/poverty-benefits-not-lifestyle-choice?commentpage=1
    The more Scots we can get to read and understand the vile nature of British politics the better.
    Reading the Herald ,Scotsman ,Record etc they are fed the lie that life in Blighty is wonderful and all is well

  32. Macart says:

    Tried making a post with the Moridura link to head folks off at the pass as to who’s twisting what. Doesn’t appear to have made it through RT mods as yet.

  33. Albert Herring says:

    Hmmm… Scottish history “has been a gift to Alex Salmond and the SNP” I suppose you could put it that way.

  34. balgayboy says:

    Do not reckon the radio times has a big readership in Scotland..seems something of a 1950 or 1960’s bye-gone age publication. We’ve all heard the assertions of the Braveheart film link associated to the Scottish Independence movement from the time of the film’s premier. We can all counter with the endless stream of british empire is righteous and for the good of the lesser people movies over many decades. I think Dr Watson has been hoodwinked and misrepresented by the rag by the usual culprits. Anyway FREEDOM!

  35. Vronsky says:

    I’m not convinced that Dr Watson is exonerated by her email to Moridura.  Channel 5’s ‘True Story’ series of documentaries recently did a hatchet job on Braveheart, and Dr Watson was prominently involved in that too.  I mentioned it on a thread here at the time, wondering if anyone could think of another historical movie that had been similarly dissected.  Why was Braveheart selected for this treatment instead of, say, the Dambusters?  Perhaps because the Unionists believe that the movie continues to influence people towards support for independence, or suggests that we need not be passive?
     
    History is history, but a screenplay is drama and while it is interesting to note errors and anachronisms it really isn’t relevant – movies are entertainment, not history.  Dr Watson’s reply to Moridura is rather limp – ‘it’s too late to do anything’.  If I were an academic and some work of mine had been blatantly misrepresented for political purposes I’d be furious, and seeking some redress – reputations matter in academia.
     
    The most kindly interpretation is that Dr Watson is naïve and cannot see that she is being used.
     
    http://www.discoveryuk.com/web/the-true-story/about/braveheart/
     
     
    On the Dambusters (Operation Chastise), from Wiki:
     
    “The raid proved to be costly in lives (more than half the lives lost belonging to Allied POWs and forced-labourers), but in fact no more than a minor inconvenience to the Ruhr’s industrial output.”
     
     
    But The Dambusters Myth is sacred.

  36. Barontorc says:

    Isn’t is cute to have the Spectator doing the ‘Skintland’ jibe and the Radio Times with this crud about Wallace/Braveheart/Salmond and English football strips al having a jolly making japes and such, which isn’t racist.
     
    “Oh no, perish the thought, we were only exercising our infantile minds during a boring wet afternoon with no real stuff to write about – you’re sooo sensitive about these things, don’t take it seriously. We love you dearly, just remember your place!” 
     
    But then….one remembers, doesn’t one?  The BBC Radio 4 broadcast which heard commentators describe Scots as living off of benefits provided by the English and describe the Scottish parliament as a “charade of a building” inhabited by MSPs who “crawl out of the darkness”.
    These comments were made on the radio programme ‘Any Questions’ by Baroness Ruth Deech who is a former Governor of the BBC and Douglas Murray who is the Director of The Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC).  The comments resulted in a stream of complaints to the BBC – to what ends, we are now all asking?
    The show, broadcast on Friday 20th August 2012, also heard Baroness Deech claim that Scots lived off of benefits paid for by English subsidies and that the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi had embarrassed the rest of the UK.
     
    This is all becoming institutionalised and seen as fair game to all and sundry. But, by any definition it is racist and time it was stopped in its tracks.

  37. Jiggsbro says:

    Why was Braveheart selected for this treatment instead of, say, the Dambusters?
     
    I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps it was because the Dambusters film was largely historically accurate, whereas Braveheart was 99% nonsense. Or because the English hate us. Or something.

  38. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The most kindly interpretation is that Dr Watson is naïve and cannot see that she is being used.
    http://www.discoveryuk.com/web/the-true-story/about/braveheart/

    I can’t see anything objectionable in that summary. I’d be very surprised indeed if Wallace was really the simplified romantic hero of “Braveheart”.

  39. The Man in the Jar says:

    @Albert Herring
    at 10.00am
    Indeed that’s why it isn’t taught in most schools. Some do cover the Jacobites. A typical omission is that Charles Edward Stuart`s manifesto read out at Glenfinnan on 19th. August 1745 promised to reinstate the Scottish Parliament. I understand that was a major incentive join his army.
    “Prosperity for Scotland and No Union” as the Jacobites engraved on their sword blades.

  40. balgayboy says:

    Barontorc @10.32
    Yup. I remember that broadcast, the baroness almost sounded like the monster that her parents needed to escape from…oh dear! how people change. Never mind away from them 18/09/14.

  41. Rod Mac says:

    I saw this posting elsewhere it sums up the “unionist tactic ,and their source. Whenever you see an article or comment or statement which diminishes Scotland or it’s ability to run it’s own affairs think on the following and why it is done becomes a little clearer.

    “Deprive the people of their national consciousness, treat them as a tribe, dilute their national pride, do not teach their history, propagate their language as inferior, imply they have a cultural void, emphasise their customs are primitive and dismiss independence as a barbaric anomaly”

    Do these comments ring a bell with anyone?
    Who said them? Reinhard Heydrich, Nazi Leader, styled Protector of Czechoslovakia.

  42. Juteman says:

    Another offensive piece from The Economist’ on Peter Bells Scoop-it site.
    “Jock Slap”? FFS!
     

  43. Ron says:

    I’m also an ‘RT’ subscriber, for the moment at least. I did feel annoyed at the tone of the article and especially coming from an ‘honorary research fellow at Dundee University’. However, I must be getting immune to these continual anti-independence comments in the media as I couldn’t muster the will to complain. But RevStu has expressed it far more eloquently than I could have done and I look forward to their response.
    I feel, like Vronsky, that her response has been unconvincing and that if she was misrepresented as she says, then she should have been much more vocal in her reaction.
    In any case, I reckon ‘Rob Roy’ was a better movie.

  44. Vronsky says:

    “I can’t see anything objectionable in that summary.”
     
    There isn’t.  You had to see the programme.

  45. Alex Grant says:

    The problem with the BBC will only be solved when a group of independent ‘heavy hitters’ have a go. Individual complaints wont work and SNP complaints will be batted off as political interference and will be leapt upon by Unionist politicians and the MSM?
    Regarding historians, Tom Devine waxed lyrical at a recent Constitutional Commission event about how bad BBC Scotland is but he seems unwilling to have a proper go by leading a group of people who couldn’t be ignored. And Fiona Watson, as a number of people have said already, is a great disappointment both in her participation and her apparent unwillingness to complain. 
    We need to recruit a leader to get the BBC Trust and Patten’s attention? However I would say that the BBC have decided to support the Union 100% because if we win the referendum  they will still have an audience of 50m who will be perfectly happy and if they lose their Scottish monopoly (which of course they won’t totally even in the worst case scenario) they don’t care!!!

  46. crisiscult says:

    In my time visiting this blog I think this is the second or third time Braveheart has come up for discussion; and yes, it’s always the British nationalists bringing it up somewhere. I’ve also read comments on this site about how popular Braveheart is around the world. I worked in Lebanon for 4 years and they loved it there because they identified with the universal message of the people being sold out by their ‘leaders’ for personal gain. Is that something fabricated too?
     
    Spuriously connected to this thread, but I spent a bit of time this morning trying to work out why some of my friends, who presumably are in the top 5% or 10% of UK earners are against independence, and why I’m for it (though can’t claim to be in the same exclusive group) – and funnily enough Braveheart has never come up. This quote from a Guardian article is central to the debate 
    “These achievements can be largely credited to Social Democrats and their welfare state policies. They enjoy such support that even the conservatives don’t dare to dismantle the system of free schools and universities, state-funded healthcare or benefits for the poorest. When talking about the crisis of the Finnish left, it should be remembered that their conservatives are way to the left of Britain’s Tories. In a country where even the conservatives have labelled themselves “a labour party”, what is the left needed for?”  
     
    Compare that to the situation in the UK where everyone has moved to Milton Friedman territory and that’s why I think many people want independence, and we need to be making that clearer to the undecideds in my view.
     
    So, I concluded, tentatively, that my friends are quite happy with their increasing relative wealth or at least not willing to risk that, while perhaps I’m just selfish in not being happy with my status quo. I also, of course, am lying and really just hate the English because they tied the lovely Mirren to a stick and slit her throat.
     

  47. Iain says:

    There’s also the suggestion that ‘kids’ (plural) were attacked. As far as I can see, vile as it was, there was only one incident caused by somone who appeared mentally deranged. 
    The ‘SNP are anti-English’ is a very common trope on the blogosphere; I wonder if it’s a kind of defence mechanism for those that are just not able to comprehend that people rationally, cooly and without prejudice, want to walk away from the great benison that is the UK.

  48. Vronsky says:

    The Braveheart documentary  seems no longer to be available  but have a look at the comments here.  Example: ” I am a proud to be british and not nationalist by any stretch, but such poor production and clear intention of this episode is very disappointing. I truly pity those involved.”

    http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-true-story-2/episodes/braveheart-the-true-story-2

  49. muttley79 says:

    We are now seeing the rage and bitterness against the people of Scotland from the organs of the British state (Radio Times, Economist, BBC etc).  The crime; voting in sufficent numbers for a party that supports independence for Scotland.  The sentiment that hangs over these articles is that the ‘uppity Scots are getting ideas way above their station.’  I think we should expect to see an increase in these types of articles in the media.  Their purpose is clear:  the people of Scotland’s confidence in their ability to run their own affairs must be destroyed, or reduced significantly.    

  50. tartanfever says:

    Like Vronsky suggested, I to have my reservations about Dr Watson’s reply. Certainly the academics that I studied under  would have been up in arms at being misquoted in anyway, let alone having their words manipulated in such trite manner.
    I thought academics lived by their reputations, and if it were me, letters of complaint would have been winging their way to the RT and the IPCC and I would have been making it abundantly clear that I had been misquoted.

  51. Another London Dividend says:

    The only way to embarrass the BBC is to write to newspapers as  they don’t pay any attention to complaints.

  52. the rough bounds says:

    I have met Fiona Watson and we have corresponded. She is a great Scot. She must be absolutely horrified by the way her words have been twisted out of context by the Radio Times.
     
    It’s obvious we cannot trust any of the British Media. Better with the Yanks.
     
    The April edition of the American free on-line magazine, The Celtic Guide (nothing to do with Celtic Football Club…sigh!) is out now. Its theme this month is Freedom. Some very good stuff in it about Scotland’s struggle for independence.
     
    Just google the CelticGuide.com  and you’ll find it.

  53. Marcia says:

    The Yes campaign who brief the press or send in copy to newspapers should be aware that anything they say might be altered , manipulated , spun round to say the opposite of what they had planned to say. Perhaps we need an official 16 month campaign period rather than the 16 weeks planned . The Broadcasters then through gritted teeth will have to inject a  bit of balance in all broadcast programmes running up to polling day.

  54. Liz Quinn says:

    Rod Mac
    “Deprive the people of their national consciousness, treat them as a tribe, dilute their national pride, do not teach their history, propagate their language as inferior, imply they have a cultural void, emphasise their customs are primitive and dismiss independence as a barbaric anomaly”
    I recently heard that during Jack McConnell’s time as Education Minister he decreed that the teaching of Scottish History in schools should be discouraged as it only fed the Nationalists’ cause. At the time there was concern in the universities about the drop in applications for History courses.
     

  55. a supporter says:

    I posted this before but it seems to have disappeared.
    Regardless of Braveheart’s artistic and historic merits and it is NOT 99% fiction as someone said earlier. The basic facts about Wallace’s fight for Independence are all there and one can ask for no more in a film whose primary aim is to entertain. Braveheart is a celebration of Scotland’s Independence and is a film that for once showed the history of these Isles which isn’t England centric and dominant, which is the usual pap we are fed. The BitterMen do not like Braveheart one little bit because it is a powerful slogan. And that is why they jeer at it. And it is sad to see even here some Independence supporters decrying the film.
    And like others I am not convinced by the weak claims of Dr Watson. She ‘sighed’ when she saw that she had been mis-represented but will do nothing about it. And she admitted that she agreed with the lies purveyed by the English media about Scotland being anti-English during the 2006 World Cup. While there was a decided anti-English sentiment at the time it was a tribal football occasion and you would have had to be a saint not to be somewhat annoyed by the constant full flow of claptrap by the BBC and English media about how the ‘Golden Generation’ were going to win it.  

     

  56. Morag says:

    I only saw the film once, being dragged to a showing in Leicester Square by a rather gushing fellow SNP member, I have to admit.  I didn’t really like it as the first half hour or so was boring and for the rest I kept feeling it wasn’t as good a story as the Wallace story I was already familiar with.

    And it was Bruce who was Brave Heart.

    However, people keep telling me how many Oscars it won so it can’t have been that bad, and pointing out that someone watching it who isn’t already aware of the events of 1296 to 1305 will have a very different experience of the film.  So meh, whatever.

  57. Dcanmore says:

    The anti-English claims rhetoric is now being ramped up by the Unionistas because the too wee, too poor and too stupid line has failed. I’m now seeing anti-English claims all over print and digital comments and letters in particular making the connection to Alex Salmond and SNP. The Unionistas will be going hell-for-leather now to paint, slur and demonise the independence movement as another BNP. This is the nasty tactic the Unionistas will build upon this year and cultivate for the public at large. They don’t have anything left. Demonise the SNP on an industrial scale and then offer jam tomorrow as a softer kinder alternative … then get fooled once again!

  58. Morag says:

    When this blog was in its infancy I posted a link to an article in a forum thread dealing with Scottish independence.  One reply said, “Do you realise the owner of that blog lives and works and has spent most of his adult life in England?”  This, I hasten to make clear, was a post from an English supporter of the union.

    I don’t know what he expected me to say.  Of course I knew that RevStu was based in Bath and has lived there for some time.  I can read, can’t I?

    So I just said, with perfect truth, yeah, me too, except I just moved back to Scotland quite recently.  So what?

    The matter was never referred to again.  But I think the other poster genuinely believed I would be outraged that someone who was a long-term resident in England should presume to get involved in the debate.  Or something.  He obviously didn’t see me during the 1990s!

  59. The Man in the Jar says:

    So what about all the anti Scottish comments in any newspaper or website regarding any article concerning the SNP / Indi?

  60. Jason says:

    @Jason, 9:43am – 
    England lost to Poland in the European Championships
    Of course, 2006 was actually the year of the World Cup and England exited on penalties in their quarter-final against Portugal
     

  61. Peter Curran says:

    A wee bit of bandwagon-jumping 10 days after the event? My blog was written on the day of publication 20th March and the quote from Dr. Watson is from a direct email to me, in an extended correspondence. Less of the “you saw it here first”, and “after we initially drew attention to”, “an alert reader” etc. please!

  62. You are cited in the text of the post, including a link to the article which quotes the email. Just in case you missed it:

    “After we initially drew attention to this story, an alert reader commented that we weren’t in fact the first to notice it.”

    This is followed by a quote from your article, which links to the original.

    I’m having difficulty parsing your objection as anything other than ‘this is *my* information and you can’t talk about it’, which seems somewhat counterproductive in terms of getting the word out there.

  63. Jiggsbro says:

    Regardless of Braveheart’s artistic and historic merits and it is NOT 99% fiction as someone said earlier. The basic facts about Wallace’s fight for Independence are all there
     
    Wallace lead a rebellion against English occupation in 1296. He won at Stirling Bridge, lost at Falkirk, was captured, tried and executed. That’s the 1% that isn’t nonsense. The other 99%? Fiction.
     
    And it is sad to see even here some Independence supporters decrying the film.
     
    It’s a great film. But let’s not pretend it has anything more than a superficial resemblance to historical fact, or any relevance to the 21st century independence movement.
     

  64. The ironic thing is that I think most of us who are for independence wish the film never existed.  For me, it had no meaningful impact on my political views – I converted to a full-throated supporter of independence only a few years ago as a result of trying to build an evidence-based case for the why the Union was good for Scotland[1].  Braveheart, as enjoyable a movie as it is, has given the opponents of independence a club to beat us with for the better part of two decades.  

    The temporary entertainment I got from the movie hasn’t come close to justifying the propaganda coup it has been for the Unionists.

    [1] I failed.

  65. Peter Curran says:

    I’m looking at the blog above now, Michael, and I can’t see any ‘citing’. but I did see this
    Wings Over Scotland ?@WingsScotland
    You read it here first, folks – the SNP use “Braveheart” to make people beat up English kids: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-03-25/bloody-tales-mel-gibsons-braveheart—man-or-myth … (via @bobby_mckail)
    In five years of blogging over a million words, and posting close to 1000 YouTube videos, not to mention 20,000 tweets, I’ve never objected to anyone using my material for non-commercial purposes. Unlike this and other sites, I don’t solicit donations.
    But I do like the basic courtesies of attribution. Go and parse your ****, Michael.
     
    regards,
     
    Peter

  66. Haha, wow – I admire how easily you resort to insults to make your case.  I’ll be sure to keep that in mind next time I have an urge to read your blog.

    The whole quote is your citation – click on it and it’s a link to your article.  You may have missed that, which would be forgiveable, but your kneejerk allegations and followup insults are not.  The only way I found out about your blog was through this link.  Thankfully you have educated me as to your personal qualities before I invested any time in reading the archives.   

  67. Peter Curran says:

    I’ll manage to survive without you, Michael.
     
    regards,
     
    Peter

  68. muttley79 says:

    @Morag
     
    And it was Bruce who was Brave Heart.
     
    There are people in the North East of Scotland I would not say that to, Woof!

  69. Albert Herring says:

    @Michael Heron
    The opponents of independence may think they have been beating us with a club for the better part of two decades, however what they have really been demonstrating is their visceral hatred of any notion of Scotland as a distinct nation, one perfectly capable of taking her place in the family of other normal independent nations (no, I don’t understand it either). If it wasn’t “Braveheart” it would be something else.

  70. I agree entirely with that, but it’s a lot harder to get your fingers around those kind of concepts without a convenient shorthand.  Braveheart in many ways is that shorthand, neatly encapsulating so many useful concepts that it can be wielded like a weapon.  I’m not sure there’s really anything else that has the same kind of traction in terms of communicating the message with a minimum of effort.

  71. Jiggsbro says:

    I’m looking at the blog above now, Michael, and I can’t see any ‘citing’.
     
    I did read it here first, Peter. But after Stu initially drew attention to it, an alert reader commented that he wasn’t first to notice it. And so he linked to your blog that was, if not first, then certainly prior. That’s sort of how the web works, you see.
     
     

  72. muttley79 says:

    @Dcanmore
     

    The anti-English claims rhetoric is now being ramped up by the Unionistas because the too wee, too poor and too stupid line has failed. I’m now seeing anti-English claims all over print and digital comments and letters in particular making the connection to Alex Salmond and SNP. The Unionistas will be going hell-for-leather now to paint, slur and demonise the independence movement as another BNP. This is the nasty tactic the Unionistas will build upon this year and cultivate for the public at large. They don’t have anything left. Demonise the SNP on an industrial scale and then offer jam tomorrow as a softer kinder alternative … then get fooled once again!
     
    This has been a favourite tactic of the the Unionists for decades.  It is also used by the Unionist middle classes as well.  Of course if it was true then there would be no need for independence…They cannot explain why there are English born elected representatives and members in the SNP. It is basically people who are against change.  Also, it still leaves us looking for the mythical positive case for the Union.  

  73. The Man in the Jar says:

    @Muttley
    Got to disagree. According to “popular legend” The last words of James Douglas Lord of Douglas (Now he was a knight) at his last stand against the moors at Teba in Andalucia. As he hurled the Bruces heart casket into the Moorish army he cried. “Go forward my brave heart and we will follow”
    Comyn pha!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Douglas,_Lord_of_Douglas

  74. Morag says:

    Peter always has to be right, and the recognised authority.  Best just to give him a miss, I find.

  75. Morag says:

    TMITJ, I don’t know what Muttley is on about either.  The Douglas coat of arms is pretty clear though.

    http://www.heraldry.ws/html/douglas.html

  76. muttley79 says:

    Robert the Bruce is far from popular in the view of a number of Scots.  I can’t remember the term used, something like the ‘harrying of Buchan.’ It was a brutal episode in the North East of Scotland.

  77. Morag says:

    Ah, I understand now where you’re coming from.  The Middle Ages weren’t pretty, that’s for sure.

    But there really is no doubt that historically the accolade “Brave Heart” belonged to Bruce, whether or not you actually like the guy.

  78. muttley79 says:

    @Morag
     
    There is no doubt that Wallace and Bruce were great men for Scotland.  Both were very courageous as they faced forces that heavily outnumbered their own.  Inevitably though they had their flaws, and some of their actions were suspect.  Some of the atrocities on both sides were horrendous. 

  79. The Man in the Jar says:

    @Morag
    The Douglas coat of arms and my “Family” coat of arms both bear the heart of The Bruce. We were at Teba as well!
    I assumed that Muttley was a Comyn supporter. Well it’s better than supporting Balliol, old Toom Tabard.
    The harrying of Buchan was brutal. But a walk in the park compared to “The Douglas Larder” episode when Sir James “Evicted” the English from his own castle.

  80. The Man in the Jar says:

    Back on topic. NNS has an article regarding BBC. Apparently BBC Scotland has snubbed Holyrood for the third time. Arrogant seems to gentle a word to describe them.

  81. Jiggsbro says:

    Apparently BBC Scotland has snubbed Holyrood for the third time. Arrogant seems to gentle a word to describe them.
    Broadcasting is still a reserved matter. It’s a little arrogant of the Scottish Parliament to imagine it can summon people to answer to reserved matters.

  82. muttley79 says:

    @The Man in the Jar
     
    I am not a supporter of Comyn.  It is just that I know that Robert Bruce divides opinion among Scottish people.

  83. Holebender says:

    You’ll have a hard time finding anyone with a word to say against Bruce in Aberdeen. He did, after all, establish the city’s Common Good Fund. That’s why the city recently erected a statue of the Bruce outside Marishal College… better late than never!

    Honestly, I think the only people who would have a divided opinion about Bruce would be those who put too much faith in the accuracy of “Braveheart”.

  84. Craig M says:

    Peter and Michael….for f***s sake….Foulkes and co will be laughing at you.
     

  85. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “A wee bit of bandwagon-jumping 10 days after the event? My blog was written on the day of publication 20th March and the quote from Dr. Watson is from a direct email to me, in an extended correspondence. Less of the “you saw it here first”, and “after we initially drew attention to”, “an alert reader” etc. please!”

    Peter: I was directed to the Radio Times piece by a tweet sent to me on Friday night:

    https://twitter.com/bobby_mckail/statuses/317767407185842177

    I tweeted about it, using the “You heard it here first” line, and then wrote a post. At that point I’d assumed Dr Watson was responsible for all the text.

    Then, in the comments, someone pointed to your coverage of it, which hadn’t been widely noticed and certainly not by me. So I edited the piece to expressly note that in fact people HADN’T heard it here first (though of course lots still would have), and to reflect the new facts. I linked the entire quote directly to the comment in your blog so it would be immediately and unmistakeably clear where the story had been broken, and that it was you who got the quote from Dr Watson.

    The reference to “after we initially drew attention to it” means “after the first time we mentioned it” and refers to the edit – it doesn’t mean “we were the first people to mention it”.

    I’m not in the habit of stealing people’s stories without linking back, and the original piece was written without any idea that you’d covered it. Your pique is unwarranted. I linked to your piece as soon as I knew it existed.

  86. Lochside says:

    Fiona Watson has previous: I saw  her perpetrate some snide character assassination re. the Wallace legend on the History Channel, where she described  a ‘thief’ called William Wallace stealing a beer barrel from an Inn somewhere in Perth or thereabouts. I distinctly remember her triumphant expression as she read from some bogus ‘manuscript’ facsimile (probably the same one as Ruth Davidson uses). She could not back up that this was the real WW but the implication was clear: here is the so-called Scottish hero, nothing but a bloody thief…. So now she’s got caught out…another self-loathing arse-kissing Unionist Scottish ‘academic’.Without even the courage to admit she’s another Wallace denigrator. Well how about this fact: During the 1996 World Cup, people in England who were Portuguese nationals were badly beaten and their shops trashed, and a Scotsman was stabbed for wearing a German top. Unfortunately, there are plenty more of these stories, but the one salient fact is that Wallace was a hero against a brutal oppressive invader and was slaughtered like  an animal by that same country for simply refusing to accept their sovereignty. For that reason as well, 6000 Scots men, women and children were slaughtered without quarter, at Berwick by Edward..maybe Ian Davidson and Fiona Watson want to remember that fact when they open their stupid lying mouths again about ‘celebrating’ Bannockburn, Braveheart and the true hero that was William Wallace. 

  87. Heather Wilson says:

    I happened to seek out the BBC Alba programme, ‘Eorpa’ a couple of days ago, and found the latest programme is about it’s 20th birthday, have   watch as it is really interesting to see the coverage about all the things going on at the time, not least many of the countries seeking Independence at the time, though I’m not that knowledgeable about history, I was still surprised that many of the issues had passed me by, my life at the time, ignorance or…perhaps under reported? Not reported? Have a watch if it’s still available..
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rfwgd/Eorpa_Series_20_Episode_16/
    sorry couldn’t do a link,
    worth a watch tho and quite harrowing…
     
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rfwgd/Eorpa_Series_20_Episode_16/

  88. Erchie says:

    Braveheart is, historically, far short of accurate. My problem with it is tht the story of he Walkace deserves a much better film. Not the unsubtle mess Gibson made.

  89. Hermione says:

    Good….
     
    GOOD!!!

  90. Jiggsbro says:

    I distinctly remember her triumphant expression as she read from some bogus ‘manuscript’ facsimile
     
    I guess we’ll have to trust your perception that her expression was ‘triumphant’, not least because you’re clearly perceptive enough to spot that her manuscript was bogus. Who do these historians think they are, eh, trying to teach us history? Lucky for us you spotted all that and her ‘implication’. Some people might have been fooled into thinking that any triumphant expression was that of an historian who’d possibly found a sliver of information about a major historical figure whose life was largely undocumented, but fortunately you can see through that nonsense.
     
    But now she’s been caught out by the Radio Times, and all they had to do to expose her was lie about what she said. I’m surprised no one’s done it before.  Serves her right for being a Unionist.
     
    You know, the thing I’m most looking forward to about independence is the possibility that we might, just possibly, be able to have mature, intelligent discussions about our own history without bitter, chippy people hurling abuse at any one whose view deviates even slightly from their own hagiography. There are countries who happily revere national heroes with slightly shady pasts,. without worrying about “snide character assassinations”. Perhaps we could be one of those grown-up countries.

  91. Chic McGregor says:

    I believe Stuart broke what he believed was an original story in good faith.
     
    When he was informed otherwise he edited.
     
    I believe Peter then saw the story while being unaware of the editorial history of it.
     
    Yes the editing could have been clearer in attribution.
     
    Yes Peter could have been more circumspect, but his complaint of non attribution was also made in good faith.
     
    There we have it, a simple misunderstanding, nothing more, brought about by timing and post editing which is always prone to error of thoroughness.
     
    I also believe some have shit-stirred for no good reason.
     
    We take learnings and move on.

  92. CameronB says:

    @ Chic McGregor
    I think it was a real bonus to the btl comments, when you showed up.
     
    Crawling mode off. Carry on. Please do not reply unless it is funny (that should not be taken as a challenge).

  93. Chic McGregor says:

    Holebender,
    Bruce comes in for some post modern political cleansing too.  Very few are aware of his early involvement with the resistance when he defied his fathers wishes to join with Wishart in the uprising in the SW.  He even tried to persuade his own father’s retinue to join him.
     
    The resistance was not all about Wallace in Central East Scotland  and more people now seem aware of the uprising in the north under Andrew Murray, however the one which fascinates me most is the one in the Aberdeenshire where the people rose up with no identifiable leader at all, although they were assisted in this by a contingent of English troops leaving the area to try to help deal with Murray further northwest.
     
    It is also worth remembering who the aggressor was here.  Edward I was, by any standard, in the worst of historical moulds (if you are not English, actually probably even if you are), not only did he invade every single neighbouring country, carrying out many horrendous atrocities while doing so, he was also the first in Europe to carry out mass killings of the Jewish people.  Those who did not escape were slaughtered and the banishment of Jews remained on the English statutes for hundreds of years after that.  Other European countries had exiled Jews before that but not the mass killings, and usually offered conversion to Christianity as an alternative as well and usually a fairly short lived exile before being allowed back.

  94. Craig P says:

    People on here calling out Fiona Watson as a unionist and ‘so-called Dr’ really want to take a look at themselves. 😀  is it a full moon tonight or is it always like this when the film Braveheart gets mentioned?

  95. @Craig M – Knee-jerk allegations belong to Unionists.  Compounding folly with insults and not admitting mistakes is also something that I’d prefer to see in the Unionist camp only.  Both of those are things that Peter Curran did, and they should be shown up for the inappropriate behavior they are.
    For your part, I’d also be quite keen if comical exaggeration  stayed on their side too.  ;-P

  96. Linda's back says:

    All historical figures have feet of clay but shuold be seen in the context of the times they lived in.
    Both Wallace and Bruce are rightly lauded as Scottish heroes who stood against foreign invaders and only those with a Scottish cringe would suggest otherwise.
    of course Holywood hoken altered the true story of Braveheart but the central story is basically correct and having traveled abroad substantially over the last 20 years I can assure you that the film is admired throughout the world as ordinary people can identify with Scotland’s struggle against a powerful aggressor. 
    It is not really relevant to the referendum debate but let’s not decry our history.

  97. fittiebeach says:

    Jiggsbro ,you seem to let the anti braveheart comments from unionists get under your skin .why do you need to cringe about a historical drama of which the basic facts are true .
    The patriot was also dramatised ,but the basic  events in it were true and no American will cringe at that movie

  98. Weedeochandorris says:

    I simply cant see that she means well at all No matter what spin you put on it.

  99. Jiggsbro says:

    Jiggsbro ,you seem to let the anti braveheart comments from unionists get under your skin .why do you need to cringe about a historical drama of which the basic facts are true .
     
    You seem to be living through the looking-glass. It’s not me that’s let comments from unionists get under my skin, to the extent that I’m calling a respected academic a “self-loathing arse-kissing Unionist”. Nor am I ‘cringing’ about anything, least of all an ahistorical drama in which 99% of the ‘facts’ are mince. I’ve just watched ‘Weird Science’, in which the basic facts are also true…there is such a thing as ‘science’ and some of it is weird. The film as a whole, however, bears as much resemblance to a science documentary as Braveheart does to historical drama.

  100. Woah, hang on one minute – are you saying my attempts to build Kelly LeBroc in my basement are doomed to failure?

  101. Bobby Mckail says:

    I just read the comments on here and I’m bemused by the fact that some people want to argue over what Wallace did or did not do(i think it’s irrelevant myself) as long as everyone understands this was a man whom put our country before himself!
    The second point i would make is that i sent this “story” to “WingsOverScotland” on Friday night when i came across the Radio Times online. There were no comments at all on the online article when i came across it, and i had never up until that point came across any other Blog mentioning anything about it!
    I was outraged by the article and the fact that Dr Watson was credited with it! So i sent it to Stu and asked if he had seen this article which he hadn’t and i knew that to get enough exposure that the best place for that would be WingsOverScotland and not me!  

  102. thomas says:

    jiggsbro please prove 99 % of the film?facts is mince!

  103. a supporter says:

    Jiggsboro
    “… You know, the thing I’m most looking forward to about independence is the possibility that we might, just possibly, be able to have mature, intelligent discussions about our own history without bitter, chippy people hurling abuse at any one whose view deviates even slightly from their own hagiography …”
    My, my. Aren’t we a fine one. When we hurl chippy abuse at people it is of course mature and intelligent discussion.
     

  104. fittiebeach says:

    much better to turn the tables on unionists re braveheart and wind them up by asking them which side they would have been on

  105. Jiggsbro says:

    My, my. Aren’t we a fine one.
     
    Do grow up, there’s a love.
     

  106. The Man in the Jar says:

    As I said in an earlier comment. I have forwarded a link to this article to Duncan Fenton, Convenor of the Wallace Society. His reply follows. I will inform him not to hold his breath waiting for a reply from the BBC. I will also forward him some links to other articles on Wings for his perusal also a link to the Craig Murray article regarding the BBC.

    Hi Xxx

    Thanks for the link.

    Here is my letter to them. We’ll see what they say next.

    —————————————–

    Dear Sir,

    I have been informed by several people that your magazine, the Radio Times, carried an article containing an interview with Dr. Fiona Watson, regarding William Wallace.

    You have deliberately misled your readers by using Dr. Watson’s comments, out of the context in which they were given.

    Juxtaposing her comments with quotes about children being beaten up for wearing an England shirt, is very disingenuous indeed.

    The overall tone of the article reflects badly on Dr. Watson, who is not very pleased with the way you have used her words to very different effect.

    As a good and trusted friend of hers for many years, I am appalled at the way you have taken her words & used them to construe a totally different meaning.

    The Society of William Wallace is an organisation which is open to people from any part of the world, regardless of colour, creed or political persuasion.

    To use this article to create a seemingly direct connection between Wallace & the SNP, is a very calculated thing to do – mischief making at its worst.

    The Scottish people are well used to being lied to and misrepresented by the media, but this is a new low.

    By your actions, you have deliberately cast aspersions on Dr. Watson’s integrity & I hope a prompt apology, to her personally, and in the Radio Times, will be forthcoming.

    Duncan Fenton Convenor, Society of William Wallace

  107. The Man in the Jar says:

    This is the BBC’s reply to the above complaint lodged by Duncan Fenton convenor of the Society of William Wallace.

    Here is the reply from Radio Times. Didn’t really expect mush else.

    Feel free to post this if you wish.

    ———————————————–

    Dear Mr Fenton,

    Many thanks for your letter which makes a series of points which certainly deserve an answer. Radio Times has long prized its reputation for fairness and political impartiality. I take very seriously any suggestion that this has been compromised.

    As a result I’ve gone back and looked carefully at the full transcript of the interview James Gill conducted with the historian Fiona Watson. I would accept that the paragraph to which you refer could have been clearer. It contains two quotations from separate parts of the interview because it was compressed – like most interviews – to fit a limited space.

    However, having carefully reread the published piece you complain about, at no point does it blame the SNP for anti-English sentiment. Instead, it says the film Braveheart helped fuel some anti-English sentiment among some people – and the problem was such that even post-devolution in 2006 children were getting beaten up for wearing an England shirt. While it says Alex Salmond and the SNP knew how to make use of history on the back of Braveheart – and adds that this period of history was a gift for them – it doesn’t blame either for any anti-English feeling.

    Indeed Fiona Watson made that point explicitly in her original interview. With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred this quotation to be included in that final paragraph. I’m happy to clarify that point on our letters page.

    Once again, many thanks for your letter. I’m sorry the published article caused you such distress.

    Yours sincerely,

    Ben Preston, Editor, Radio Times

    Duncan

  108. Geoff Huijer says:

    Pathetic response from the Radio Times.

  109. KOF says:

    “. It contains two quotations from separate parts of the interview because it was compressed – like most interviews – to fit a limited space.”
    “With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred this quotation to be included in that final paragraph.”
    Context in a conversation is very important when quoting, I reckon. It might be interesting to see the words not quoted from the interview. 
     
     

  110. The Man in the Jar says:

    @KDF&Geoff Huijer
    Thanks I was beginning to think that it was me. Two out of context quotes joined together to mean something else. And the bit about “kids being beaten up” If I recall correctly ONE kid was beaten up. The way it reads is like hoards of Scots were tracking down anyone under the age of 16 that wore an england top.



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top