Mr Peter Murrell: a correction
On 8 December this site ran an article about the Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish National Party, Peter Murrell. It has recently been drawn to our attention that the piece contained a serious inaccuracy, which we would like to remedy.
Because as it turns out, Peter Murrell IS a liar.
This is a passage from his evidence to the inquiry committee last week:
What Murrell is saying there is that if someone had a harassment complaint about an SNP MSP, there are no circumstances in which that complaint would be directed to any organisation outside the SNP (unless it was a police matter).
But we know that isn’t true, because we know it isn’t what happened in the case that was used as the trigger for the policy under which Alex Salmond was investigated – that of Mark McDonald.
When a complaint was made in 2017 about Mark McDonald it was first dealt with by the First Minister’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd – a Scottish Government employee who holds no office in the SNP. (We have no idea if she’s even a member of the party.)
(We might note in passing Lloyd’s… interesting approach to conflict resolution: “I hear you might have done something bad but I’m not going to tell you what it is, so tell me some bad things you think you’ve done and I’ll let you know if it’s any of those.” A cynical person might suspect that she knew what she had was absurdly weak and was fishing for something better.)
Murrell also told Jackie Baillie, in reference to a letter sent out by the SNP informing members of how to raise any historical complaints:
But “Scottish Government special advisers or civil servants” is precisely the category of person that Liz Lloyd belongs in, being both of those things.
Murrell also told the committee this:
But that isn’t true either, because Mark McDonald was never referred to the SNP’s Member Conduct Committee (or as it was still known at the time, the Disciplinary Committee) over harassment issues. After he resigned as a minister in early November 2017 over a text message he’d sent an SNP staffer, the First Minister herself had suggested that his conduct hadn’t actually merited such a drastic step.
McDonald wasn’t suspended by the party until nine days later, when it received “new information” that led to the uncovering of a minor financial irregularity when a different staff member (“Witness B”) had paid a rental deposit of a few hundred pounds for him, and been paid back three weeks later.
But that fact had NOT been uncovered by the SNP’s disciplinary committee, because the SNP’s disciplinary committee were never involved in the process. In fact the inquiry had been conducted for the party by a private investigation company – none of the complaints ever went near the proper SNP channels suggested by Murrell.
(Witness B had not wished to participate in the investigation at all.)
It remains the case that the only sort of “harassment” Mark McDonald has been found guilty of was the sending of a single extremely innocuous text making a joke about his iPhone’s autocorrect, to which Witness A had the most extraordinary and absurd overreaction, alleging that it contributed towards her being hospitalised.
All the other claims made by her – and by James Dornan MSP, who actually made the complaint on her behalf – were investigated in 2018 by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, and found to be false. Indeed, some were found to have been physically impossible, suggesting – in the delicate language employed by such reports – that Witness A and James Dornan were simply flat-out lying.
One of the more bizarre aspects was that Witness A claimed to be so “agitated” by the sight of McDonald – despite it having been physically impossible for her to see him – that she couldn’t even face the apparently gruelling prospect of a two-minute taxi ride from Holyrood to Waverley station, and instead phoned up a friend and made him make a 45-minute drive from Motherwell to collect her.
(This was all BEFORE the allegedly harassing texts were sent later that evening. No actual evidence was presented to the committee in respect of why Witness A would feel “agitated” by the sight of McDonald before the receipt of the text messages, other than that they were sometimes in the Parliament restaurant or lobby at the same time and she found this in some way suspicious.)
Dornan couldn’t even get his story straight when recounting how the complaints had been brought to the SNP.
(The committee also expressed their severe displeasure at Dornan’s repeated leaking of information around the investigation, contributing to the enormous and sustained smear campaign against McDonald in the media.)
But it’s abundantly clear that both the investigation against McDonald and the media smear campaign were just dry runs for the real target. Without the trumped-up finding of harassment against Mark McDonald there would have been no figleaf to justify the creation of the rules which were used to unlawfully attack Alex Salmond (and have still never been used against anyone else before or since, despite a supposed epidemic of sexual harassment at the Parliament).
It’s in that frame that Peter Murrell’s evidence to the Holyrood inquiry should properly be viewed. Because in order to cover up the truth about the plot against Salmond, he also has to lie to cover up the events that (quite deliberately) led to it.
The inquiry wants to recall Murrell to question him again over the many inconsistencies in his evidence. We do not as yet know if it will do so, but if it does we hope that some of these troubling issues can be cleared up.
Witness B did not want to give evidence and only gave an account via a solicitor ‘nominated for her by the SNP’.
Did the SNP pay that solicitors fees? I would suggest its likely.
Again and again – executive decisions are being made with regards providing ‘those and such as those’ within the SNP with very expensive legal services.
They absolutely must have a written down policy for this – or they are straying directly into employment/discrimination territory, and quite possibly it should be declared as a ‘taxable’ perk.
Very strong sulphurous smell coming from the Edinburgh direction.
Without saying too much a clean out is urgently required.
Sturgeon said, her Husband is being used as escape goat the only person to put her husband in that position is Nicola Sturgeon her self.
Peter Murrell is a weapon.
I tried that very message from McDonzld typing this post and put in the word Dingyd or a variation of it.
One of the words that came up on my predictext was indeed the same as McDonald’s.
Even though my I pad is failing at this time it proves to me it is possible.
1) Scotgov staff members , that sounds like a toxic environment – industrial heavy duty sick
2) Witness A is a piece of work and was supported by Dornan?
@Ian Brotherhood: I think the word you need is “tool”.
Is there any point in the Inquiry when the Rev
seems to be the only one who nows what is happening.
If it wasn’t all put on a plate for him Murdo Fraser would
Having brain surgery by now.
Its all so squalid, and must be soul-destroying to write about. Can only thank you for your perseverance.
Who got a private investigator??
Liz Lloyd again. Never far from intrigue that one.
My goodness who would have thunk?
Aye well. Once again Stu thanks for putting it all together.
Though I’m sure your phasers are presently at malkie, all the same watch yer back.
Dornan, another serial trougher. A waste of space as a politician and who would have thought it eh , turns out to be another one of the jackanory story teller brigade. All very sad.
Sturgeon has indulged in the worst behaviour ever shown by the head of a democratic government in North West Europe. And even Richard Nixon, that other politician who plotted against opponents, never went so far as to contrive to have someone framed on a rape charge. Sturgeon is cancer to democracy, decency and the independence quest. She can’t be toppled a day too soon.
If it were not for the government misinformation retailed on the deadliness of Covid https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/13/why-this-campaign-of-terror/ I would dare to speculate that Scotland’s streets might be full of genuine nationalists baying for blood.
300 years of being taken for a ride to nowhere and now this must meet a response other than self-hurt internalized resentment.
The legalists, the wee nit picking Scotch lawyer types unable to see the mighty forest for the trees have had their chance. A new mindset, untrammelled by ‘the conventions’ now seems highly desirable.
It has been pointed out to me that the Thatcher Poll Tax met with greater popular resistance in England despite Scotland being the guinea pig. Effectively it was English opposition that killed it.
Object lesson?
Something stinkz about all this. It will take some amount of shovelling to put an honest face on all this – about half an inch of pancake make up before things will start to look rosy.
“I hear you might have done something bad but I’m not going to tell you what it is, so tell me some bad things you think you’ve done and I’ll let you know if it’s any of those.”
Well,I’ll go to’t foot of our stairs! That’s straight out of the playbook of another, Westminster based, political Party one is aware of.
What a small world.
Another excellent investigative report.
The truth about the Murrells’ rule over Scotland seems to be filtering through.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1338442898803658754
It will be interesting to see if anyone, from any political party, will raise this in Holyrood.
Or will a deaf dumb and blind approach be used to protect the not so “innocent”.
As Jason Smallpiece said, a clean out is required.
Holyrood seems to excel at day trips for the blind, organised by the partially sighted.
Does this particular Witness A have some sort of anonymity re the MacDonald case?
She’s a right narcissistic piece of work anyway, or is she also one of the alphabet women in Ecks case?
Or am I treading on thin ice?
A few of the alphabet witches appear named in side issue articles throughout the press.
So long as no connect is inferred between the separate cases doesn’t seem to be a problem
Sympathy for the Devil
Thunder rumbles across a darkened sky
As storms sweep o’er a bleak terrain
Lightning flashes as wicked spirits set forth
It’s late October and halloween beckons once again
Beyond the galaxy it’s convention time
Delegates gather with tales to tell
All eager to impress the Satanic King
And His disciples who forever burn in hell
In the hospitality suite are honoured guests
Idi and Mao and perpetrators of wicked tyranny
Hitler and Nero and Atilla too
All demons of fiendish infamy
Suddenly, silence falls as doors open wide
And in comes Wee Eck escorted by the living dead
Hirohito whispers to Genghis very smugly
“He looks like he should be somewhere else instead”
Security soon suss out there’s been a mistake
And Wee Eck is quickly escorted from the floor
“Who was that guy?” the guests demand to know
“Oh” says Nic, “He was sent by a Civil Service Corps”
“So, what was his track record” asks Vlad
“What is he supposed to have done?”
“Allegedly he kissed some lips” said Uncle Joe
“And stroked a breast and touched a bum”
“But that’s not all” said Elizabeth Bathory
“It’s said he snogged a woman upon a bed”
“Yes” said Robespierre, “that was damning”
“She said she never gave the go-ahead”
Tomas de Torquemada then chipped in
“What about our disciples who batter their wives
Why don’t they get more exposue?”
“Because” says Leopold, “their cases are mostly put in archives”
Kim IL Sung now joined the discussion
“Seems like priorities are somewhat skewed
What about sex slavery and rapes and more evil things?
Ecks alleged activities are at worst marginally lewd”
“Why did they put him down here anyway?” asked Mao Zedong
“Standards must really be at an all time low”
“It’s because of me too, snowflakes, and the like” Pol Pot muttered
“But it’s good for us that vile deeds are now committed by John Doe”
“He’s probably quite loved up above” shrieked Caligula
“And it’s goody two-shoes who’ll decide his fate
So I doubt we’ll see him here again
He’ll eventually be hailed by Pete at the Pearly Gate”
“She’s a right narcissistic piece of work anyway, or is she also one of the alphabet women in Ecks case?”
She’s nothing to do with the Salmond case.
Your investigative journalism knows no bounds. Hats off to you Stu you are Scotland’s John Pilger.
This utter cunt Peter Murrell looks like Rush Limbaugh tae me.
youtube.com/watch?v=bw9HAqHK2nA&ab_channel=superALable
Yet another Anonymous Alphabet Assassin it seems.
OK I admit it I am dumb and I had to look up ” Analogous ” it seems to be a fancy way of saying similar , anyone come across anyone who speaks like that ? . The question seems to have been put by Dr Allan ? eh who he , Because I haven’t a Scooby eh that’s ” Clue ”
Sad news about the death of that great writer John Le Carre even his stories didn’t come close to the Intrigue , and difficult to uncover truth of what actually has been going on , and best of luck to anyone who is going to summarise and document the timeline of this baffling , Farce
How on earth did the perpetrators believe that they would get away with it , were they just stupid or did they believe they were untouchable and beyond the reach of inquiring minds ? Truly baffling
The threat posed by covid-19 is real, an only those of an unhealthy political outlook would deny the need to priorities bio-security. Though trusting anything currently connected with Westminster, should be considered a dangerous sport, IMHO. So here’s a look at “Principles of risk imposition and the priority of avoiding harm”.
https://journals.openedition.org/revus/4406
“Standards which prescribe more than efficient precaution against physical harm and health injury are commonplace in American environmental, health and safety regulation. Yet these standards are now routinely decried as irrational. Welfare, we are told, is the ultimate and only value and it prescribes efficient precaution.
This paper argues that, in both law and ordinary moral reasoning, the avoidance of harm has priority over the provision of benefit. Harm avoidance has a justified priority but that priority is rooted in the value of autonomy, not in the value of well-being.
Serious physical harms impair the pursuit of a wide range of human ends and aspirations, and deny normal human lives to those whose powers are impaired. Only some gains and some values are important enough to justify the imposition of “significant risk” of devastating physical injury. The judgment here is not one of cost and benefit, but of comparable value.”
Disheartening to see a poll with only 44% of overall voters supporting Yes. What a remarkable leader, managing to lose support.
I see some wee weirdo with pronouns on his bio blames this on Joanna Cherry, presumably for her opposition to a policy opposed by 80% of Scots.
I am now convinced we will lose the next election- Sturgeon’s support is a mile wide, and an inch deep.
Sorry, that was a bit OT, so here’s a look at “Motivated Cognition in Legal Judgments – An Analytic Review”.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134023
“How and when do legal decision makers’ preferred outcomes inadvertently drive their judgments? This psychological phenomenon, known as motivated cognition or motivated reasoning, has become an important topic of investigation among scholars conducting experimental research at the intersection of law and psychology.
This article presents an overview of that literature, discusses some of its legal applications and implications, highlights areas that require further investigation, and considers some potential ways to curtail the covert operation of motivated cognition in the legal arena.”
If Sturgeon and her husband go in disgrace, and the SNP is gravely tarnished by the fallout, will the don’t-care-much-about-politics folks suddenly decide it’s not such a good idea to vote for their local SNP MP/MSP?
In the event of this being the case, many of those MP/MSPs will suddenly be out of a job – right?
Question: will an SNP MP/MSP do the right thing and object re – among many concerns – the inaction over independence, and the obvious misleading of Parliament?
During Covid, when many MPs/MSPs are hardly running their backsides off, will they search their conscience to do the right thing?
“Let me see now: Should I speak-up or should I just shut-up and continue to rake-in my fat salary?”
“I mean, my speaking-out against it’ll hardly make a difference – another leader will come-along, fairly soon, and make a fresh stab at independence.. and besides, it’s too late anyway – Brexit’s already happened”.
“No. I’ll just remain schtum, somebody else can speak-out against the boss”..
Where’s the backlash from those* we elected? Why are they behaving like the brainwashed and the meek? They talked a good game when they asked us to elect them but they’re suddenly shy, and especially shy each month when that fat salary lands in their bank account?
In my opinion, they’re as bad – worse – than the tweeters in deep denial. They forget why we elected them, and I’ve actually seen my own MP recently tweet his support for Wishart: I’ve noted that and he’s getting no visible posters on my windows next time – no siree, fck-all, pal. I’d name him, right now, but as I’m a better man than he could ever be, I’ll wait till he knocks on my door and I’ll tell him to his face.
*Cherry, MacAskill, Angus MacNeil and a few others excepted.
Thanks for your efforts, Stuart – my MP doesn’t work half as much for Scotland as you.
A Person
I wouldn’t read too much into those numbers. If there really was as 12% fall in support for Yes the BBC would be displaying it in mile high letters as “Support for independence collapses, Scots no longer want to leave.”
Covid season has another 3-4 months to run. Throw in Brexit and I think anything can happen in the next 6 months.
If support is indeed a mile wide and an inch deep then St. Nicola might come to regret making covid all about “me, me, me”.
I think the 44% poll is extremely dodgy. The yoons be panicking.
And if we rid our party of the murrells and the woowoo , then I can see light at the end of the tunnel.
Murrell is now a proven liar. He cannot continue as CEO of the SNP. And where is the new NEC ? And where is the £600K indyref2 money.
Murrell resign now and leave with a little dignity.
Stu you”re showing the rot at the heart of the SNP. Keep on digging. How can we trust these people to negotiate independence?
I want people who will stand up for Scotland four square not crumble.
Peter Murrell, ask him no questions and he’ll tell you no lies.
Whilst annoyed with the apparent drop in support, it’s not as steep as those grasping at straws claim.
Typically don’t know are excluded (chiefly because it’s understood that a lot don’t knows really mean “won’t vote”).
The 58% Ipsos Mori poll and the Survation 54% they are comparing against were figures excluding don’t knows.
Therefore there may have been a drop but it’s not as drastic as overexcited unionists proclaim.
At the same time, it’s not good for support to go backwards even slightly and I lay the blame at a lacklustre leadership of the political arm of the Indy movement, who couldn’t inspire a dog to eat a juicy steak.
I find myself hoping that Jackie Baillie is a secret Wings reader.
It really is time for the Murrells to go. A fish rots from the head they say, and the SNP in it’s current state sure is fecking rotten! Re Dornan it would have been better if we had saved some oxygen and let them block his selection as a candidate. I hear Ms Robertson’s coat’s on a shoogly peg too. Good.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…”
There was a general sense of disappointment last week when the people got to see the “great and powerful” wizard give evidence at the Inquiry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
The state of ‘our’ judicial and political systems is a direct result of standing under Westminster, which does not respect the legal principles of diological constitutional practice. So ‘our’ law makers appear to have grown used to a culture of legal dogmatism. They also appear to think our heads button at the back. So here’s a look at “Our creative diversity: report of the World Commission on Culture and Development”. As these low-flying Jimmies will never emancipate Scotland from the bio-socially informed cultural paternalism of contemporary English Torydum.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000101651
Is there a smoking gun which demonstrates that the compaint against Mark McDonald was originally reported to the SNP, and not to SG?
If you have to include ‘sexist behaviour’ to get the figures of your survey up to 20% one wonders what the ‘sexual harassment’ figures were like. Hold a door open for the wrong woman even if you also hold them for anyone if the circumstances make it polite will result in a complaint of ‘sexist behaviour’.
Also women can be guilty of sexist behaviour as well. This isn’t a ‘men get it too’ complaint btw just observations on how the data on these things is grouped and analysed.
In scientific data analysis grouping things like this without strong justification is invalid. Standards in the Social Sciences may be different from the hard sciences. But the practice is still highly suspect.
Since independence isn’t on the agenda, we don’t need to worry about any polls.
As for the post-Brexit slump, you don’t need to worry about that either. Scotland has been in recession since the year dot. We have 14 of the 20 worst poverty blackspots in Europe in just one of our cities (Glasgow).
What’s the indy equivalent of “red tories”?
Astonished, investigation into the Indyref2 money will take time. Firstly, the NEC would have to find a public accounting firm of suitable size to carry out either an audit or agree-upon procedures. Then the accounting firm would have to be allowed to carry out its work and issue a report. In the first instance, that report would need to be discussed in private. Perhaps there would be discussions with the current auditors.
All this would be affected by political considerations. Perhaps there is a report in the works but the NEC has decided to keep quiet about it in the run-up to the general election.
This may sound like “wheesht for indy,” but if this process is to be undertaken (and it does need to be, in my view) it must be done properly. Patience is required.
The above is based on American audit/review/agreed-upon procedures. Things may be different in Scotland, but I suspect not by much. There is a CA who has posted on here (Somerled?) who can, perhaps, provide another view.
I don’t think standards in the Social Sciences are particularly different from the hard sciences. Indeed, this is a perception that may encompass an innate misconception of, and bias against, post-positivist social science. So here’s a look at “Institutionally Embodied Law: Cognitive Linguistics and the Making of International Law”.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3680449
“This chapter examines language’s role in the formation of legal categories. It situates itself within the tension that exists between the certainty that seems to exist when applying legal categories (as realised through principles, rules or standards) and the ambiguity that necessarily comes with them.
This chapter holds that legal categories are not just subject to whims of negotiated power dynamics and firm political choices but under-girding those choices are the dynamics of how human beings – i.e. lawyers, lawmakers, jurists, judges, and their respective staffs – operationalise the cognitive processes that enable category building and their application to legal decisions.
We focus on the process of law making by cognitive category making. We promote a methodological intervention to examine the processes of classification and categorisation of legal principles to explore the politics of legal practice in action as, in part, an embodied cognitive process.
Although public hearings, consultation, and deliberation are all part of the legal process, we focus on how law is performed as a written exercise with the goal of understanding the law through its use of linguistic choices. The result an exploration of how that language displays the cognitive underpinnings of legal category making and the development of legal institutions, legal rules and, more broadly, the law itself. “
@ Rev Stu
I thought you’d already warned Cameron Brodie about posting off topic extraneous guff BTL? It’s bad enough we have to wade through the tsunami of secondary cut and paste drivel when it’s tangentially related to the topic, but he’s patently unable to contain himself. He’s derailed the discussion on to Covid almost from the start.
Does every single thread have to be hijacked by this roaster’s obsessions?
Do us all a favour and just ban the roaster for good: the timeline and most of the contributors would thank you for it.
Andy Ellis
Your hostility towards my attempt to share practical legal insight, indicates you’re a bit of a tit. Get over yourself you self-important gobshite.
This isn’t now just about the Murrels. This goes much deeper and wider. If youve got civil servents, MSPs involved with the Marl Mcdonald lynching, what else have they been up too? Not a good look, but Dornan could get under a snake with a top hat on.
This isn’t now just about the Murrels. This goes much deeper and wider. If youve got civil servents, MSPs involved with the Mark Mcdonald lynching, what else have they been up too? Not a good look, but Dornan could get under a snake with a top hat on.
@ Cameron Brodie
You’ve posted 10% of the comments on this thread. The first of these was the 27th comment and totally unrelated to the thread. The other comments are all obscure references to secondary sources nobody gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut about, because they add precisely nothing to the debate at hand.
If you want to pontificate about legal insight, why not do it on your own blog instead of parasitising the blog of someone more popular?
eh o/t
A wee hello for the Lurkers from La La Land
how do you like today’s offering folks ?
I can just hear the walling and gnashing of dentures
Look Look he’s doing it again he’s besmirching Nicolas good name again and what’s more he’s doing it on purpose ,
boo how we won’t get independence because of that Stu person it’s his fault
Hopefully someone on the inquiry is reading this and will have the good sense to take this line of questioning.
Its completely wrong for Sturgeon and her husband Murrell to have such a vice like grip on the SNP, even more so that SNP are in government, we really need both of them gone.
Andy Ellis
You’re a bigger clown than I’d given you credit for, if you think I’d TRUST YOUR JUSDGEMENT. I’m doing all I can to support a relation approach towards constitutional justice, where as you’re simply stroking your ego in public. You’re a right arrogant twat along with it. So why not contribute more than your personal opinion, and rather limp critique, if you can that is?
JUDGEMENT, doh.
@ Margaret Lindsay at 5.21
The problem with deselecting Dornan is that his replacement would probably have been Rhiannon Spear.
With that Hobson’s choice, I would say JD is the lesser of two evils – at least he signed the Women’s Pledge.
No one should be bothered about witness A being anonymous as following a previous blog where she was given the designation woman Z she was referring to herself as woman Z on her account as she had got a fringe. To maintain her anonymity I shall refer to her as Botox Barbie as no one could ever figure out her identity from that. Who woke up the troll ?
Re the 44% poll support for Indy.
I said a few months ago, there would be a flurry of polls with support for Indy in the mid to high 50%’s but always shy of the magic 60% figure.
All with a view to ensuring St Nicla did not have to face a VONC at the SNP conference. Keep her in power past that, and then past No Deal Brexit.
Now with the only noticeable big news event ongoing in the UK just now, being Brexshit and Bad – there’s no way support for Indy has taken a tumble.
But this supposed 12% drop – takes the heat off St Nicla to get off her arse and do something.
Last month it was LOOK AT THE POLLS – they are so high, we must be doing something right.
Now its going to be LOOK AT THE POLLS – there’s not enough support for Indy – NOW IS NOT THE TIME.
Get ready for some noticable Covid/Brexit type ‘media event’ to make St Nicla look good compared to Boris. News worthy but not actually delivering any legal/noticeable difference.
If I allowed myself to be silenced by random voices on t’internet, I wouldn’t be doing justice to the principles of democracy. So here’s a look at “Law’s Constitution: A Relational Critique”. As you’re not going to liberate Scotland by allowing Westminster and Holyrood to ride rough-shod over internationally recognised principles of legal doctrine. As allowing them to do so undermines Regulation theory, which as far as I remember, is the main institutional instrument for discouraging misconduct in legal office. And avoiding poor administrative law.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/70375012.pdf
Daisy Walker it had previously stated that the SNP had sought applications for 20 Solicitors since a solicitor was acting for mrs A then there must be 19 other complainants , he SNP would be represented by their own firm of Solicitors prior to any complaints from Holyrood employees
CameronB Brodie @ 5.22
Thanks, the UNESCO report on “Our creative diversity: report of the World Commission on Culture and Development” is an eye opener to any nation’s cultural oppression and hindered economic development under colonialism, not least because:
“..nationhood had led to a keen awareness of each people’s own way of life as a value, as a right, as a responsibility and as an opportunity.”
Hence culture, economic development and nationhood are closely linked.
Cameron, your comments are the only ones I read. Actually they’re more than comments to me. It’s as if you have a direct line to God and are relaying the things he wants us to know. I’m seeing all sorts of patterns too.
Forget what Andy says. None are so blind as them that have no eyes… something like that.
Gosh. 🙂
lots of the complaints gone in to the snp apparently https://twitter.com/mrmalky/status/1338481613022384129?s=21
Did anybody click the link to the 44% indy yes poll?
Yes is 44% and No is 42%.
It’s 52/48 with don’t knows excluded.
A drop, but not 12%.
Cameron,
> I don’t think standards in the Social Sciences are particularly different from the hard sciences.
You’ve got to be kidding or out of your mind or both. The social sciences and their sample sizes of 10 students who needed the money or could not run away fast enough are little more than a joke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
Poll drop is 2%. Still Yes. 16, or whatever it is, in a row.
Terry
First time I saw that, I thought of a David Walliams character.
@Stuart MacKay says:
14 December, 2020 at 5:00 pm
“Covid season has another 3-4 months to run.”
6 as a minimum. Even if by some miracle it is eradicated, someone needs her free daily spot on the BBC.
Precisely, there has not been a 12% drop
BUT
If polling at 44% we have not increased our support in six years despite Britain falling to bits in that time
Spameron, give it a bloody rest FFS!
“CameronB Brodie says:
14 December, 2020 at 5:38 pm
I don’t think standards in the Social Sciences are particularly different from the hard sciences. Indeed, this is a perception that may encompass an innate misconception of, and bias against, post-positivist social science. So here’s a look at “Institutionally Embodied Law: Cognitive Linguistics and the Making of International Law”.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3680449”
How the hell did you get from the social sciences vs hard sciences and international law? You come across as someone for who has a new hammer and so everything looks like a nail.
We get it, you think because you’ve read some websites that you are an expert on international law. You are entitled to your little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing delusions but if you expect a scientific expert such as myself to take you seriously you are dreaming in la la land.
Stuart, have a look and censor if you think fit.
So, witness A is someone with access to parliament buildings, appears to have access to members offices, excerpt below, And seems to be pretty close to Mr. Dornan, the complainer. Also can leave accoutrements in his office. Is not Mr. Dornan close to Ms. Sturgeon, or at least have the reputation of being a follower.
“She said that her belongings must have been collected at some point in the evening from the complainer’s office in the Members’ Block, but she could notrecall if or how shehad done so. The most direct route between the Members’ Room and the complainer’s office is via the stairs and the Garden Lobby.If Witness A did retrieve her belongings from the Members’ Block, it is therefore quite possible that she passed the respondent on the stairs leading to and from the Garden Lobby.”
Strange how stories meander along.
Remember that lassie, Rosy Zabeboni. Could she tell stories as well.
Stuart MacKay
I wouldn’t think the practical constraints of some studies, or the poor practice and over ambitious claims of some, a safe foundation on which to judge a philosophically well-founded approach towards the philosophy of science. So you might find it productive to take a look at “POST-POSITIVISM IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL THEORY – RELATIVIST OR REVIVALIST?
https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/831/1.0087503/1
Muscleguy
If you don’t understand the law, which you don’t, keep off my back. Mkay!
Muscleguy
Btw, you’re another arrogant twat who could do with updating their appreciation of the biological and cognitive sciences, and how they relate to the law and legal practice. GIRFUY.
“We get it, you think because you’ve read some websites that you are an expert on international law”
Cheeky prick.
How Does Scientific Realism Relate to International Relations? “Philosophy in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Approach”
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/90788.pdf
Looks like the troll is off his meds again so time for bed. Night John boy night grandpa zzzzzz.
Indy at 52%, imagine how much higher indy would be if Rev would attacks opponents of indy rather the only pro-indy party in Scotland 🙁
No no C Griffiths you have it all wrong.
It’s only a fringe on here so there’s no way it could be holding the voting intention down.
David Holden
So objecting to the ill-informed and arrogant disdain of others is trolling?
https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=7278b4d8-729b-4227-9000-ebea6099f6f7
“International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World provides fresh perspectives on one of the most important and most controversial families of theoretical approaches to the study and practice of international law. The contributors include leading experts on international legal theory who analyse and criticise positivism as a conceptual framework for international law, explore its relationships with other approaches and apply it to current problems of international law.
Is legal positivism relevant to the theory and practice of international law today? Have other answers to the problems of international law and the critique of positivism undermined the positivist project and its narratives? Do modern forms of positivism, inspired largely by the theoretically sophisticated jurisprudential concepts associated with Hans Kelsen and H.L.A. Hart, remain of any relevance for the international lawyer in this ‘post-modern’ age? The authors provide a wide variety of views and a stimulating debate about this family of approaches.”
@Cameron,
Stop now. Your making an arse of yourself
C Griffiths
Has the thought never crossed your mind – falling opinion poll percentages for Independence might be down to SNP supporters realising, the party hierarchy isn’t seriously chasing that goal.
Bob Mack
I know what I’m talking about and wouldn’t try to sell folk a dummy. I don’t take kindly though, to be talked down to by those who clearly haven’t a clue.
A MUST SEE – NOT TO BE MISSED – PLASTIC PATRIOTS https://twitter.com/BylineTV/status/1338412272004247552
C Griffiths…
Indy at 52%, imagine how much higher indy would be if the FM would attack the opponents of indy and actually promote it, rather than trying to save her arse and that of her husband and wasting time and effort playing to the gender woo-woo gallery, signing rainbow flags etc. etc. ?
Turkeys aren’t the only Roasters to be seen in December it would appear.
Donald going to pardon Assange ?
Jesus Christ what a trainwreck this comments thread is.
More sterling work rev.
I can`t believe how truly rotten these people are.
Rev Stu,
The way you worked those two article titles together is absolutely beautiful.
Depressing but beautiful.
I am sorry for contributing to that. I’ll try to lay low but there’s a point when being disparaged and marginalised by those who should know better, becomes more than a bit irritating.
Just dipping in quickly, as I dont have time to read all the comments. I have 2 questions:
1. Has Sturgeon resigned yet?
2. To get me to sleep this evening, does anyone have any links to extremely lengthy and off-topic academic papers I can read? I tend to dose off quicker if they are to do with niche areas of the legal system.
Thanks!
@ Rev at 9.38: thank you, that gave me a good laugh! Much needed.
“A Guest Post by Julie McAnulty, Deputy Leader of the ISP.”
https://www.barrheadboy.com/it-depends-on-the-soldier-by-julie-mcanulty/
Will tack this on for the lolz.
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1338571691342106625
Dan
I found that post from Julie McAnulty a little disappointing. After all the Green Party members got themselves appointed to The Hall Of Shame over the forensics examiners bill I’d have like to see the ISP go in hard with the boot and position themselves as the green alternative to the Greens. Renewables are now a given and not some fringe idea. Throw in support for women and commitment to create clear and unambiguous legal definitions to avoid the gender tar-pit and you have the makings of a viable alternative for the independence vote without all the Wokoharam baggage. That could hoover up a lot of disaffected SNP votes.
@James Horace says:
14 December, 2020 at 9:58 pm
1. Not yet.
2. Why not try her recommended reading list…
In the Land of the Blind the one eyed man is King !
I like your way with titles on both articles, going from litotes to antiphrasis. 🙂
You’re like a dog with a bone about the McDonald case, thankfully, and rightly focus on it. I myself doubt it was deliberately arranged as a dry run to effect the later, more significant, case but I do believe propinquity played a very real part in someone’s mind when setting up the second. I do agree someone used it as a springboard to leap the divide. McDonald was badly treated in that, though I was never keen on him after seeing a twitter exchange with a constituent, in which Doug Daniel also played a part. However I’m even less keen on the person who complained or her knight in shining armour. The best I could say of him is he’s better than Spears.
Keep gnawing that bone, there’s still marrow in it I’m sure.
Witness A is a dangerous individual indeed, leaving a legacy of spurious sexual harassment claims in their previous and current workplaces. And as for the melodramatic description of the impact of McDonalds text…just pathetic. If that’s how they react, they don’t have the emotional fortitude required for any workplace, let alone politics.
As a woman, I’m sick to the back teeth of the slimy characters that are some of the more vocal women in the party/independence movement. They’re the most vocal about including more women in politics, but are the first to cry misogyny and sexual harassment. We need more Joanna Cherry types and less of the vapid egos.
Hello Ronnie Anderson,
I’m very sorry but I don’t understand your last message.
With regards the 44% – 12% decrease – undecided voters included or excluded…
All the recent – what – 15 in a row high 50+% support for Indy Polls excluded don’t knows.
As I understand it and correct me if I’m wrong – it put Indy in the lead, clearly.
If they have changed the counting method NOW, to show a significant (instantanious) drop in support for Indy compared to the last 4 months – with Brexshit and Bad ongoing… I would suggest that highlights the point I was making.
Look back at the ground covered in the last 6 years to see, pivot events, and the responses (which made limited sense at the time) taken.
To change public opinion by more than + or – 3% – it like turning a super tanker. It takes really big events, and once ongoing, it does not do u turns in an instant.
Those high 50+ % support for Indy polls – forwarded the cause of Indy not one whit.
But they sure as hell put power to St Nicla’s elbow during the conference time, and prevented any VONC.
And they should have empowered the leader of the SNP to leverage a S30 order – or else – from Westminster.
And they absolutely should have been used to galvanise the Yes Movement into action (not that we need galvanising, just a road map and a script).
And now, with all the fuckwittery on display with Boris on the world stage and Brexshit approaching, when even the Little Englanders are waking up and smelling the Mellow Blend Spam…. Suddenly, suddenly all that support has evaporated into thin air…
Just when we absolutely need the leader of the SNP to get their finger out their arse and stand up for Scotland.
Now she can argue, but support for Indy is not high enough, its collapsed – Covid, Covid, Covid.
Aye Right.
Polls can be used both ways – to find out, and to manipulate. And they are always used for both reasons.
Next big mile stone is 31/12/20… but what is now clear, is if the SNP Scot Gov – SIGN UP TO whatever shit deal Brexshit Boris comes up with – THEY WILL BE SIGNING AWAY OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE Treaty of Union.
Game over, Holyrood Over.
St Nicla is now going to look a LOT better and chirpier now. She has a massive bargaining chip. ‘Keep me in place to preside over a valiant Holyrood defeat. So near, but yet so far.’
I really hope I’m wrong.
@ James Horace, ‘To get me to sleep this evening, does anyone have any links to extremely lengthy and off-topic academic papers I can read? I tend to dose off quicker if they are to do with niche areas of the legal system.’
I know quite a bit about potatoes… would that help? Used to tattle rogue back in the day.
The shaws I’ve seen. Agh. If I dig back far enough there is some kind of joke involving King Edwards, but I’m not sure I can remember it. Fairly sure King Edwards is the punch line though..
Your welcome. Night night.
Rev Stuart Campbell , You wrote ,
“ Without the trumped-up finding of harassment against Mark McDonald there would have been no figleaf to justify the creation of the rules which were used to unlawfully attack Alex Salmond (and have still never been used against anyone else before or since, despite a supposed epidemic of sexual harassment at the Parliament). “
If I remember correctly it was Craig Murray that commented after Judith Mackinnon gave evidence that the procedure that was used in the judicial review process had never been altered since then as Craig said “ that the process was only intended to be used once and once only against Alex Salmond “ .
It’s time for Mr and Mrs Murrell and everyone else that was involved in setting up and bringing the charges against Alex Salmond to resign now and go without any payoffs and they lose their right to their pensions .
Rev Stuart , Thank you once again for all your hard work that you do for us .
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
14 December, 2020 at 9:38 pm
Jesus Christ what a trainwreck this comments thread is.
My favourite blog.
Why you let BTL get ruined by that one guy who has for more than a few months been destroying the ‘flow’ is beyond me. Most times the attention seeker is ignored but when someone does take the bait… boom!
Just a bit of feedback from one user that your resident troll pretty much ruins the comments. I agree with another poster that he does it simply because nobody would read his rants anywhere else. He’s piggybacking on your traffic.
Its your blog, your rules.
@ Stuart MacKay
I suppose she could have gone for a harder hitting tone, especially after recent events.
Was the choice to go softer so it’s less likely to frighten off folk that may not be as up the curve as political anoraks types who are more likely to accept a more direct confrontational approach and language?
ISP is still getting itself organised but they do cover certain policies on their site.
https://www.isp.scot/policies/
The other thing worth consideration when critiquing them is that I presume their funding is pretty limited at this point, so we are seeing output produced by individuals without the assistance of multiple paid SPADs and marketing types scrutinising and tweaking it for maximum impact.
TBH I find the grassroots feel rather refreshing when compared to the slick and rather shallow soundbite pish recently produced by more established Parties that have been hoovering up votes from Indy supporters.
Some potentially promising sounding news Re. Assange
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1338618703827640324
Stoker 9.20pm
Keep that information under your bunnet until “No Deal” is signed, sealed and delivered to 10 Downing st Engerland.
“The SNP conspired to send Alex Salmond to prison for the rest of his life… We’ve never had a situation where opponents in your own party are trying to send you to prison… Alex Salmond is 66, he would not have survived a sentence of several years in prison.”
George Galloway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0iwxhA6znY
Brainwave:-
Call our List Party,,,”The YES Party”.
There, sorted…
Vote Yes!!!
I’m sorry for appearing opinionated but I’m a bit of a (rusty) political and legal scientist. So I can get a bit geeky with this stuff. It may have taken me some time to re-connect with the law, but I am trying to stay on topic, or at least linking to legal and political theory I think relevant. My capacity to do so, with ease, appears not to registered with some. So here’s a look at “Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition”. As there is always hope, so long as we don’t allow our legal Establishment to further harm the cognitive coherence of Scots law.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Symbols-and-Embodiment%3A-Debates-on-Meaning-and-Vega-Glenberg/d9f1e2d487830f905f5b169c546ee4455e3621db
Thanks for getting back to me Cameron. Niye nite. X
James Horace
Thank for tuning in. 😉
Hateuy
‘ We’ve never had a situation where opponents in your own party are trying to send you to prison…’
Well of course Galloway, that soiled socialist and ratbag of a man, is only anxious to smear the SNP and reduce chances of independence and to further his own brand, as he always does. Besides, people willing to send someone in the same party to prison like that are not of the same party at all. Had they merely stood back, tried to be uninvolved and let justice take its course would be one thing but to actively try to get the police even more involved, as at least Murrell did, that’s quite another.
To foment even more trouble for a former leader like that means that their priority was not safeguarding the party to which they belong. And if not of the same party, which party would they belong to if their target was a lifelong independence supporter? The same side as rotten old Gorgeous George. His side, and he himself, can always be counted on for chicanery – just ask Rula Lenska.
Sorry typo Hatuey
I simply can’t see how folk expect to protect their legal rights, if they are hostile towards legally informed political activism. In fact, I actually have a moral obligation to at least attempt to pass on my insight into constitutional law. So here’s a look at “Constitutional exceptionalism and the common law”.
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/7/2/247/758674
Polly: “that soiled socialist and ratbag of a man”
Yip. But I like what he said on this. It has clarity.
Re Indy at 52% , last survation poll was 54% so the 52% is within the standard 3% margin of error.
Nothing to worry about except it should be at least 62% if the SNP was doing its job properly.
C Griffiths says:
14 December, 2020 at 8:42 pm
“Indy at 52%, imagine how much higher indy would be if Rev would attacks opponents of indy rather the only pro-indy party in Scotland”
FO Creep.
Oops.
Imagine how high support for 8Indy would be if the SNP actually spent the last 6 years promoting it like they should have.
If Mark Macdonald’s accuser (Woman A) is not one of the alphabet woman, then she should be named and shamed because she is an utter shitebag of a human being.
In fact, even if she was one of the alphabet women, she should be named and shamed as an utter shitebag of a human being anyway, as long as there was no suggestion that she is one of the alphabet women.
The simple fact is that men deserve to know who she is for their own protection, so they can make sure they never go within fifty feet of the repulsive creature, and never communicate with her in any way.
.
CameronB Brodie,
You wriote…
“I am trying to stay on topic”.
Stuart Campbell established this thread in terms that your own psycho-speak might understand … on the topic of a correction of the veracity of Peter Murrell.
Cameron, you then post a link that you believe to be “on topic”. When I click your link you told everyone was “on topic” here are the words your latte particular narcolepsy-fest reveals…
Abstract
Cognitive scientists have a variety of approaches to studying cognition: experimental psychology, computer science, robotics, neuroscience, educational psychology, philosophy of mind, and psycholinguistics, to name but a few. In addition, they also differ in their approaches to cognition — some of them consider that the mind works basically like a computer, involving programs composed of abstract, amodal, and arbitrary symbols. Others claim that cognition is embodied — that is, symbols must be grounded on perceptual, motoric, and emotional experience. The symbolist and embodiment camps seldom engage in any kind of debate to clarify their differences. This book, however, attempts to do so. It brings together a team of scientists, adopting symbolist and embodied viewpoints, in an attempt to understand how the mind works and the nature of linguistic meaning. As well as being interdisciplinary, all authors have made an attempt to find solutions to substantial issues beyond specific vocabularies and techniques.
Cameron, here is a serious question: do you really believe your overloading each WoS thread with off-topic subjects such as: “computer science, robotics, neuroscience, educational psychology”, etc. etc., has even the most tangiential relationship or even within the same galaxy as the topic that Stuart Campbell narrated in his article?
Morgatron says:
14 December, 2020 at 5:51 pm
Dornan could get under a snake with a top hat on.
>Perfect description of that wee rat.
The Murrells & cronies must hate you Stu.
Keep up the good work.
Al-Stuart says:
15 December, 2020 at 4:34 am
There is clearly something seriously wrong with the guy. But if he has any normal cognitive function at all, he ought to be asking himself how long and how far he is going to carry on provoking RevStu.
He seems to spend most of his life trawling around irrelevant academic papers and posting comments on this site, and I don’t know what would be left in his life if that option was no longer available to him. Perhaps for his own good he might want to dial it down a little.
I have not got the will to wade through all the comments to see if this is already mentioned. However, if it is the case that a 5th of staff at Holyrood have been subject to sexual harassment then those people would not be able to use the SG process to make a complaint about that as they are not part of the SG. They would need to make complaints via Holyroods internal process, whatever that may be, should they have one.
You can be damn sure that Mr Murrell is consulting expensive lawyers at SNP party members expense of course , to counter those wild accusations of yours Reverend.
Can’t wait for him to be given a chance to explain the inconsistencies.
C Griffiths
This is not the site for you as all on here want independence so go somewhere else that supports the deseased non Indy
Murrells.
A witness or complainant should never use the legal services provided by the entity conducting an investigation.
This is entirely inappropriate and highly likely to lead to at least a conflict of interest and at worst, confirmation bias & insider knowledge.
That the SNP determined that a witness should use their legal firm reveals much about the self interest of the party.
It’s a hint at the secret culture & cult like influence of Murrell.
And one more indication that the party has found itself embedded in the trappings of power and money and has no interest whatsoever in risking losing any of it by holding something as ground shaking as a referendum.
I’d be happy to postpone one anyway if it means this lot could be dumped and replaced by people who haven’t forgotten what they were appointed to do in the first place.
Fourteen posts by CameronB Brodie, and not one actually on topic.
You must have a solid reason Stu to allow this guy to hijack your blog with his relentless, self indulgent backslapping but I cannot fathom what supportive argument you might have.
It’s your website so obviously no argument from me who sets the rules & permissions but at least you might confirm where in your guidance makes it reasonable for someone to consistently derail a thread & resort to puerile name calling at anyone who disagrees with him.
Help us out cos I’m genuinely baffled.
Brent Crude (our oil type) now over the $50 pb milestone.
G H Graham says:
15 December, 2020 at 9:16 am
Fourteen posts by CameronB Brodie, and not one actually on topic.
Is your scroll function not working?
G H Graham. 8.58.
Good post Graham.
David F Its easy enough to find out who she is and would you believe it, she is a TRA , now there’s a thing, who would have believed it. By all accounts she has a habit of accusing folk of harassment.
My take on it, McDonald fancied her, chanced her, got knocked back, send her a couple of texts and she went into her normal mode of claiming harassment.
It should have been dealt with by a quiet word but was exactly what certain elements were looking for to enact their cunning plan.
Hautey @11.30pm.
Hautey.
It wasn’t the SNP as a whole who tried to send Salmond to prison, no it was Sturgeon Murrell and their clique, remove them and the SNP are still a very viable independence orientated vehicle.
As for Galloway, he’s now a Tory useful idiot standing shoulder to shoulder with them to stop Scottish independence, he loathes the thought of an independent Scotland.
O/T.
Here’s hoping Trump does the right thing before he leaves.
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/trump-mulling-julian-assanges-pardon-days-before-leaving-white-house-831185
“Get over yourself you self-important gobshite.”
Quite right, and well-put too, if I may say so. You go on sharing your first year lecture notes if you want to, kid.
@Hatuey
‘What’s the indy equivalent of “red tories”?’
Indeed. Labour didn’t exist to help the poor. They fed off them, they farmed them, like Eloi. The SNP has picked up the mantle. They do not exist to further freedom from colonial rule and perhaps later – who knows? – an attempt at forming a meaningful democracy. They simply live high on the hog, knowing that if they were unwise enough to change anything it would all go away. The continuation of the Union is the essential precondition for the continuation of the SNP and at least at the top of the party, they know it.
Al-Stuart
Let me put this as simply as I can. Away and fuck.
Vronsky
Fist year lecture notes? How are you yah cheeky cunt?
sorry.. who are you?
ScotsRenewables says:
15 December, 2020 at 9:29 am
That’s not the point. Would you think it acceptable if it was actual spam? How is it not actual spam?
How about if it was 140 posts instead of 14? Would it still be ok because “your scroll function is working”?
People are just getting sick of it.
The thing is, I’m trained to support open and sustainable democracy. This doesn’t appear to have penetrated some noggins though. It’s just as well I’m Scottish then, so I’m well used to being belittled and othered. So here’s a look at “Dignity, Integrity, and the Concept of a Person”, for those with an interest and open mind.
https://www.degruyter.com/configurable/contentpage/journals$002ficl$002f13$002f4$002farticle-p323.xml
@Rev Stu
So as of 11.30-ish @ 136 comments on this thread, 21/136 are from Spameron Brodie. Nary a one is apposite to the subject of the thread and several just abusing those asking him to desist. 15% of all comments from 1 disruptive individual. 18/136 comments from various posters asking him to stop, or making fun of his pretensions.
28% of the discussion derailed by one obsessional individual you appear unable or unwilling to control.
Is it any wonder many former regular posters get fed up with this? We’re honestly all struggling to figure out why you give this individual such latitude? If it was some yoon crank would you honestly have hesitated to ban him?
Doubtless you are sick of us complaining and biting back. I’ve had enough now. As I said in direct mail to you, the game isn’t worth the candle any more. What should be a great resource and vibrant forum for folk diverted by one monomaniacal individual with a wee want about him.
I wish all reasonable posters well, and will still drop in to scroll past Spameron’s inevitable mass pasting, but in terms of being involved BTL, I’ve had enough.
CBB – 49 pages for £23, a bargin.
Al-Stuart @ 4.34; G H Graham @ 9.16 etc
Psychology explains a great deal of what is going on in the Scottish socio-political scene, hence Cameron’s references offer a valid contribution, tae ma ‘mynd’. Psychology always plays an important part in post-colonial studies; Frantz Fanon was himself a psychologist.
As for ‘symbols’, we might recall when FIFA banned the poppy because it was deemed to be a political symbol. Wha wad hae thunk it?
Cultural imperialism is about forcing the culture and language of one domineering nation on another, and hence changing the mindset of a people. Cultural (and linguistic) imperialism represents the main form of oppression that Scots, often sub-consciously, seek to escape from through self-determination independence.
This aspect requires a scientific basis and understanding primarily because the Scots sub-conscious mair aften cannae figure it oot, and not least due to our ‘packaged consciousness’ (Schiller 1989)!
It is rather educational just which voices wish to shut me up. I think so anyway. So here’s a look at “The Autonomous Mind: The Right to Freedom of Thought in the Twenty-First Century”. Which isn’t available to viewers in Scotland.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2019.00019/full
‘Not every single thread needs bombarding with a hundred links to 50,000-word incomprehensible academic papers that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY CLICKS ON.’
0327/01Nov20 – ‘Tiers against fears’ – Last comment before lockdown
You shouldn’t need a psychologist to work that out.
@ Lenny Hartley at 10:19 am
You’re probably correct,
There are some on the benches that you wouldn’t introduce to your wife,girlfriend,daughter,sister or others.( hell the cat 3 doors down wouldn’t be safe)
Does NS/PM condone it for blackmail ,support or just control?
Ample choice there
Ron Maclean
I’m morally obliged to do this, though I’d rather not have to. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be so noisy if I wasn’t having to defend my position quite so much.
‘O ye wha are sae guid yourself
Sae pious and sae holy,’
Robert Burns
Ron Maclean
I may not be a member of the RTPI but I am trying to follow certain standards of ethical practice. So here’s a look at “Ethical Principles and Information Professionals:
Theory, Practice and Education”.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00048623.2002.10755183
“This article focuses on ethical concepts and thinking processes, their application to professional issues, and to the information professional in particular. Information professionals, like other professionals, have developed codes of ethics which as regulatory mechanisms may not in themselves nurture ethical attitudes.
At the same time traditional professional relationships are being altered by the introduction of a business view of the client-professional relationship. Ethical attitudes need to be inculcated into information professional practice via educational programs by drawing from a number of ethical theories and practice models within a notion of an ethical community of common interests which can also apply in a virtual environment”.
Ron Maclean @ 12.42
You don’t have to read the scientific literature if you don’t think you need it, or if quoting Burns makes you feel better.
On the subject of ‘judgmentalism’: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860821.001.0001/acprof-9780199860821-chapter-15
“This chapter distinguishes and explores two related forms of this vice: (1) being judgmental as a failure of interpretive generosity (that is, being too ready to attribute fault in the first place) and (2) being too unaccepting of others’ faults.”
And as Cameron notes re the matter of moral obligation:
“Their moral significance—their status as moral vices—derives from their impairment of important human relationships.”
“I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be so noisy if I wasn’t having to defend my position quite so much.”
You don’t have to. There’s no need whatsoever for you to burst into an abusive rant every time someone questions the relevance of one of your links. You can just ignore them, same as they can just ignore your comments and move on. This is the absolutely last time I’m going to warn everyone. Next time EVERYONE is in the bin.
I’ve bent over backwards not to just ban you for a quiet life, which is what nearly everyone seems to want, because I don’t believe in letting a mob hound someone until they get censored into silence. But don’t push it by reacting so violently.
So for the avoidance of doubt: from now on, ANYONE responding abusively to anyone else’s comments goes into pre-moderation. No more warnings, no more chances. This is not a democracy. If you don’t like what someone’s commented, you have three choices: ignore it and get on with your day, express your view civilly, or get the hammer.
@Alf Baird
I’ll read what I want and I’ll quote what I want until the Rev tells me different. You have no authority here.
Burns put what I wanted to say very well and so did the Rev. I have no more to say.
No probs.
Btw, I’ve tried to limit my hostility to those who appear to consider themselves my superior. Which is kind of essential to self-determination. I’m very rusty though and perhaps not the best suited to dealing with intransigence.
https://www.mcgill.ca/biomedicalethicsunit/files/biomedicalethicsunit/ellshuntchambersrelationalautonomyijfab2011.pdf
I’m all for being open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out.
Good luck folks and happy spamming! *waving emoji*
There’s a prime example of “bounded rationality” and limited cognition. So here’s a look at “Relational Autonomy from a Political Perspective”.
etheses.lse.ac.uk/3665/1/Gautier-Chung__Relational-Autonomy.pdf
And my monkeys say “Wah! Wah!”
Having just scrolled up and saw Rev’s comment about civility etc, I’ll just point out that that monkey comment was a reference to the political farce.
I mean, we even had Jackie Baillie agreeing with Peter Murrell about staying off WhatsApp. What???
He’s more smug than Cummings! How could anyone quizzing & accusing him end up laughing and agreeing with him?
What??
And my monkeys say “Wah! Wah!”
Having flicked through some posts, I don’t get it.
It’s like people telling me years ago that they didn’t like my political posts on Facebook.
I was like, so what? When you buy a newspaper, do you read every single article or do you flick through and only read the bits that interest you? Obviously, it’s the latter. So just do the same with Facebook.
That’s what I do.
Comments on here should be the same. You do NOT have to read every single comment. There’s NO RULE that says you must. Nor do you have to reply to every comment either.
If there’s something you don’t like, scroll on by. Here’s a great quote I was once told:
“Life is what you focus on.”
Why focus on the comments you don’t like? That’s just silly.
Well, ah jist chucked anither £11 (including some sort ay keep-it-gaun service charge) intae Martin Keating’s legal challenge. This site? Dinnae ken whit it’s fir noo, except extreme negativism n mollycoddling ay a deranged shut-in lunatic whae ah sometimes wonder is Stu himsel. Why piss aff maist ay yer audience fir a solipsistic zoomer’s raving? (“Hate tae see somecunt run oot by a mob, even if the wanker hus brought it oan himsel wi constant insulting ay folk – is a make a virtue ay no daeing so – n posting constant academic troll links thit nae cunts cares aboot.”) Guess the only person whae kin answer that question is the site maister, or whitivir ye caw it, himsel.
Go oan Stu, ban me, ah dinnae gie a fuck. This hail hing – n ah mean baith Scottish PC SNP politics nutters, n this site – hus become a fucking sick joke. Depressing. Sick ay it aw.
youtube.com/watch?v=xrQLKOjzlgY&ab_channel=stevelambo
Hatuey
‘Yip. But I like what he said on this. It has clarity.’
Yes, you’re not wrong, neither is he in the quote you mentioned – it’s just I tend to think it important not only what people say, but why they say it – in fact I think the reason they say what they say is far more important than what is said – and he’s saying what he says for all the wrong reasons. When it comes from his mouth I reject it and him equally. I refuse to align with him or people like Murdo Fraser or Jackie Bailey even if they agree with me, my enemies enemy is never my friend kind of thing. Friends who are critical in an honest way are of far more value.
‘incomprehensible academic papers that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY CLICKS ON.’
I’ve looked at more than a few links and read and understood a couple, I’m sure I’m not alone in doing that. Yes, they’re dense with information and at times difficult and often not relevant to the topic discussed, but can be useful to the general reader or to anyone interested in a particular specialty. If not interested don’t click or read, and it takes two to quarrel.
As Gregory Beekman says ‘Why focus on the comments you don’t like? That’s just silly.’
Gregory – thats a fucking copout response.
I’ve used the internet since it was pretty much invented and just about every type of bulletin board, usenet, forum etc there ever was. The ultra liberal ‘just dont read what you dont want to read’ absolutely falls apart under the most basic scrutiny. Even you would just give up your hypothetical newspaper if you started to have to actually dig to find any relevant pieces you want to read.
How much time would you spend reading BTL here if every single user here spammed the *same* as our resident disrupter?
I’ve seen it all mate. Read it all. Seen this hundreds of times on innumerable platforms and it only ever ends one way. People start drifting away. The troll ‘wins’. They get *exactly* what their main aim is. To disrupt a forum to the point it becomes useless to just about everyone else.
Like I said on my post. This is NOT my forum to police, but like others, have genuine wonderment that Stu who is as equally net savvy as anyone, allows this to happen. His call though. I’ll still read his features, but BTL is now no-go for me. Waste of fucking time.
McHaggis69 – fair point.
But if you know it’s only the one person’s comments you don’t like, you can easily scroll past them.
You can like the paper but not one columnist.
Anyway, my other comment is awaiting moderation – which was on the political farce. I think the committee members need some training in grilling someone and avoiding the temptation of becoming too chummy with the person being grilled.
An emotional distance should be kept.
.
Stu.,
You give an admirable defence of CameronB Brodie. Parking that twat for a moment and ON topic
I didn’t see the Transgender thing that would so harm the Scottish Independence departed. The British Establishment deserve a 98% pass and a medal for that one. Very clever. Outmanoeuvred us.
I certainly didn’t see Sturgeon and the LYING Murrell (see, someone BTL ON TOPIC).
Your website, Wings Over Scotland is a pre-eminent resource for all of this.
But many folk have already been “hounded” off of your website and especially your Twitter feed because they ignored certain your protocols. Because they just did not get it: the fact that Alex Salmond had been neutered and framed. Not by the Establishment but by a cabal in our SNP government.
We SHOULD be generating initiatives. We SHOULD be helping rebuild the IndyRef2 movement. Personally, I watched my boss turn one marginal seat from a feckless LibDem MSP to an SNP MSP in 2007. He did that with a small paper based news letter. That proved to me that small publications matter. In 2007 the Scottish Parliament went from LabLib control to SNP control. A lot of small people had an input. All small resources have a major cumulative effect.
This is why your website is so important. If you need donations for the Wee Blue Book 2 – IndyRef2 Guaranteed” you have my email. You don’t need to put me into pre-moderation as I am off.
Yes it is YOUR website, but I, like MANY people on here as forensically analysed by Andy Ellis are sick of Mr Camspam Offtopic.
The resident troll does not head requests, nor deteriorating language to PLEASE give his compulsive obsessive spamming a break.
Stuart, thank you for your efforts and hard work. On this matter YOU ARE WRONG. To be scrupulously fair, I would rephrase that: “You are not totally right” to defend SpamCam and threaten to bin everyone else.
You must be exhausted. It may actually be time to take a sabbatical. Shut the site down for a year.
That’s your call my friend.
For this BTL reader, I have a day job and the quality of BTL here has deteriorated to the point where Andy Ellis is ABSOLUTELY 100% right. Time is limited because of work. Craig Murray is diplomatic. Literally. His writing is very good and I can get my IndyRef reading enjoyment there instead.
Stu., that is two contributors you lost. Gone in just one thread.
Welcome to the new Wings Over Cameron shared website for the keen INDY reader who does not mind 28% canned Spam of Shyte with every posting. Indeed this thread now has 45% of CamSpam of indigestible narcissistic camel dung 🙂 .
Stuart, good luck for the future. The games industry is needing top flight programmers and if you work there for a year or two you will have the blissful existence of not having the hassle of all this BTL carp.
Bye.
Al.
———————————-
Quoting Andy Ellis as he gave a lot of his time and effort in analysing the problem…
Andy Ellis says:
15 December, 2020 at 11:38 am
@Rev Stu
So as of 11.30-ish @ 136 comments on this thread, 21/136 are from Spameron Brodie. Nary a one is apposite to the subject of the thread and several just abusing those asking him to desist. 15% of all comments from 1 disruptive individual. 18/136 comments from various posters asking him to stop, or making fun of his pretensions.
28% of the discussion derailed by one obsessional individual you appear unable or unwilling to control.
But the “flow” of every thread is being disrupted by one individual.
Stuart, what I have enjoyed here is your forensic takedowns of the Establishment, of bent politicians, of national sovereignty and vital issues.
You too Al-Stuart? Quite a few folk seem in a great hurry for Wings to shut up shop entirely or to create an alternative to what Stuart does so they can run it their way – fine if you want a talking shop – but that’s not what’s important here – it’s Stuart himself, his writing and brutal honesty that is unsurpassable and impossible to recreate with anyone else. You might not mind if he goes back to games journalism, I certainly would. Turning Wings away from the fight is exactly like crippling Alex Salmond by those charges – and just when both were most needed.
As for Andy Ellis, I’ve agreed with many of his posts in the past, but he is guilty of many of the things he complains of in others. And I’m minded of a post of Lochside a while ago which cast doubt on the motives behind some of Andy’s posts, which recently makes Lochside look remarkably prescient.
In which Universe would a husband and wife team running a political party seem like a good idea?
Good point Jack
Al-Stuart , Andy Ellis , WYRC so you are just going to cut YOUR nose off to spite your face, YOU all know this is the best and most informative independence supporting website on the internet, yet you are going to go in a huff because 1 poster posts articles that aren’t relevant or interesting to most of the contributors BTL , I myself chose NOT to link to these articles, and until Stuart takes whatever actions he deems appropriate I will keep on scrolling past them
At this time it is MORE important to be openly and publicly supportive of the work and exposures that SC is bringing to the fight to rid us of the perfidious Murrells and their rotten cabal, and as for the rev taking a break , as the saying goes he can rest all he wants when he is dead, meanwhile we have a fight to WIN so get back contributing and exercise yer scrolling finger
Rev. Stuart Campbell @1:38 pm
?The rev is 100% correct.
I scan all comments and focus on the ones I find worthwhile. I scroll past the comments I don’t want to read, and these are not confined to Mr Brodie’s input.
This site provides invaluable journalism.
A tiny proportion of this site’s readers submit comments and those of us who do should remember it is not our opinions that are important.
The readership comes here for the journalism – to be better informed.
I don’t understand why Stuart Campbell is threatening to block those who have reached the end of their tether with Cameron Brodie’s incessant spamming, while doing nothing about the source of the problem. WOS is a vital resource for supporters of independence and one which I have greatly valued for many years, but Stuart seems to be on a mission to alienate followers and lose influence with his very skewed attitude to the issue here. That will be the inevitable result if a stop isn’t put to the comments here being dominated by a single individual’s constant impenetrable spamming. Saying ‘just scroll past’ does not address the issue. I’m sick-to-death of ‘just scrolling past’. THAT is the issue.
Michael Laing
‘I don’t understand why Stuart Campbell is threatening to block those who have reached the end of their tether with Cameron Brodie’s incessant spamming, while doing nothing about the source of the problem.’
Surely he’s threatening only to block anyone who is abusive – which is a perfectly reasonable response, so you won’t be victimised by it unless you respond in that manner. Surely you’re capable of being able to say you’re annoyed or bored by a post without abuse? He also said he’d put any potentially abusive post in moderation. I’ve had one of mine held back where I didn’t abuse anyone and merely responded to someone who had been a bit rude, but you don’t hear me complaining, even though I’ve never lost my temper with anyone here and would never be abusive. ‘I’m sick-to-death of ‘just scrolling past’. THAT is the issue.’ so really, the issue is all about you and how little patience you have, is that really what you’re saying is a good reason for Stuart to ban someone else? If it is it’s not a good look and doesn’t make a good argument. Otherwise I really don’t understand why men, and you do seem to all be men, are getting so het up about the issue.
Murrell/Sturgeon Check!
But not Mate